As an active member of the Australian Democrats I am often asked why I don't jump from a seemingly sinking ship and join the Greens. Firstly, there is still a lot of support out there in the community for the Democrats and secondly, many people don't realise just how different the two parties are.

We both have a strong history in the areas of environment and social justice but even our approach to these two issues is vastly different. The Democrats tend to negotiate where as the Greens tend to obstruct.

I am also often surprised by how many people think the Australian Democrats are left-wing. A cursory glance at our Industrial Relations policy will prove that we are nothing of the sort. Our party has members from both sides of the fence which is why our policies tend to be moderate yet progressive.

The Australian Democrats have always been held up to a higher standard than any other political party in Australia, hence the lack of forgiveness for the handful of mistakes we have made over our 30 year history. We do not shy away from this high standard however, and we will continue to fight tooth and nail to ensure voters have the ability to choose an independent voice of reason in our Senate.

The question for me is: Have the Greens increased progressive representation in the Senate?

In the 90's I advised the Greens in Qld not to form another environmental/progressive party at the national level. I based my opinion not on the right in a democracy to particpate but on there were not enough Australian voters to support an increase in progressive representation in the Senate.

Some results of minor party/independent Senators returned:

1990 6/40 (6 out of 40 Senators elected)
1993 4/40 - 1st year The Australian Greens formed
1996 6/40
1998 6/40
2001 6/40
2004 3/40

The answer: a resounding ‘no’.

FYI...

http://www.votenuclearfree.net/

Further to Muhr H post - some Parliamentary actions taken by the ADs in relation to Telecommunications:

* Successfully moved amendments to guarantee guidelines for the location of payphones;
* Pressured the Government to ensure that the Minister kept the power to direct Telstra in the public interest;
* Pressured the Government to agree to not charging 50 cents for 013 numbers;
* Amendments to guarantee untimed local calls for customers living in rural and regional Australia at a cost of $30 million a year;
* Introduced a private members Bill to prevent carriers from introducing timed local calls for accessing the Internet. (The Government eventually adopted our position.)
* Successfully established minimum standards for Australia Post deliveries in rural Aust with any reductions requiring the approval of Parliament;
* Successfully campaigned with others against timed local calls; and
* Successfully voted to defeat a bill to make licences for broadcasting in regional areas more expensive

The ADs are updating some of their web pages so suggest you go to www.democrats.org.au later - select 'Policies' tab to check their "Track Record".

"I’d like the Canberra press gallery to ask them some hard questions - the type of questions you’d put to a party that may hold the balance of power in the Senate next year."

And you probably would be very surprised at the length and depth of their policies.

As for their not having any interests greater than environmental issues, what about their stance regarding David Hicks, or the fact that the ETU in donating $120,000 to them said that their industrial policy is better than the ALP's?

The author is not accurate in predicting 2 more Greens in the Senate. In NSW, it would take a miracle too keep Kerry Nettle in the Senate. The only reason she got voted in last election was by default as One Nation accidentally gave them preferences in NSW, and the ALP and the Democrats gave preferences to Family First over the Greens in Victoria.

Kerry Nettle needs a 20% swing to the Greens to keep her Senate position.

The Democrats in Parliament voted for the GST against their members. They have given preferences to Family First over the Greens in a number of occasions, so they are not greater than thou.

You see, the Greens have a rigid protocol where every policy has to be passed by consensus in every branch.

As for the CMEFU in the Eden Monaro, the local media has supported the CMEFU line: "A vote for the ALP is a vote against your jobs because of Peter Gareth". They put a someone who was going for pres election standing next to Peter Garreth. Someone else got the pres election, but the CMEFU still attacked the ALP saying that it was a wood chipping party.

But the CMEFU funds and backs the Greens!

This is weird, this is betrayal and I think the chippers and workers in the Eden Monaro should know the truth. The union is using their funds against the best interests of their members.

The ALP is more interested in reforming work choices back to fairness and the Greens, the Party the CMEFU backs and funds, is against wood chipping.

On the south coast, the media is trying to sabotage the ALP's chances even if it means favoring the Greens and no one on the left knows why.