The Greens and the National Party are 1 mining disaster away from an inevitable alliance. (Generally speaking)The Nats and 'others',never missed an opportunity to portray Greenies,in the early days,as lazy tree-hugging dope-smoking good-for-nothing's hippies.This type of rhetoric was a favourite means of attack amongst right wingers and their 'friends' and allies. The Australian Greens were assisted by a long drought and the reality of science to make an immediate impact on educated suburbanites.It's there (more or less)where urban meets rural, that the original battle lines were drawn and the Greens established themselves on the political scene.
However,both political opponents have common ground. Neither want to see the destruction of land,they want to deter salinity,erosion and the ' loss' of fertile land. Both want the preservation and subsistence of land. It's the 'wartime' ally of the Nationals that will force the inevitable split. The Libs crave mining and its revenue,like a foolish ugly school kid who thinks it has found a life long lover .The Libs are devoid of responsible policy - It's mining, or its a lift in GST. The miners are Liberal party donors and the Libs are compelled to bend over to their every whim. The Nats and Libs are old 'friends' but imagine a mining disaster whereby the water table, soil and/or air was contaminated by the practices of the mining industry. Who do you think the Libs will side with if the Nats were ticked off with the mining industry ?. Will their be strong characters within the Party to stand alone or with the Greens against the new 'enemy',someone with integrity and strength of character,not the fluffy idiotic ramblings of Joice and co........ History Awaits !

Whatsit2ya,
You forgot to mention the greatest blood ($) suckers of them all.

Whatsit2ya, In this case we Greens have gone into coalition with the Nationals over the issue of unfettered mining, we are getting huge support from farmers and other country folk on the issue of coal seam gas. Many who one would label conservative in nature are coming to realise that they do have friends like The Greens who will stand up for them when they are threatened by the likes of 'Big Mining'.

Whatsit2ya,

Now there's a thought, and why not? Stranger things have happened in the naked jungle of politics.
It's high time we had broader representation via a strong middle-ground - and a Nats/Greens alliance could be just what we need to achieve that, and to lift ourselves out of the two-horse slanging match and off the bi-polar seesaw.
No more Left/Right, Socialist/Industrialist dichotomy, but a real shake-up to the swinging-vote sector, and potentially a questioning and foundational review of long-held bias and dogged conformity of allegiance to either of the two former major 'oppositional' camps.

Could back-fire for the Nats, however, if support for such an alliance proved insufficient to gain meaningful representation. Also there would need to be some softening of the Greens' stance on some farming-related issues for an alliance of sufficient strength to even be possible.
Still, there is no doubt that 'regional development' needs a stronger voice, as does our commitment to land and marine ecological management, productivity and sustainability, and such an alliance could be our best hope of achieving those and similar objectives.

It's high time we had a fairdinkum shake-up, to encourage more considered and respectful discussion and debate of the very serious issues facing our future advancement in an increasingly competitive and troubled global environment.

"The Greens and the National Party are 1 mining disaster away from an inevitable alliance."

Whatsit2ya you must be one of those delusional Greenies who thinks one swallow makes a summer, and that one over lapping issue leads to an alliance. Having lived in regional Australia for some years, especially in a fire prone area, the greens are as welcome as a dose of the clap. The libs and greens have common interest with respect to the Malaysian solution but I don't see an alliance on the horizon.

As for all the costed policies that Labor is calling for, considering Labor have never released all their policies and costing before the election in opposition, and even in 2010 only released some a few weeks before the election. Even then their costings have been a disaster, with every single program blowing out massively, due to incompetence and mismanagement.

As for the Greens, there is a policy free zone. I have read their documents and what they call "policies", but are a collection of wish lists with no concept of funding or consequences.

SM, like the true blue conservative you are. I'm sure you totally support the short sighted policy of the Mad Monk and his mob, that if its in the ground, then dig it up and ship it out, even if ordinary Australians get twopence a ton and it destroys the environment.
The Liberal mining policy is nothing more than look after Gina and her cronies and bugger the rest of us.

Whatsiehoosit, I am waiting for the day that the Libs, Nats and Labs go into coalition against the Greens!

The Greens being the most environmentally sensible party (although only just!) will see the light and realise that the reduction of immigration to net zero, the stabilisation of our population and the achievement of a sustainable society are actually right at the core of a true green agenda. They’ll start pushing this and they’ll win massive support and become the government.

Then all the conservative antisustainability politico-dinosaurs will see that the only hope they have is to join forces.

Well…. it is as likely a scenario as the Greens and Nats joining forces!

( :>/

You would have to hogtie every one of them & chain each one to their own 5 ton cement block to get the greens any near the middle of anything.

If he were still alive they would be applying for a 476 visa to bring old Khrushchev in as a policy adviser.

Paul,

The mines already work to environmental plans and not only do they pay corporate tax of 30%, but minerals royalties which in total levy more than 40% of their profits, then you add on payroll tax, fuel tax, GST, carbon tax etc and you will find that the states and commonwealth get a fat slice of the mineral wealth.

I guess you follow the policies of Brown eye Bob, Milne etc, that would close these down and bring in zero revenue.

Paul,

If it came down to it, would you ban mining ?

Would you ban manufacuring ? (So much pollution)

Would you ban irrigation for the production of food ? (So harmful to natural wetlands environments)

Would you ban commercial fishing ? (Empty seas, and disruption to the natural food chain)

So, let's see - what would we be living on, without production on the one hand and the revenue from taxes foregone on the other ?

Hmm, tough choices.

Yes, and that, my friend, is called life.

Surely we should be aiming for sustainable mining (which would, by definition, dig into the soil, the 'Earth Mother'), sustainable manufacturing (with some inevitable emissions), and certainly sustainable agriculture, pastoral activies and commercial fishing (otherwise, what do we eat ?)

OF COURSE, we have to set limits, on environmental damage, pollution, emissions, over-fishing, etc. But merely to live on this earth, we - and all species - have inevitable effects on it.

It's an imperfect world, so how do we maximise production and minimise those effects ? What mix of privation and comfort to we choose, what mix can most of us agree on ?

That's called politics, Paul.

Jo