Today, the Greens and Labor have sealed a deal. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/01/2999219.htm

The concessions secured by the Greens include:

• the formation of a climate change committee
• a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan
• a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians
• restrictions on political donations
• legislation on truth in political advertising
• the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Committee
• a parliamentary integrity commissioner
• improved processes for release of documents in Parliament
• a leaders debates Commission
• a move towards full three-year parliamentary terms
• two-and-a-half hours of allocated debate for private members' bills
• access for Greens to various Treasury documents

I am APPALLED!!

The Greens had the greatest chance in the history of Australian politics to really get our government onto the right track, in ways that should be totally within the philosophy of their party and which are DESPERATELY needed.

What happened to Bob Brown’s excellent agreement with Dick Smith about curtailing population growth, which is also something that Julia Gillard has expressed concern about?

A strong agreement could have been struck with this all-important issue. But no, it has just dropped off the radar. Brown is now looking quite disingenuous about his comments on population as expressed recently on Q&A.

What about the urgency to achieve liquid fuel security, given that our society is so utterly and precariously dependent on oil and on its price not going up too much or too quickly?

What about the biggest environmental and social issue of our future – the achievement of a sustainable society, which is based on a steady-state economy?

What about insisting that we have optional preferential voting in federal elections instead of the despicable oxymoronical compulsory preferential system?

What about demanding that the donations (favour-buying) regime that so intimately connects government to big business and so strongly biases government towards rapid continuous expansionism gets drastically overhauled? This IS on the list. Well, sort of.

These are some of the really important things, and they are things that Labor could agree to, if it had to in order to win power.

What do others think?

Ludwig - if Gillard manages to form a government, the Greens will have one MP out of 73 in it. That's not exactly a mandate to push Green policies, which would undoubtedly be portrayed by a hostile media as 'holding the country to ransom' or some other such negative spin. I think they've gained about as many concessions from Labor as they reasonably can at this point, mostly around the general area of better governance.

Once the new Senators take up their seats next year, I think we'll see the Greens exercising their influence more significantly. While I agree with you in principle, once again your impassioned idealism is out of step with realpolitik.

I took it that the agreement only covers supply and confidence. These demands to gain supply are an improvement but are by no means the be all and end all. I have said earlier that this is a big test for the Greens, they now have a level of power that if handled correctly will secure their vote into the future. I don't see that the population issue is now off it has just been removed as a point to block supply, and don't you see that the establishment of a carbon price is part of developing sustainability?
Bigger problem overnight came with the treasury blowing the coalitions costings out of the water. What now will the independents do. Reform to parlament has been one of their major cries, i wonder how much they will have to give to get a deal and will we deride their moral fortitude for making a deal. The two majors do it all the time but we call that politics, so why ride the Greens and independents into the ground for the same thing.
I have been thinking it would be a coalition government but now i don't know. It would all seem as much up in the air as ever. It has come the time though for the independents to get on with it and stop their procrastination. Negotiate and decide we need a government by Friday.

It's called "compromise", Ludwig.

From the tenor of your post, I would deduce that you would have been satisfied with nothing less than the introduction of the complete Green agenda.

As CJ points out, that doesn't reflect the way these things work.

Even as it stands, there is every reason for 90% of the electorate to say "wtf, we didn't elect those twerps, how come they get to call the shots?"

A fully-functional Labour/Green coalition, similar to the Lib/Nats, would at least have allowed the electorate to vote for policies. They (Lib/Nats) might not agree on absolutely everything, but you do have a pretty good idea what they would stand for, and what they would oppose.

Right now, we have the worst of all possible worlds, with the requirement for a major party to compromise - that word again - on their electoral platform, in order to form a government. The only outcome of which is that, whatever government is eventually formed, it is guaranteed to represent the will of absolutely no member of the electorate.

Certainly, no-one who voted either Labor or Coalition will have their views properly represented.

Nor will the Greens, it would appear.

Given that the Greens preferenced the socialists and the communists, I am waiting to see Belly's responce to this deal with Labor.

As i recall he was not real complimentary in the past, about the Greens.

My opinion! Oh well Julia was/is a socialist and has shown she will say and do anything to retain government. Ben Chifley would be turning in his grave. No wonder i am cynical of all polys.

They had it all wrong, with the claim that a vote for the Greens was a vote for Labor.

What they should have told us was a vote for Labor was a vote for the Greens.

Oh, how the worm turns, & what a slimy thing it is