Sorry Gary, but the very start of this article is based on flawed foundations, and thus what follows crumbles under any examination. Perhaps it is just that, like many people who only served in the House of Reps, there is little understanding of the Senate - but whatever the reasons, this is mostly just flawed, empty recycled mantras with little holding them up.

Just to pick a few:

- the suggestion that "the Greens may be in a strong position to insist on an alliance reminiscent of Tasmanian experience" is just nonsense. The Tasmanian examples, past and present, only occured because of the Greens presence in the Lower House. Unless the Greens win House of Reps seats at this election - which is a genuine prospect but far from certain - AND there was a hung Parliament. Balance of power in the Senate provides no scope to 'insist' on anything of the sort. The Senate is the house of review, not the house of government.

- It is true to describe the Democrats role under Cheryl Kernot (and every other previous and subsequent leader as "constructive". But to characterise "constructive" as "play to the crowd, screw some taxpayer’s money and let the legislation pass" is not just a cheap shot, it shows a total lack of understanding of what a constructive Senate delivers (including, but not just the Democrats, Greens or others on the cross bench who have been in balance of power roles).

- the assertion that Democrat leaders that came after Cheryl Kernot, such as myself, were "more ideological" is made without any evidence to back it up, as is the equally empty assertion that this is what "led to the Democrats demise". If you ask virtually any non-partisan person in Australia what the key factors were which led to the Democrats demise, There would be near unanimity about the few reasons they would give, and almost none of them very few would suggest the reason Gary Johns provides (and if they did, it would only because they were repeating empty, evidence-free assertions by the commentariat).

- Given Gary was a Minister in the Hawke government, it is extraordinary that he could assert that "the Hawke government paid fairly dearly for the second preference strategy to the Greens in 1990." The Greens party vote in 1990 was less than 2 per cent. The vast bulk of the environmental vote at that time was with the Democrats, who polled over 11 per cent - the best result in that party's history. No doubt the Hawke (and Keating) government wanted to maintain some support from environmentally minded voters, but it's hardly unique that a major party looks to do things that might help them maintain the support of one of their voter bases. To suggest this only happened because of a preference strategy shows a breath-taking naivety about how politics and elections work.

- the assertion that renewable energy can't provide baseload power has been totally discredited so often that it is hard to believe that anyone could still make the assertion without knowing that it is false.

- stating that "the Greens will demand a place at the table of Australia’s premier economic advisory bodies" is just pathetic scaremongering. Such economic advisory bodies could well benefit from a wider range of input (and there have been signs in recent years that such bodies do have a greater understanding on the interconnection between economic and environmental factors - certainly far better than Gary Johns does), but the Greens will be in no more of a position to "demand" such a thing than the Democrats were.

I'm a Labor member as those who read my contributions at OLO might know. But I'll say this: I'm glad the Greens helped negotiate and support welfare reform in the face of a rising cost of living. And I hope we have a re-elected Labor government; with Labor and the Greens co-operating like that in the future too.

I think the role of the Greens should be critical and reasonably conditional support for Labor. If they demand too little - both on the environmental and social justice fronts - their supporters will be disappointed. If they demand too much they'll be viewed as obstructionists - and that would hurt them too.

But never forget the mistake Meg Less made in supporting the GST. That destroyed the Democrats.

Interesting piece Gary, it has occurred to me that amidst all the Bob Brown worship (and hey, don't get me wrong, I love the guy too) there is scant attention given to the question of how the Greens will facilitate good government beyond their pet concerns. I guess we'll know when the first tough decision hits their desk. Perhaps some time taking direct responsibility for Government across a diverse nation like this one will chasten the zeal? Finally, Andrew B's responses above are hilarious. Mate, haven't you been on the public teet for long enough? As PJK said, Get a Real Job.

Of course Gary was or is a fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, the applied politics of which, along with all the other right-wing think tanks, is described in shocking detail here.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine

The book was of course loathed by all the propaganda hacks that infest these stink-tanks.

