In "Greens must branch out to avoid fate of the Democrats" (Weekend Australian 9/7) Graham Young wrote "Greens are motivated to engage but Labor voters are much less enthusiastic about their party." Having lost its philosophy and principles, the ALP is confused. So ALP voters can easily drift to Greens and Liberals.

Remember the UK - in 1906 397 Liberals, 156 Conservatives and 29 Labour were elected. By 1922 the figures were 115, 344 and 142, and Labour never looked back till the last election, while the Liberals were barely represented.

Similarly it would not be infeasible for the ALP to become the third party here at the next election if Greens voters remain enthusiastic and ALP voters are further disheartened by the party's parliamentary performance.

AH, nice juicy worm here, me thinks I will have it for lunch!
I am an ALP member,hopefully not blind to our current difficulty's, but very proud of our current achievements.
If a quick look at my thread re preferential voting is taken, you will see it is abandoned.
You maybe me too, may end up as the only contributors here too.
I made the mistake of saying I do not believe the greens can be trusted.
I, some what badly it appears, posted links showing almost every paper is currently carrying story's questioning the greens and Labor.
And that moves are a foot to,as Bob Brown has,not preference the greens, both sides of the house.
Lets not kid our selfs currently the ALP is as low as it ever has been.
It will beyond doubt,not rule in any state after the next series of elections.
For the first time in years I was not in the conference NSW state today, but watched and heard every word of Gillards speech.
Luke warm at best, the insipid responses to her kissing the baby's speech.
But just how are the greens going? at a time Conservatives took an unliked leader And Labor dumped a liked one.
At a time Gillard went from 8 point lead in the polls to what was this hung Parliament?
Labor is rebuilding,much to do, Greens are disliked by more than vote for them.
Further to all this, it will impact,Conservative state governments while too soon to impact are and will reminding voters of some things their building dislike of Labor, has blinded them to.
If Abbott ever becomes PM Labor will remind this country in the following election why we are in the end and for the foreseeable future a two party country.

Ah Dudley,

its good to see that English breakfast tea Tony Abbott sent you cleared your flue.
Did you find out what type of flue it was- different intensive farming in an area can pass on different types. Poor old Tony Abbott doesn't get a mention much these days so i can understand this attempt to cause mischief among the camp.
Tony Abbott has gone back to his ways of before the elections. Hes forgotten about all that training he had. People just dont like him & watching him in Parliament reminds me why.

Considering everything the ALP dont have in common I would say there's a bit of respect besides the difficulties which will only serve to make good strong needed changes. No I think we will see a ALP Government returned depending on choices made now.

I think we are looking at a ALP Greens landslide .

Oh Kerryanne, Oh Kerryanne:

…Your view resembles the view of NSW supporters tipping themselves a win against the maroons in the state of origin. Get with it…there is no hope for this “lot”…

diver dan

Honey I think Your NSW supporters tipping have been tipping a win against the maroons the for last three years. You should get out more often.

An interesting thought, just maybe my warning to our Author is being proved true.
OH I know its a bait, even understand as like a professional punter I read and study the form.
The tracks the Jockeys, even the trainers, Say press/owners intentions, in his interest.
So a Labor victory, even after the impending lift, is unlikely.
Come walk with me, lets not waste time fishing.
I offer this, my whole history hear in OLO, has been a combative one.
I front rower for my party put the head down and run.
I sometime run in the wrong direction,some time drop the ball, but I run.
Until,recently, the obvious devisions between Green and Labor came to the front, it had too, I often received the ball, or passed it to a green.
My links, many of them,saying it as it is stopped that.
In my view the Fragility of the followers of Greens here is so strong!
I question them openly, and with surety and certainty point to the lip service they pay to freedom of speech as evidence.
Greens have peaked, they ride on the back of my party's dreadful few years, our lowest point.
No one will confront me, no one will debate me, more either dislike/distrust/even hate the Greens than will ever vote for them.
ON LINE and in no other place, the Greens have the numbers, they are not confronted by too many working class Belly's.
But on stepping up in front of the TV cameras looking into them and saying every gain is a green one?
What ever my future here in OLO hiding the honest condemnation most Australians feel will not change the fate of the greens.
My party must eat its humble pie most of it due to a frozen refusal to move in Rudd's term,but Gillard was part of that.
We put real change in place true achievement and sink because my country men and women chain us to the Greens.

