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

Ludwig, those 12 agreements will benefit all Aussies. Nothing "appalling" about them at all. Mr Brown is a principled man, regardless of your spin. You clearly don't understand how politics works in this country; it's not about demanding 100% capitulation in return for support. Mr brown knows that type of bullying arrogance is counterproductive in both the short and long term.
Your agenda wasn't satisfied. Neither was Mr Brown's. The difference is that you now chuck a hissy fit over it, whereas Mr Brown continues to work for his agenda with knowledge of how the political system works in Australia. Someone like Mr Brown will achieve results for sustainability to a far greater degree than someone like you who seems to chuck tantrums when he doesn't get his own way. God bless Bob Brown; he's an honourable man.

<< … 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… >>

CJ, in the circumstances the one MP out of 73 is not the important point, it is the significance of the one Green MP supporting Labor in order for them to win government.

This is HUGE! Consequently, the Greens had enormous bargaining power. They could have pushed for or demanded much more.

It was the most amazing opportunity for the Greens to push their policies. In fact, for them to not do so just makes me wonder about how committed they are to some of their supposed policies.

<< … which would undoubtedly be portrayed by a hostile media as 'holding the country to ransom' or some other such negative spin >>

No matter what they do, the hostile elements of the media will put a negative spin on it. The Green shouldn’t be afraid of that.

<< 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. >>

What’s the point of slightly improving the methodology of our government if it is going to continue to take us very strongly in the wrong direction – down the same old oil- and growth-addicted road to ruin?

<< Once the new Senators take up their seats next year, I think we'll see the Greens exercising their influence more significantly >>

Yes. But at this stage, their influence doesn’t seem as though it is going to count for much.

<< While I agree with you in principle, once again your impassioned idealism is out of step with realpolitik. >>

Glad you agree. So which needs to change? The political setup needs to change. We should not fail to act for the fear that our actions might be out of step with political reality!

<< 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. >>

I’m not sure what you envisage as the complete Green agenda Pericles, but yes I would not have been satisfied unless there had been the all-important basics included in the Greens-Labor agreement, as I outlined in the opening post.

Again, what an extraordinary opportunity the Greens had been given to really take the green cause forward. Well, I suppose the Greens would actually have to be green to do it, instead of proverbially being some baby-chunder greenish brownish yellow colour! Ooow ( :>|

Gillard will say or do anything to retain government, as Banjo says. So she WOULD have agreed with a stronger set of Green demands.

At any rate, Gillard has quite independently of any Green influence expressed concerns about population growth and a sustainable society, and she would surely not be averse to seriously addressing our oil addiction.

So there you have it – the essential basics of a real green philosophy are NOT things that Gillard or Labor would vehemently oppose if it came to the crunch.

Those things should have been enshrined in some detail in this agreement. The failure to do this will probably mean that no significant action will ensue within the next term of government, if Labor governs....and certainly none if the Libnats form government.

The trouble with the weak set of agreements that have been signed off on is that we’ll get a weak amount of action on all of them, to the point where there just won’t be a significant difference, in all probability. To that end, you could argue that Labor has struck a very good deal, because it is not likely to significantly affect their way of doing things….and the Greens have capitulated….or perhaps shown their true Labor colours.

I knew it would be you Ludwig.
Now do not get me wrong I have a reputation for saying it as I find it, and I in fact like you.
I'm aware you do not much like me.
This post however underlines you lack understanding of the politics involved.
At the start of the campaign you,,,look again at your posts,,,, seemed to support Gillard.
Do you understand in this election spin was 90% of the campaign?
Do you know IF Abbott got the three independents HE WITH NO DOUBT, would try to get the very same deal out of the greens, HE HAS TO!
both SIDES must DEAL WITH THE GREENS.
Greens must deal with one or both to get ANY OUT COMES.
So surely Ludwig you understand maths is the reality nothing get past any house without consensus and I see nothing to fear in the agreement as it stands.
Yes I remain grumpy about the greens getting protest vote, and yes I want Labor to lead but we, all of us, are better for the hung Parliament.
My mob got what they deserved but just maybe are about to get a chance to fix it.

