To be fair, the Greens are no more frivolous and unrealistic than any other minority party -- Bob Katter and Clive Palmer included. That's what minority parties are for. The thing that makes the Greens dangerous is that they are on the cusp of taking the balance of power, and doing enormous damage to the country (and themselves) in the process. After which they will no doubt implode like the Democrats, the DLP and One Nation. But Green social policies are generally enlightened and intelligent: if they can ever tell us how we are supposed to pay for them, they will have a viable platform.

What's the problem?

If major parties adopt a better policy mix, including environment, then people will have desire to vote Greens.

If not, then get used to the Greens being around for a long time yet.

should have been

If major parties adopt a better policy mix, including environment, then people will have less desire to vote Greens.

I get the feeling that the author doesn't like the greens. In his hate he falls into the trap that the greens all think alike, just like the libs and Labour oh and who is that other party the Nat's.

It's funny that the things the author thinks are reasonable environmental considerations, were things the greenies pushed for many years ago. it's funny how solid the shifting sand can feel.

Good article; it captures the monstrous egoism of the greens; however, it still doesn't go far enough; at heart the greens are misanthropic:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html

And the green connection to Nazism and ecofascism is well documented.

All and all they are blight and the handwringers living in the inner-cities won't know it until the lights go out.

Whilst I agree with some of the points made in this article, I believe it is naïve and simplistic, to say the least. The Greens party was founded on environmental issues and as a minor party, those issues were crucial as a platform. Today however, the Greens are emerging as an alternative to the red team, blue team of mainstream politics and as such have broadened their focus to acquire a mandate. We are in danger of encouraging the worst of under developed cultures into our society and, I believe all illegal immigrants should be treated as economic refugees until proven otherwise. I have worked with many Greens politicians over the years and see them as responsible human beings, with a firm grasp on reality, especially where energy is concerned. Most are concerned with and have alternative and realistic plans for both conserving and reappraising energy usage and sourcing. Often, Greens members are misrepresented by the major parties (especially the coalition) and to quote Tony Abbott are the producers of “Green Tape”. We saw, over the last 3 years, how well things worked as a hung parliament and the Greens were a major influence in what turned out to be good and responsible policies. I agree there are some inconsistencies with so-called asylum seekers, population growth and the environment but overall, they are on the money and essential when it comes to “the greatest moral challenge of our time”, climate change and also democracy.

It's a free country and humanitarian conservationist Malcolm Fraser can campaign for whoever he wants to.
And to his credit, Mr Fraser stands almost alone as the one true leader, who demanded and got a regional solution that processed and resettled tens of thousands of "genuine refugees"; and, with none of the hysteria and political circus, that compounds today's very different problems!
In Malcolm Fraser's day, the pirates attacked the boats, now they just seem to want to smuggle undocumented economic migrants to the soft touch countries, with bleeding heart leaders?
For heavens sake, tens of thousands of forgotten Aussie kids, live in far worse conditions, [tin sheds, tents and car bodies], than those found on Mannus Island or Nauru.
And there are around a hundred thousand homeless, and thousands sleeping rough!
The people we do let in, ought to be put to work immediately, doing the hardly ever filled, dirty dawn to dark gut-busting jobs no Aussies wants; and for minimum pay and conditions! [Been there, done that!]
With every move they make, the anti nuke, anti dam, anti development, anti jobs, "irrational" tree hugging greens, seem to be slipping back in the polls; and, many greenish conservatives no longer preference them!
Perhaps those conservatives tired of they way the highly manipulative greens split their preferences?
Perhaps the greens thought with a moral moderate like Farmer Fraser backing them, they might have a better chance of getting some of the other bleeding heart Liberals back on side?
And lets face it, they do need preferences, to continue to occupy seats!
Rhrosty.

David Leigh

What an insightful and accurate evaluation. All of most of what you have highlighted is in fact the very essence which brings the party well into the 21 century. When it comes to stopping the boat people or as colourfully illustrated, is to simply fly them back as soon as they arrive. That cost compared with the current Governments philosophy…well ….the smuggles in question will soon see the no cash card and Australia will have the cash savings in the long run. At the moment, our country is accumulating massive amounts no relevance as people will be adding wisdom and the larger picture, which the Greens have known for quite some time.

Planet3

What is this nonsense? Malcolm is rightly supporting Sarah Hanson-Young as the Greens are the only party who defend human rights, the Australian co-authored refugee convention and the rule of law.

The public might look on asylum seekers as people who have the money to pay to escape death, but why the hell is that a crime?

Would any of the morons who think it is a crime sit around with money in the bank and wait to die rather than find some form of transport and leave?

There is nothing in any law anywhere in the world that only poor people can be refugees, if that was the case the 2 billion people living on less than $2 a day would be refugees but under the law they are not.

This sort of ignorant racist drivel has to stop. Asylum seekers who come here are doing not one thing different to asylum seekers all over the world and they are not breaking a single law in doing so.
OLO has really sunk into the gutter with this garbage.

Marilyn,

The government has set an annual refugee quota of around twenty thousand.

Questions: are those who come 'irregularly' by boat counted as part of that quota ?

If so, do they displace the refugees who have done all the right things, applied properly, and waited their turn ? Are these refugees pushed further back down the queue ?

If not, is the actual refugee quota closer to forty or fifty thousand, not twenty thousand ?