The ALP's possibly terminal woes can be traced to its abandonment of its prior ideological commitment to socialism. While Labor didn't have much choice after the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is the ALP's wholesale shift to the Right that has led to voters and members abandoning them in droves.

On the other hand, the Greens have a well-documented and coherent philosophy, the core of which hasn't changed since their inception. Among the four ideological 'pillars' of ecological sustainability, participatory democracy, social justice and nonviolence, are sufficient 'Left' priorities for the Greens to be seen by many who are disaffected by the ALP's abandonment of its traditional voter base as a natural 'refuge' from which to send a message.

Over the past two decades the Greens' share of the first preference vote has been steadily increasing at every election at every level of government in Australia, with concomitant gradual increases in parliamentary representation. They were the beneficiaries of much of the protest vote at the last Federal election against ALP shenanigans, but I don't think that even the Greeens themselves think that this spike will be sustained, rather that the former gradual increase in support will be temporarily reversed at the next Federal election, at least.

Here's the thing: Australia's political commentariat have never quite known what to do with the Greens, and base their analyses on the behaviour of the 'majors'. It is inconceivable to most of the Canberra press gallery that a political party might not put winning government as its first priority, so their analyses are fundamentally flawed. Flowing from that fundamental flaw in most political analysis of the Greens (including the article by Graham Young cited by the OP) is the utter inability of most political pundits to comprehend that Bob Brown is not the Greens' 'leader' and never has been. He acts as parliamentary leader, but the Greens constitutionally don't actually have a position of leader, president, chairman or whatever.

[continued]

[continues]

Bob Brown has no structural authority within the Greens beyond his personal respect and persuasiveness. Unlike the other parties, he has no basis upon which to demand that anybody does what he says - and besides which, he'll be retired soon. I think that Young's analysis misses the point, as do most others. The Greens acknowledge that they are not ready as a party to govern in their own right, and further that they may never want to. They are about achieving their policy agenda, and it doesn't really matter to them who actually implements them.

The Greens would rather gradually bring people with them where possible, rather than demolish all opposition. Of course, there will be issues like AGW that require more urgent action, but they are definitely not into the focus group-driven, knee-jerk mode that lately characterises the ALP, nor the policy vacuum that characterisies the LNP.

Australia faces many challenges ahead, and we really need to find ways to work together to meet them. It seems to tme that the current way of doing politics in Australia is counterproductive, which is a major reason that the Greens are appealing. Over time, more and more Australians are drawing similar conclusions, hence the steadily increasing support for the Greens' way of doing things.

Belly,
Saw this on another blog and thought you may be interested.

"The fact is, the alliance between the Greens party and the Labor party becomes stronger today because the Labor party now relies on the Greens.

Politics is driven by the numbers and the Labor party now relies on the nine Greens Senators to get their legislation through, including the carbon tax. In the House of Representatives,44 of the 72 Labor members relied on Greens preferences to be elected at the 2010 election.

That means Labor is hostage to the Greens’ agenda which includes:
• shutting down the coal industry, which RMIT economists have found would cost 200,000 jobs and cost the Australian economy $36 billion a year
• ending the live cattle trade, which employs 13,000 Australians and generates $1 billion in annual export earnings
• cutting the water available for farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin by 70%, effectively shutting down the foodbowl that feeds the nation
• bringing back death duties and increasing the top marginal tax rate to 50%
• introducing heroin injecting rooms throughout the country
Unfortunately at the moment, a vote for Labor is a vote for the Greens.

With the cost of basic essentials like electricity rapidly increasing, the Greens want to increase the pressure on budgets and put at risk the jobs that power our nation and provide its export revenue.