Plus Adbusters always provides a truly shocking alternative to the lies of the global right-wing public relations spin-meisters

http://www.adbusters.org

Plus check out The Rise of the Global Scientific Dictatorship by Andrew Marshall in the latest Nexus Magazine. The brave new world brought to one and all by the right-wing stink tanks.

Lewis Mumford's Invisible Mega-Machine made manifest with deadly effect all over the planet.

Or check out the work of Henry Giroux

Actually, I suspect we'll face things more like this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenpolitics/taxandtheenvironment/7937911/Business-facing-a-wave-of-green-taxes.html

"Business leaders criticised the CRC — which was created by Labour but implemented by the Coalition — as “complex and bureaucratic”. One accused ministers of swinging “a big hammer” at companies and questioned whether it would have any environmental benefits"

"The Environment Agency, which will run the scheme for the Government, has refused even to publish a list of the companies that are required to register."

Sounds like greens have been reading Kafka again ...

Greens policy will lead to more old people not being able to afford heating bills in the winter and cooling bills in the summer. A carbon tax will also result in an increase in food and other essentials. The money collected from these increased taxes will help fund future farces like CopenHagen where the big polluters like China and India must laugh at the stupidity of those who think that taxing people in such a small nation will change global temperatures.

Runner: the problems you foresee re: a price on carbon can be rectified by redirecting funds gained to those vulernable, including those on pensions such as the Aged Pension. This can occur through direct increases in pensions, or through subsidies. Those on low incomes could also be compensated through tax restructure.

It is the suggestion that the Greens could "have" the balance of power that fazes me a little, as it always did with the Democrats. The major parties will have at least 140 seats in the House and at least 60 seats in the Senate. What power woud the Greens possibly have, or did the Democrats ever have EXCEPT when the major parties (or one of them in particular cases) choose not to negotiate to achieve good legislation. It is surely only then, when the major parties actively choose to hand power to Greens that the Greens would have any to excercise.

Even if you allowed that Greens were a little bit too far to the left, that should simply give our two centrist party groupings more reason to negotiate on legislation instead of giving up and telling the Greens to decide because it is just all too hard for the majors.

Poll Clerk, you took the words out of my mouth.

In fact I was just going to suggest that Labor and Liberal should go into coalition against the Greens.

Poll Clerk, Jon J,
Your naivety stuns me clearly you either don't understand the PREFERENCE system of voting that define the senate or you are trying to change the subject.

The Dems now the Greens got there BECAUSE the PROPORTIONAL number of citizens want(ed) a balance, a brake on polarised power by either the Liberals or Labor. If you like a serious nod to policy over dogma and painted personality politics.

In simple terms a significant portion of the people didn't trust either side implicitly. The one time in 30 years a party had absolute power we got Howard's self aggrandising wet dream

Yes Examinator. We understand that 10-15% of the voters might choose a third party. And that makes a Senate that can use its teeth occasionally to run hard-hitting inquiries. But it only makes for power if the other 85-90% of Senators choose to hand a decision over to that 10-15%. Co-operation between the majors just leaves the third party out in the cold. A voice to be heard sure, but power no. I still think it is the choice of the majors to co-operate on legislation or hand the decision to the third party. The third party only gets a say after the majors make their choice to oppose each other and not compromise.

Oh dear, elections always bring a tide-ring of scum around the political debates.

Gary Johns, why not go back to your right-wing roost and leave us all alone.

Your performance as an ALP minister was woeful, your politics always sat further right then even Keating and Brereton managed to drag the ALP, along with Hawke.

Go back to sleep, leave us alone, and keep living off your taxpayer funded pollie-lurks.

You have not-very-much to offer this debate, or any other.

"the assertion that renewable energy can't provide baseload power has been totally discredited so often that it is hard to believe that anyone could still make the assertion without knowing that it is false."

Funny, no one has yet built renewable base load supply, and even the few sites that claim to have storage are test sites that were enormously expensive. Renewable base load is at best theoretical and certainly a long way from viable.

The biggest risk to the greens is that with a modicum of actual power, they will be judged on their actions. So far, without having done anything, they have not done anything wrong.