Should people be rewarded for coming by boat, rather than by applying and waiting ? Or should there be 'no advantage " gained ?

I certainly think it is grossly unfair, even improper, not to allow people to work once they are here - that is a prescription for social disaster. BUT if people are not taken back as soon as possible to their point of departure, surely they are displacing other, equally worthy refugees ?

No happy endings :(

Joe

It's old timers disease. Some have memory trouble, some just go dotty. Obviously Fraser is one of the latter.

As we all remember he was a dreadful PM, not much better than the dill Whitlam he replaced, & he is now a slightly worse ex PM.

I wonder if he ever found his trousers, he's obviously lost his mind.

Loudmouth, do you understand that you are mouthing ridiculous nonsense? There is no such thing in the world as setting a quota for refugees, only Australia tries on that delusion.

Everyone has the right to seek asylum, no-one has the right to be granted asylum in one country and then try it on again as a sponsored migrant to a third country.

Wouldn't Jordan love to set a quota of 20,000 a year instead of receiving quite lawfully the 20,000 a week.

There is no quota for asylum seekers, that is the lie they spin.

IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP PORTFOLIO
(80) Program 2.1: Refugee and Humanitarian Assistance
Senator Fierravanti-Wells asked:
In relation to the number of places allocated to non-UNHCR-registered asylum
seekers, please provide a breakdown including:
a. the number of places allocated to unauthorised arrivals by boat;
b. the number of places allocated to unauthorised arrivals by air;
c. the number of places allocated to persons who had arrived on a valid visa and
then sought asylum;
d. the number of places allocated to over-stayers who subsequently claimed
asylum.
Allocations, targets, or limits are not made in relation to Protection visas for asylum
seekers. If all the criteria for a Protection visa are met, the visa will be granted and no
distinction within the Program is made regarding the lawful status or arrival means of
the applicant.

Hi Marilyn,

"There is no quota for asylum seekers, that is the lie they spin."

Who are 'they' ?

My understanding, perhaps faulty, is that New Zealand, for example, has set a quota this year of 750.

Whatever you might call it, a quota, a target, x, whatever, every country would at least try to set one. I thought, wrongly it seems, that the Labor government here had increased the annual 'whatever' from 14,000 to 20,000, an initiative that I would certainly support.

Assuming that the number of genuine refugees, who have filled out all the right forms and are at this moment waiting their turn in all manner of sh!t-holes around the world, is in the six figures, then given an annual x of 20,000, those currently at the back of the queue will be waiting at least five years.

My ridiculous question was: if people jump the queue by coming by boat, are they counted in the x, or not ?

Joe

Excellent article Syd.

< In campaigning for them now Malcolm Fraser should be ashamed of himself. >

Indeed. But I can see why he's doing it...

The pseudoenvironmental philosophies of the Greens are not far away from the non-environmental policies of the Fraser government.

And Fraser’s desire to see 50 million people (later revised down to 40 million if I remember rightly) in Australia sits perfectly well with the Greens’ lack of concern about population or sustainability!

But when it comes to asylum seekers, his support is a little harder to fathom. I mean, who in their right mind would support the likes of Sarah Hanson-Young and her extraordinary open-borders come-one-come-all-for-ever-more-with-no-limit-on-numbers-and-no-thought-of-the-cost-or-impacts-on-Australian-society… or-deaths-at-sea… asylum seeker ‘antiphilosophy’!

<< …there are some inconsistencies with so-called asylum seekers, population growth and the environment but overall, they are on the money and essential when it comes to “the greatest moral challenge of our time”, climate change and also democracy. >>

I agree David Leigh.

But wow, what enormous ‘inconsistencies’ those three things are! In fact they are so huge that they cancel out all their good policies ten fold, and long ago led me to quit the Greens, after having been a state candidate in 1995.

It is such crying shame that the Greens are woeful on population growth and real sustainability, and just completely misguided on asylum seekers.

But they are no more misguided than the Libs or Labs.

In reply to Ludwig and Planet3

I guess my hurriedly put together rant does appear a little contradictory, but then that is how I see the Greens current platform. With increased population, especially of people who lack any of the skills/professional qualities required for a performing economy, such as Australia and the extra burden on emissions, it seems not to serve any environmental or economic purpose. The only benefit would be to lower the per capita rate on emissions.

I believe the Greens party is emerging as an alternative however, to the Lib-Lab (weather house) model of the past and take us one step closer to governing by policy, rather than by the intransigent team game of the last century.

We do however, have to put in place some sort of program for migrants, especially refugees, as we enter the era of climate exiles that established economies are responsible for. If we do not put a process in place, with realistic targets and defend it, we are likely to be swamped with an overwhelming rush, which will not serve Australian values in the long term.

ISBN 9-78957 943650 Climate Change Generation

The only way forward is the sustainable path, both ecologically and economically. The old model of corporate giants, demanding resources in return for pollution and very few jobs is no longer acceptable in today’s world. An Abbott-led government will wind back the clocks in that regard, making our competitiveness in a carbon-centric world a non-event. Labor, under Rudd or anyone else will at least attempt to get it on the agenda and will look after working Australians. That means small business and a green economy, both of which provide the maximum job opportunities. Where the Greens role lies is in making sure we maximize on these because it is no good just paying lip-service to them; we are way behind on our targets because of party politics and a vote for Green, in the senate, will take control from the major parties and give it to everyday Australians.