Come Banjo ,no fan of Gillard but she is not a lefty, in fact she would be Martian if she needed to to remain in power but she sold the left out long ago.
Now lets not overlook Abbott the rabbott wanted to GIVE ONE BILLION to just one hospital!
Good grief what has he offered to the three amigos.
Julia said, one hour ago Labors policy's are staying.
The deal is no sell out in fact it is a gain for us all well done C J M you old Greene you, talking some rubbish arnt they, must be fear.

Another Independent has given his support to
Labor. Wilkie in Tasmania. And who can blame him,
with Treasury finding a gaping big hole in the
Coalition's costings (7 to 11 billion) and they
offered Wilkie 1 billion for hospitals in Tassie...

Brown's Greens haven't blown it - the Coalition
has!

<< I'm aware you do not much like me >>

Belly, I’ve always considered you to be a good OLO mate.

Now I’m not sure what you are trying to say in your second last post.

I can’t see why the Greens shouldn’t have really laid it on the line very shortly after the election by insisting that the party that they support agrees to strong action on the sorts of fundamentally important issues that I have mentioned in this thread.

What an amazing bargaining opportunity!

Belly, can you tell me why you think they shouldn’t have done this?

You remain grumpy about the Greens getting a ‘protest’ vote. I remain grumpy about the critically important need for major changes in Australian politics, which amazingly has actually become possible with this hung parliament, with the Greens in a prime position to capitalise on it, but which is looking like it just isn't going to happen to any meaningful extent!

If they are not willing to make every effort to get one or other or both major parties to act on the really important issues as part of the process of determining which one governs, then it would seem that they are really not that interested in doing it at all, and won’t even try to get strong action on population growth, direct action on oil dependency as opposed to marginal action on climate change, and urgent action on other vital sustainability issues after the government is decided.

I’ve often said that Labor and Liberal are two peas in a pod, being so nearly identical that I call them the liblabs. Well, it is now appearing that the Greens are just the third pea.

Its a good start.

This is not about the greens "ramming" their policies through and forcing Australia to defer to their beliefs.

The greens want to influence and persuade people that their way is the right one and the best way to proceed.
Until they get that support from the majority of Australians I think they recognise the sense in restricting their "demands" to things that wont upset people and be divisive.

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

Remember what I've been saying? *WATERMELONS*

Ludwig I will try.
An election is about the party with the most policy's most voters want winning.
I have reviewed you wish list and while finding much Merritt in most of it understand its is still minority view.
Most of us, far too many, want more of every thing and not to have to pay for it and sadly for a lot climate and population matter less than self interest.
Now a new reality exists today, we have seen the removal of Rudd, gut less back downs on climate change mining tax and we have not yet been told why.
Abbott has had wind under his wings with one of the most disgusting show of media bias we have ever seen, a dreadful insult to investigative journalism.
He re invented himself, but it is only a plastic mask, he remains what he is, the very man who back stabbed Turnbull and sold out time and again his view on climate change.
He is no less self interested than Gillard, unlike her he could not lead a united government, her will to change is stronger.
In this mix we all benefit, I will work without rest to put Labor back on its own next time.
But this Parliament will bring change and we needed it.
Greens did not get radical policy's up, after next year they will try , you Ludwig and thousands of others will have to understand conservation is just a front the greens are not the savior of Australia you seek.
Defence migration coal ,the list is long while my saying it hurts mates I can not over look putting honey on a cow pat will not make it a cake.
With out self standing majority's they can not inflict on most of us policy's we reject.

The blatant post-poll pork-barrelling that we are presently witnessing is appalling.

The last vestige of legitimacy for our next government, whatever its constitution, has just disappeared in the smoke and mirrors of a billion-dollar bribe.

Who do these people think they represent?

Forget about Brown's Greens. I'm seeing Red, and its giving me the Blues.

Perciles,
At least we agree on this one thing. The majors are buying the support of the independants. Where is the principle?

Belly, from what I have read Gillard comes from a very soccialist background and leopards don't change their spots. Labor dropped the ETS because AGW was no longer popular and Gillard changed, or says she has, on population and on the boat people. I do not believe her, as she is being populist simply to get votes, speaking with forked tongue.

With a better leader the Libs would have waltzed in. I don't think much of Abbott, but at least he did stop us from getting the ETS for which I will give him some marks for.