Worse, the carbon tax won’t provide any environmental benefit. It might make the Greens feel warm and fuzzy inside but it’s not going to cool the planet".

I noticed it said that 44 of the 72 Labor members in the House of Reps relied on Green preferences to get elected. I wonder what your views on that are, as it seems to me that the Greens and the ALP have been giving each other preferences forever. the greens rely on ALP preferences to get seats in the Senate.

Morgan, you've got to be kidding.

The reason many people have been drawn to vote for the greens is that green policies have been totally misunderstood by the average Ozzie.,
Now we have them getting over excited, they have finally started enunciating their dreams, & most of their recently attracted voters are horrified. They had no idea what they were voting for.

You will find that the recent talk about one world government will chase off many more than it attracts. I don't think the idea of their kids having the same life as a Chinese coolie will attract too many Ozzies. That this prospect may have escaped many will not continue.

Next election you can bet Labor will be airing clips of idiot Brown suggesting a one world government, one vote one value, with a suggestion of what that would mean for all but the elites of Oz. That these elites do not expect it to apply to themselves is obvious to any who think of it, but not most as yet. Be assured that will change, & the present vote level for the Greens will leave a high water mark on Oz politics, something like the dirty high water mark left on the bath tub, after washing the dirty kids.

I am going to take a spell.
I am far from silly
Know,have done for a time true Friends are ignoring me here.
Know too my thoughts and ideas are not shared by some.
IT IS startling! think with me! that I hide from stones thrown from my side of the fence.
Read Morganzilas almost bribe offer in my preferences thread,it says between the lines
IF I GIVE UP ON MY VIEWS the greens will talk to me!
I can find plenty to play verbal tennis with here.
People who will throw the verbal arm over my shoulder WHEN THEY LIKE WHAT I say!
I am informed I am not considered well educated or a person who under stands politics.
I know this, AUSTRALIA IS WEARY of politicians of my party[in my view they judge us too harshly]
Of Abbott [ in my view the judge him too leniently]
But my party lost only fools on not being a SOCIALIST PARTY!
And it is/will/must go to war with the flea riding on our back a flea with no power other than its stolen blood from my party and mainstream Australia.
I will now take leave stop posting for a while, but my views remain not marginal but majority ones
Be good Be happy Belly

very proud of our current achievements.
Belly,
Such as ?

Predictions, predictions, who knows, this could be a marriage made in heaven, This prediction is as strong as your prediction, The people will decide not you.

Kerryanne:

...I always understood you to be a girl with a brain...don't disappoint me please...Julia Gillard would be much kinder to herself and Labor party supporters, if she were to cut her tongue into 32million pieces as a contribution to "The big Australian BBQ"; the one Tony Abbott is hosting at the moment!...

The fact of the matter is we haven't had a single government, state or federal, that was full of nation-builders for a very long time.

Federal had become a body of authoritarian lazy gits- and then a career launching pad since Fraser;

And I can vouch that no NSW government had given to craps about actually doing a job for the public since before Bob Carr at least.

As such, one thing I like about the Greens is that although moralistic, they actually clearly place a duty on themselves to be managers.

But of course, there are plenty of other parties that consider administering services to be what their job is supposed to be as well- and it is definitely overdue we start transferring our votes to them.

And may we now expect the Greens to back the calls to cull* the fruit bats?

*Cull: get a lot of people out there where the bats roost and kill them with shotguns, preferably during the day.

Or, perhaps, they might become favourably disposed to bushfire mitigation policies, such as burning off and clearing trees from around buildings.
Their record in this regard is abysmal, even verging on the criminal in their disregard for the welfare of their fellow Australians.

Is mise,
talk about culls, I just received this email from a friend who was a staunch Labor supporter until recently.

Peter Garrett (ex lead singer of Midnight Oil, now a Minister in the Labour Government of Australia)

PETER GARRETT IS DEFINITELY A COUPLE OF CANS SHORT OF A SLAB!
The Australian Government and the NSW Forestry Service were presenting an alternative to NSW sheep farmers for controlling the dingo population.