Ludwig I agree with you. The supposedly big thing for the greens is the enviroment and if Labor is buying, why did not the greens go for things that are fundamental to them, like cutting immigration to put a brake on population numbers which in turn affects the enviroment. But no mention of that. On every turn they show themselves to be hypocrits.

Looks like they only want power like the rest of them.

AGIR, when and where and how did the Greens in the election preference "communists" as per your claim?

TZ52HX,
Try the website 'vote below the line'

All are listed and who they preferenced

The socialists and communists come well before Labor on the Green ticket.

Banjo, I very much am aware Gillard was from the left.
And that blind Fredrick knows she no longer is.
However Freddy's cousin that left wing union, rather stunted intellectually too,supports votes for the Greens and still thinks Gillard lives in between she lives in her own paddock.
I also am able to see the way greens voted , do you understand I a true anti far left would wast my vote on socialist groups before greens or your mob?
We stand no more than a generation away from false ALP/Conservative party's, harvesting senate preferences even getting some seats, as it becomes clear if we intend to keep the senate we,middle Australia must control it.
The lights on Labors 1948 hill are no longer kero in a hungry workers home.
Its down lighting in the beach home and that worker is more impressed by Todays Labor than a party claiming to be yesterdays one.
It is not however the voters who got it wrong my party had a headful of good ideas and not the guts to fight for them.
Back on track and if we get the numbers catch us if you can.

Ludwig asks, in the opening post:

"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?"

The utter silence on the part of the political 'establishment' with respect to Australian liquid fuel supply security is astounding. This issue overshadows all others. Failure to have successfully addressed it will result in massive dislocation in Australia when 'gap oil' price spiking suddenly hits, as has been warned is likely.


OLO userID 'eclipse now' makes the claim in the current discussion topic 'How the USGS has misled the world on peak oil' (see: http://bit.ly/9u1xLj ), that:

"I'm on various oil networks and happen to know
that EVERY major State and Federal politician,
and probably most local government council staff,
have all been briefed [on Peak Oil]."




Is there something all our politicians know about oil supply security that is being withheld from the public?




It strikes me that addressing the seemingly inevitable problem of liquid fuel supply security would have provided the perfect focus, in the circumstance of a 'hung' Parliament, for a coalition government in the national interest comprised of both LNP and ALP members. Yet what we look like getting is an after-the-event ALP-Green coalition the electors did not vote upon in the knowledge thereof, one that APPEARS NOT TO EVEN ADDRESS WHAT THE PUBLIC, HOWEVER IMPERFECTLY, UNDERSTANDS AS THIS ALL-IMPORTANT PROBLEM!

Was the hung Parliament outcome an event engineered to hijack public policy from the representatives of over 80% of the electorate, delivering control over an agenda instead to a minority? The fact that as at 3 September, although not final figures, out of the 533,673 pre-poll votes counted Australia-wide, only 16,624 were cast in home Divisions, smacks to me of an 'engineered' electoral result.

Here are two twitpics of the AEC VTR as it displayed this morning: http://bit.ly/9XuIoV , http://bit.ly/axasTy

To view the continually updating VTR page itself, see: http://bit.ly/cQp9Jw




Who is being conned in all this?

Well I must admit those proposals, for just ONE sitting member, are pretty darn good and definitely positive proposals. Especially because their stance on parliamentary accountability is probably the reason I voted (somewhat) for them myself.
Especially considering:
-They didn't demand something on asylum seekers when it's arguable that most voters may want it the way the majors are putting it
-They aren't so heavily focusing on their moralistic individual-conduct-to-be-more-environmentally-friendly stances

I'm very disappointed they never touched privatization issues or abortion/euthanasia though.

As for population- sadly as they don't actually give a toss about population policy for the same reason Dick Smith and myself do (that is, quality of living and slowing down urbanization- as opposed to a more superficial stance, I can't really say I'm sorry they left it out.

The rest I would never expect either major to agree with, so I'm not down over those.

<< This issue overshadows all others >>

Forrest, yes it SHOULD overshadow all others.

The issue of liquid fuel security / oil addiction is of the utmost urgency. It is just so grossly irresponsible of the ALP, LNP or Greens to not push it with the urgency that it needs.