It seems that after years of the sheep farmers using the tried and true methods of shooting and/or trapping the predators, the Labour Government
(Peter Garrett - Environmental Minister), the NSW Forestry Service and the Greens tree-huggers had a 'more humane' solution.

What they proposed was for the animals to be captured alive, the males would then be castrated and let loose again.

Therefore the population would be controlled.

This was ACTUALLY proposed to the NSW Sheep Farmers Association.

All of the sheep farmers thought about this amazing idea for a couple of minutes.

Finally, one of the old boys in the back of the conference room stood up, tipped his hat back and said, 'Mr Garrett, son, I don't think you understand our problem,
'those dingo's ain't f---ing our sheep, they're eatin' 'em.'

You should have been there to hear the roar of laughter as Mr Peter Garrett and the members of the NSW Forestry Service, the Greens and the other "tree huggers" left the meeting very "sheepishly".

Very droll, individual. That one's been floating around for a while - the characters change, but the joke's the same one. I think that's about the third time I've seen it here over the last few months.

I bet you think it actually happened.

Well Driver dan i am not sure if you said that with tongue in cheek but all compliments accepted. Now I must confess the truth i suppose.
My short love affair with Julie is over &ALP given they are not supporting the ban on live exports to the two Senate inquires.
I knew it & I said it from day one. Clearly that was one of the agreements made before greens went with ALP.

Now they have only given lips service to shut the greens up I think all hell will break loose.

individual,
Hilarious:) but how typical. I must warn you however jokes are not allowed. Otherwise I would tell you the one about Tony Abbott:)
Tony s advisor told me he had been to an abattoirs in Australia- woopy - or & his Daddy used to have a farm. That is the Agriculture advise for the libs fir Australia. I rest my case- God help us.

Belly,

I can see your sensitive and being retired OLO is a important part of your life. I am sorry if you have felt in the past I have taken the Micky out of you. The truth is you so much fun & always bite. Although OLO inst to make friends I think you have broken that mold.

My point is Belly, I am sure everybody feels your part of their olo family & remember family's dont always agree. Take your break & see you on your return. Where would we be without tripping over Belly storming out of a thread ah.

Life is short - be happy.

I bet you think it actually happened.
morganzola,

Morgan

I have no doubt it happened . I could tell you some classic where the city has met the bush but -I am hesitant given the forum owner doesn't like like jokes with honest intent. It would last one second especially given its about a lib.

Pity because the one about Bill is a ripper & yes Morgan i was there.

Another day perhaps.

@ Kerryanne:

Yeah right. Here's a little quality control job for you and individual - look up the word "apocryphal" in the dictionary.

Who's Bill?

morgan

Do you know what Morgan- I am really tied of your never ending tone towards me. That post on the Ikebal Patel thread & many others since day one I joined this forum. I dont know what your problem is but pls take your attitude elsewhere if you dont mind.
If you dont know who Bill is I guess your not as involved in Animal
Welfare as many of your previous posts would have some believe.
Sorry I cant post last names here- but thats life.

Maybe ask around some others. I am pretty sure 99% will know.

That's cool, Kerryanne. If you don't like my tone, please don't post inane comments directed at me. I promise I'll ignore you.

Morgan

You flew for me from day one. I ignored you for weeks. Not anymore.
Look how rude y9ou are to everyone. Just look at the way you speak/ post to the butcher hasbeen and now me. Debate yes but i do not come here to be abused .
The trouble with the truly insane is they always think its everybody else but them. The whole world is crazy and everybody is mad- bar them. Ring any bells.

While people go on and on about global warming and the preaching about everything to everybody- may i remind some the biggest problem is over population.

Yet do we see ever any of the woman suggesting anything other than their kids being taught that- nope

Or the grandkids- nope. All we see are these serial breeders demanding a better greener life for their never ending clam.

Well here is news- until we control the over population there is no way to tackle climate change .

But they do dream on full of their own self importance.

Still whatever...

Kerryanne,

Don't despair, the world population is in decline.
Thirty generations or about 900 years ago you had 536,870,911* ancestors and so did I, now there's only the two of us.

* give or take a bit of incest and inter-breeding here and there.

How could the safety (or otherwise) of GM Crops be determined without testing the same? Now, thanks to Greenpeace, the potential of Genetically Modified Crops to solve problems such as those facing up to 30 Million people in East Africa (Famine - the safety profile of eating nothing for a month or so is well and truly established) has been held up by extremist maniacs, once again.

Yes, the safety of GM Cereal Crops as a source of nutrition has yet to be established. However, the need to feed people in areas which are not well suited to traditional crops, are driving the need for this testing to be carried out. It seems Greenpeace is far more concerned with preventing these tests (they fear that the safety of these crops may be established obviously), than with preserving the lives of people in undeveloped Countries.

When the famine strikes hardest, when it kills people on a scale not seen for a decade or more ie. on a genocidal/biblical scale, then Greenpeace and their ilk should bear the responsibility for those deaths. Their actions were deliberate and designed to prevent the testing of these crops, and to prevent these crops being used to feed people. The sheer bloody-mindedness of that in light of the developing famine, means that the responsible parties should be prosecuted by the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague for genocide. The genocide could have been averted, based upon tests that cannot now be carried out because of the deliberate prevention of the same.

Wake up, food and energy are the latest weapons in the current crises. Greenpeace has wielded the same with absolute, callous, calculated disregard of anything but their own political agenda. If a warlord in Somalia destroyed what they had destroyed, he'd certainly be charged. If the Greens don't condemn this action (they may not like GM Crops but they aren't sponsoring Genocide, surely?) they are equally responsible. These crops were to be used in "TESTING", preventing that testing is about as reprehensible as shelling civilians.

Custard, I am as much an advocate for the progression of GM crops as anyone, but that sort of hyperbolic rhetoric is not helpful to anyone.

I know it works for the anti-science climate ostriches, but when you want scientists to back you, a considered and non-extreme viewpoint is generally de rigueur.

Is Mise

Fact is the world is over populated mate and we are breeding ourselves into global warming and destruction.
The animals are stuck in tiny sheds to cater to the people- more and more and more. All this talk about global warming and C tax is ridiculous unless we tackle that first.

Rhetoric? No. Quite simple, the provision of sustainable agriculture to those in dire need thereof is the number one problem on this planet. Extremist fanatics that demonstrate their desire to reduce global populations by destroying any possibility of progress, are as responsible for the results of their actions as the warlords who derive their power from poverty & starvation.

The only possible motivation for destroying the test-crop is to prevent testing being carried out to demonstrate whether or not these crops are sustainable, effective and safe. Why would anyone want to prevent that testing being carried out? Fear that their platform will be shown to be a sham? Fear of being shown to be nothing more than fanatics? Or to prevent ongoing attempts to feed a large part of the worlds population that needs better crops and which cannot be fed otherwise?

Quite frankly, Greenpeace is known for its advocacy of reducing global populations and this would appear to do nothing more than demonstrate their commitment to that cause. If so, they are no more to blame than Herr Eichmann who honestly felt there were too many Jews in Germany (and the rest of Europe) or for that matter, Mister Mladic who honestly felt that there were too many Muslims & Croations in Serbia. However, once they start taking concrete steps/actions to ensure that such problems are dealt with, should be viewed in precisely the same way.

As far as weapons go, acting to prevent advances in agriculture being tested, for the express purpose of ensuring that such advances cannot be used to address the worldwide lack of food, is utterly despicable. In terms of ways to die, that is quite probably the slowest, lingering death one could wish on anyone. To say that Greenpeace is NOT aware of the food crisis is to suggest they are incapable of following the news. To ignore their actions is to allow them to continue them. This is the systematic, premeditated denial of sustenance (or the potential therefore) to up to 1 Billion people purely to support their own agenda.

Here's a great article from today's SMH, that says pretty well exactly what I've been saying here for a while:

>>
But just how ''extremist'' is the party that attracted one in six votes?

Even a casual study of its policies, and a comparison with the results of opinion polls and voter attitudes conducted over the past decade, suggests the Greens are no more radical than the centrist parties that have governed the Western world for much of the postwar period. On most issues, their values correlate with the views of a large minority of the public - well above their 15 per cent vote - and on many issues they are in tune philosophically with a large majority.<<

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/its-not-extreme-to-be-green-20110716-1hito.html

Politics is not just about the now but also about tomorrow....

Labor are the party of "nation building edifices", ignoring the fact that the edifice is a crock of tish

Greens are the party of save the world from humanity

- which means destroy what works and present useless non-functioning economically ubviable toys and send humanity back 300 years to a time before the French Revolution (and which brought about the French Revolution)

On the other Hand,

Libertarian Capitalism and the Liberals party of Australia represent the interests of the individual men and women, who want to bring up their own children and would prefer to make their own choices and thei own mistakes. Equipped with the knowledge that the mistakes of government have a far more devastating impact than the mistakes of individuals.

Politics is about the future as well as the present

And we all know, at the next election

Labor will be decimated in the voting and

The Greens will be completely destroyed

And I would just like to add

Bring it all on and get some economic sense back into government and away form

Whacko Insulation schemes
Whacko Malaysian illegal Entrant Schemes
Whacko Carbon Tax Schemes
Whacko NBN Schemes

and a government who has squandered the economic successes of the previous Liberal govdrnment on

Stupid bank guarantees
Stupid Spending Sprees (aka the notorious Dimulous package)
Pointless School Halls - many of which do not integrate with the utility services of the schools they are attached to

Julia Gizzards is dead meat today

in 18 months time she will still be dead meat

but left out in the Australian sun for a year and a half

or basically

a putrifying soup infested with maggots

but that is not new.....

that is how all Socialists governments end up

Col

I will just leave you this link because I have discussed this already with others
Have a nice evening .

http://www.oziz4oziz.com/restoring-prosperity---details.html

Morgan

Thanks for that link I found it an interesting read.

Likewise- Have a great evening.

Do you know that if you are travelling and you stop at one of the roadside fireplaces, constructed by local councils for the convenience of travellers, that if you gather wood for the fire from a convenient dead wood alongside the road, that you can be fined for so doing?

Maximum fine is $5,000 and this little law is courtesy of the Greens through their influence on past Labor Governments in NSW.

Enjoy your next trip away to the bush.

Is Mise

Gee Wiz

Because people were no responsible and not putting them out of course.

Take a gas bottle. For goodness sake. Why do you think!

Haven't we seen enough of property and people being lost.

The things some people wing about.

Kerryanne,

The Councils and the RTA built the fireplaces in designated cleared areas.
Where I live people have wood heaters and it was common to gather dead wood from the sides of rural roads.
This had multiple benefits, people got some free wood, fire hazards were reduced, there were less damaging objects if someone were unfortunate to run off the road and the visual aspect was improved.

Presumeably the Greens didn't like this state of affairs and prevailed on the ALP State Government to bring in this stupid law.
It goes even further and there are restrictions on cutting dead wood on private land as well.

New houses now usually have electric heaters thus pushing up costs for heating (lowest last night was 1 degree C)and increasing the release of climate change gasses via the burning of more coal.

So it's not a small thing to whinge about but an intrusion into the lives of poorer people that can well be done without.
Government ought to be doing all in its power to encourage people to use renewable resources and to help keep our roadsides clear of hazards.
Remember the Greens copped a lot of the blame for the last disastrous fires in Victoria because of their policies on burning off and general hazard reduction.

@ Is Mise:

Unless it's out of date, this fact sheet would seem to belie your claims:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/factsheetKtpDeadwoodRemoval.pdf

Also, how are the Greens responsible? I don't recall the NSW ALP government being particularly beholden to the Greens at any time.

Do you just make this stuff up, or are they factoids you get from talkback radio or something?

That 2003 Fact Sheet just might be a bit out of date.
I dropped in to the local shire office and saw the Engineer and he assured me that collecting firewood from the side of the road is a big NO and that the fine is $5,000 (maximum).
Once upon a time people would call into the office and find out where trees had fallen and the council would gladly direct them to where they could get an easy load of wood.
Their man who known the Acts was out but I'll call in tomorrow when I'm in town and find out the details.

Let you in on something, the Greens have been known to swap preferences with the ALP and that has been their best lever for a bit of legislation their way now and again.

Is Mise

*Where I live people have wood heaters and it was common to gather dead wood from the sides of rural roads*

.Ok now this is different. So you don’t want to light the fire at the camping ground- just clearly you used to nick the wood for your home.
Many areas are trying to do away with food fires because of the environment . Its more likely to be your problem.
No it's not a small thing to whinge about and if you can prove it lives of poorer people i would be happy to lobby the councils to have wood supplied to the effected locals.
It is unreasonable the elderly and poor people who once replied upon gathering wood to keep warm now fear a $5000 fine.
We need to look at what’s available from wood delivery services & by using a sensible means test have fire woods either delivered free after councils works or subs put in place.
If what you are saying is true is a dam disgrace . As this forum has no PM service contact me through the web site- below where you will see the email or phone contact.

I would be happy once your claims are supported to assist you to lobby for a fair go.
While i don’t want wildlife and properties destroyed I agree to just change a law that’s been in place forever is unfair.
Although I would assume if you’re in the country many would have their own supply on their acreages.
If elderly and poor are suffering because of a change in law i will be furious & in truth I never thought about it.
I support the greens because their policy is to ban live exports but some of their ideas drive me crazy.
The removed the stock that used to stop fires and keep the weeds out of the creeks.
This of course increases cruel feed lots that the public are forced to pay & well we all saw the results of an over fueled area- several
Just click on contact us-

http://www.halakindmeats.com/

@Is Mise:

I've investigated a bit more and it looks like the collection of firewood from roadsides is now banned or regulated in most States in Australia. As stated in the fact sheet I linked to above, the reason for this is apparently to protect endangered species whose habitat is dependent on dead wood.

Yes, I'm aware that preference swaps occur in exchange for outcomes, but I'd like to see some evidence that this was the case in every state where such regulation has occurred, or even just in NSW.

I'll let you into a little secret: the Greens aren't responsible for all 'green' legislation, or even most of it, despite the efforts of people like you to spread disinformation. In any case, the bans appear to be based on scientific research rather than political machinations and have been put in place for good reasons. While I'm aware that extinctions of native fauna aren't high on many rural people's list of priorities, that's precisely why some 'traditional' activities like firewood collection have to be officially regulated.

But back to the main point - do you have any evidence that firewood collection on roadsides was banned in NSW as part of a deal with the Greens political party, or is it just supposition on your part?

I don't have any direct evidence that the ban on firewood gathering was part of a deal between the then NSW Government and the Greens apart from personal discussions with some Green MPs at the time. They were 'cock-a- hoop' at their success.
My local council kindly gave me a print-out on the subject of wood gathering.

From Crown Lands Regulation 2006 (up-dated 20th July 2010)

"46.Unauthorised activities on public land.

(1). . .

(i) camping.

(l)removing any dead timber, log or stump, whether standing or fallen, except for the purpose of cooking food on the public land."

So it seems that one may light a fire to cook and that such cooking must not be part of camping activities.

The local council doesn't give permission to gather wood under the Act seemingly it is safer for them that way as there seems to be some doubt whether they would be held liable in some way if an accdent happened.

The poorer people in the district as well as the disabled and war widows etc. are looked after by various community groups who get wood from local properties without worrying much about the welfare of any rare and almost extinct beetles that may call the logs home as they're going to be burnt in the next bushfire.