What can you say about these 'great' political parties when they don’t even bring this issue forward AT ALL?

Oh, the Greens, where on Earth are they at? They are specifically there to push the big environment and social issues that the big parties miss, AREN’T THEY??

If not, then what the hell are they really about??

And as if that wasn’t bad enough, they also completely missed the wonderful opportunity to get a strong agreement on action to deal with population growth / high immigration / the continuous growth paradigm / a sustainable Australia.

Pfpfpfpfpfpfpfpffffffffffffffff. I am soooooo disgusted!

<< As for population- sadly as they don't actually give a toss about population policy for the same reason Dick Smith and myself do (that is, quality of living and slowing down urbanization- as opposed to a more superficial stance, I can't really say I'm sorry they left it out. >>

But, but, but, King Hazza, if you care as much about this issue as Dick Smith and Ludwig, you’d want the Greens to be very strong on it, wouldn’t you?

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I would wish all those posting comments first understood what the constitution really stands for.
See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog at http://www.scribdd.com/InspectorRiakti (various correspondences to the Governor-General included) and you may just learn that who forms government got absolutely nothing to do with the INDPENDENTS, Greens, etc, because the Governor-General alone determines who shall be commissioned regardless of any majority in the House of Representatives.
E. Barton was commissioned to form a government on 26 December 1900, before the federation existed, and so no Parliament either. Learn what the constitution stands for and you all might just realise you are all conned.
Currently there is not a single Member of the House of Representatives as they are all Members of the House of Representatives designate!
Parliament is to vote on bills not to decide who forms government. That is the job of the Governor-General exercising prerogative powers!

Ludwig, because somebody 'cares' about population, doesn't mean it's because of overcrowding, local degradation or resource thinning; they might be thinking "world population" and our responsibility to take some of the pain, or 'people are taking up too much space and resources', combated precisely by squeezing people into smaller areas and restricting rights to transport infrastructure and resources.

Some might place population above skilled migrants AND refugees, some place skilled migrants above population but more above refugees, some people might put refugees above population and make the skilled migrations pay the price.

Just because somebody agrees (in a general way) that something is a problem, doesn't mean they have a practical worthwhile approach to stopping it. And sadly from my own experience the greens members are rather divided on why they have a problem with overpopulation (some holding a less than appreciable view in my opinion).

The impression I'm getting from the various deals which have been brokered is that we have a chance of some changes which may if cemented into place improve the quality and transparency of this and future federal governments.

We should all be hoping that this works for long enough to make it hard to back down from a variety of "concessions" that the green's and independents have got from Labor (and some supposedly also agreed to by Abbott).

I would have preferred not to have Labor back in but given the nature of the election campaign I'm not greatly convinced that the coalition would have done a much better job than Labor. The country may get a better outcome from this than seemed possible with either side winning in it's own right.

R0bert

King Hazza, understood and agreed.

But Dick Smith made his position abundantly clear, and this is what Bob Brown – apparently – was agreeing with.

I’ve got to assume that old Bob was having an out-of-body experience on Q&A where he so strongly supported Dicko…and has since withdrawn back to his long-held position of remaining quiet about population with respect to a slower growth rate and a sustainable society.

You are therefore probably right – it was better that the Greens didn’t push the population issue because they would probably have pushed it in entirely the wrong direction!

Ludwig is right, and if anyone has a different opinion to him they're wrong. Therefore to be right, you must agree with Ludwig.

Hehehehehe

You picked the wrong thread to put this message on, TZ…. after I had just conceded that King Hazza has a good point.

But, please help keep me on track. If at any point that you think that the mighty Ludwig is wrong, put in your two bob’s worth, make pertinent comments, ask difficult questions, please.

Or if you wish to believe that Ludwig is always right then, that is good. I can live with that. In fact, it is wonderful.

Have a nice evening.

True Ludwig- keep in mind that different Greens members would have different attitudes regarding the population debate beyond coming to the agreement that keeping the population lower is preferable- Bob Brown knows this and probably wants to focus on the broad so he doesn't unnecessarily piss off some of the members who aren't seeing Dick eye-to-eye on this when superficially, they see the 'same' problem.
That'd be my guess.

Ludwig, it must be very comforting to know that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong.