Bookies give election to Abbott

I just has a look at an online betting site (no free ads on my blog!).  Based on their odds Coalition 1.3 Labor 11.50, they seem certain that Tony Abbott will win the election.

Some other seats of interest in Victoria are:

Melbourne Ports: Labor 1.08 Coalition 6.50
Charles Danby retains the seat but the Coalition odds are lowish.

Melbourne: Labor 1.22 Green 3.75
The Greens incumbent Adam Bandt loses to Labor's Cath Bowtell

McEwen: Labor 1.53 Coalition 2.40

Indi: Coalition 1.25 Any other 3.50
Sophie Mirabella is being challenged by independent Cathy McGowan

Deakin: Coalition 1.05 Labor 8.00
A key marginal seat currently held by Labor

Corangamite: Coalition 1.05 Labor 8.00
A key marginal seat currently held by Labor

Batman: Labor 1.001 Any other 11.00
The Greens Alex Bhathal is running in this safe Labor seat.

Time will tell.

SUBMISSION to Car Dooring Bill Inquiry

This is my submission to the Car Dooring Bill Inquiry.

You can find out more about the Car Dooring Bill and make a submission via [this link] courtesy of Greg Barber and the Greens.

=================

Road Safety Amendment (Car Doors) 2012

Dear Mr McDonald,

In this submission "Car dooring" refers to the situation where a motorist opens their car door and a cyclist is forced to take evasive action or collides with the car door.

I am a regular commuting and recreational cyclist.

I have personally witnessed a "car dooring" in Auburn Road Hawthorn as a cyclist was approaching Riversdale Road travelling south. A motorist opened their car door without looking and a cyclist collided with it, just after the section where the on road bicycle lane finishes.

A colleague was also badly injured when his arm was severed by a car window after a car door was opened and he collided with it while riding his bicycle just outside Flinders Street station.

I recommend the following relating to "car dooring" incidents:

1. "Car dooring" should be an offence.

2. Liability for car dooring incidents should be assumed for the motorist opening the car door.

3. An on the spot fine of $500.00 should be levied, increased to $2000.00 if the cyclist is injured

4. Mandatory reporting for all car dooring incidents should be brought in

5. Police should not have discretion to not charge motorists for car dooring offences

6. Bicycle lanes should not be implemented within the range that car doors can reach when opened. Safe bicycle lanes should commence outside the range of car doors, or preferably, bicycle routes should be physically separated from other vehicle traffic such as cars, trucks and buses.

7. A car dooring incident should attract at least 6 demerit points for the licence holder.

The Victorian Government has a duty of care for the people of Victoria. It is important that strong measures be taken to reduce the incidence of "car dooring" by increasing penalties, more driver education about avoiding "car dooring" and by provision of bicycle routes and paths physically separated from other vehicle traffic.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Campbell
(home address supplied)

Greens senate preselection for the next federal election in Australia

The Victorian Greens are preselecting the person who will lead their lead Senate candidate for the next Australian Federal election, that likely to be held in 2013.

It interesting that only about 30% of Greens party members actually get around to voting (via postal ballot that have just been sent to members) in this type of preselection.

If you are reading this and you are a Victorian Greens member, I encourage you to vote!

I am supporting Brian Walters as I believe he has the experience, knowledge and personal attributes to be an excellent Senator for the Greens and the people of Victoria.  He has an excellent understanding of greens policies and the challenges, opportunities and issues for Victoria.   Brian also has considerable experience with environmental campaigns dating back to the flooding of Lake Pedder in Tasmania.

Brian is a founding member of the Greens in Victoria and has made a huge contribution on important issues both in Victoria and nationally, including protection of native forests, providing legal support for environmental protesters over the years and humane treatment of asylum seekers.

Brian also has good recent campaign experience from when he contested the state seat of Melbourne in the 2010 Victorian State election and was unlucky not to win it.

You can view more information about Brian, including some recent videos, on his blog here.

Here is the strong field of people seeking pre-selection that reflects how far the Greens have come in recent years.  There is good mix of people here who have been involved in previous election, party administration and issues-based campaigns.

Tony Kelly
http://tonykellywrites.wordpress.com/

Brian Walters
http://brianwaltersmelbourne.blogspot.com.au/

Jenny O'Connor
Website TBA

Cyndi Dawes
http://cyndidawesforthesenate.wordpress.com/

Josh Fergeus
http://www.joshfergeus.com/default.html

Alex Bhathal
http://alexbhathal.com/

David Collis
http://davidcollis.org/

Janet Rice
http://www.janetrice.com.au/

Kathleen Maltzahn
http://www.kathleenmaltzahn.com/

Trent McCarthy
http://www.riverriver.com/trent/

David Risstrom
http://davidrisstrom.org/

Sue Plowright
http://sueplowright.net/

Australia's carbon price arrives

Today, the Australian Senate voted on and passed the suite of Clean Energy Bills that have been a long time coming, and are primarily the work of the Multiparty Climate Change Committee.


This is wonderful news.  It is a shame it has taken so long for us to finally price pollution and provide leadership and and incentives for a clean energy future.

Well done Julia Gillard, The Labor Government, the MPCCC, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott, all the Greens in the senate - particularly Christine Milne and Bob Brown and their advisors - and Adam Bandt in the House of Representatives.

Hard work by all concerned, and a proud and momentous day for Australia.

It was interesting that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott chose to be absent from Australia on this day, despite his vocal and trenchant opposition to pricing pollution.  It was also interesting that Malcolm Turnbull chose to vote against the legislation in the House of Representatives, despite his support of emissions trading and putting a price on carbon.

What our parliamentarians say doesn't matter nearly as much as how they vote.

Links

• Carbon tax passes Senate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
• Finally, carbon tax becomes law - The Age 
• And It Passed! Australia Sets A Price On Pollution - Newmatilda

Why did Julia Gillard rule out a carbon tax last year?

During the "cut and thrust" of a close Australian federal election campaign in 2010, Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister said something remarkable.

The election was characterised by the usual claims and counter claims about a variety of the "usual issues" such as health, education, the economy, taxation and budget deficits.  There was also contention about some tentative Government policies designed to help us move to a low-carbon future such as the poorly implemented and managed home insulation scheme, green loans and solar panel rebates.

Climate change was the elephant in the room.  The Labor government's previous attempt to push through an Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS) had failed for two main reasons:

• The Liberals broke their bipartisan support for it when Tony Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader.  Abbott's basic position was a mixture of denial that climate is happening and obscure objections to the proposed market-based mechanism for limiting carbon pollution.
• The Greens and other independents did not support the CPRS because they judged it was far to generous to the big polluters and would not have been effective in reducing carbon pollution.

Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister at the time, lost his nerve and didn't call a double dissolution election on this issue.  Instead he back-flipped and delayed the introduction of the CPRS, an action that he had strongly criticised the Liberals for during the 2007 Federal election campaign.  The so-called "gang of four" - Julia Gillard (Deputy PM), Wayne Swan (Treasurer) and Linsday Tanner (Finance) along with Kevin Rudd collectively agreed to go soft on climate change.

Julia Gillard then rolled Kevin Rudd and became the prime minister in the run up to the election.  She was supported by some strong factional players, including Paul Howes (secretary of the Australian Workers Union), who has subsequently stated that "climate change policy must not cost a single worker's job".

Back to the question.  Tony Abbot was running (and still is) an effective misinformation campaign about climate change and carbon pricing that Labor party campaign people felt was getting significant traction with voters.  He was claiming that the CPRS was a "great big new tax" and that Labor would bring in a carbon tax.

With the failure of the CPRS (ETS), a carbon tax was the only quick and effective means of pricing carbon pollution left.  It was worthy of immediate consideration.  However, Julia Gillard specifically ruled it out in the closing weeks of the election campaign by stating "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead".  

I thought at the time that this was an ill-considered statement designed to take the wind out of Tony Abbott's sails.  In short, political considerations during the election campaign ruled out a viable policy option that had been suggested and endorsed by Professor Ross Garnaut, the government's own advisor on climate change policy.

Fast forward to 2011.  To form a minority government, Julia Gillard had to gain the support of the Greens and two out of the three lower house independents.  Part of the deal was formation of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.  The Liberals and Nationals, still stuck in a degree of climate change denial,  "spat the dummy" and refused to participate.  The others on the committee, a mix of Labor, Greens and independent MPs, resolved during 2011 that a carbon tax was indeed a valid and effective mechanism for pricing carbon.

Julia Gillard is now been constantly and relentlessly criticised by the Liberal National coalition for breaking her promise about never introducing a carbon tax.   Yes, she made a stupid promise.  However, a price on carbon is one essential measure for reducing carbon emissions.  But it is only one of many needed.  

It is also subject to the same corruptive influence that fatally compromised the CPRS - industry groups lobbying for special consideration, financial assistance and low carbon tax price - which of course means they just keep polluting.  The fact that many large industry players are opposing the carbon tax is a good thing.  We need to curb excessive profits reaped from carbon pollution and transition to a lower carbon economy.

The proposed carbon pricing mechanism is not even actually a tax.  It is set price on carbon that is likely to only apply to the top 100 listed companies in Australia, which could face an annual carbon cost of $3.3 billion if the government imposes a $25 per tonne price on carbon.

Low income households are already suffering from large increases in their energy bills without a carbon price.  Part of the proceeds of the carbon price will be directed to compensating them for their energy costs so they will end up better off when the carbon price is in place.

Along the journey to carbon price, presumably in response to some agitation by industry and some right-wing unions such as the AWU, Julia Gillard also decided to criticise the Greens at the Gough Whitlam oration in April 2011 with the following statements: 

"The Greens wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy. The Greens have some worthy ideas and many of their supporters sincerely want a better politics in our country. 

"They have good intentions but fail to understand the centrepiece of our big picture - the people Labor strives to represent need work.

"And the Greens will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation."

This is just more nasty, spiteful and divisive poll-driven politics. It demonstrates a basic failure of leadership by Julia Gillard and alienates a lot of people who voted for Labor either directly or via their preferences with the expectation they would deliver real action on climate change. 

The right wing media in Australia - most notable the Murdoch press including the Australian and the Herald Sun - jumped on these comments and have embarked on their own campaign to attack the Greens, Labor and any sort of price on carbon.  They are clearly in the thrall of large polluting industries who don't want to change, and are aligned with and supporting the Tony Abbott-lead conservative opposition in this regards.  This is not news - it is ill-informed opinion, and a public relations smear campaign.

A carbon price in excess of $50 per tonne is required to shift investment decisions towards renewable energy rather than natural gas.  A lower carbon price will result in a massive investment shift from coal-fired power to gas-fired power.  Unfortunately, while gas is more efficient than coal as an energy source, it will still produce huge quantities of carbon emissions.  I predict that the Gillard Government will announce a carbon price of $15 per tonne, which would be an abject failure.

So in summary, the broad policy measures we need to tackle climate change include:

• A carbon price on pollution in the range of $50 to $100 per tonne. 
• 7 star national building energy ratings.  Our current state standards are lame and a dog's breakfast.
• Mandatory energy efficiency standards for appliances in line with european standards
• A national feed-in tariff  to boost investment in large scale 100% renewable energy such as wind and concentrated solar
• Standard distributed local solar energy production plants of remote communities - possible based on the CSIRO parabolic solar dish system
• Major investment in low-carbon public transport systems in both city and rural areas.  This should be mostly rail systems powered by electricity
• Local low-carbon water storage and conservation measures such as rainwater tanks and urban storm water collection to avoid the construction and use of massive energy guzzling desalination plants.
• Protect Australia's remaining old growth forests to keep the carbon they store safe, and allow logged forests to regrow and sequester more carbon.  Shift all timber production to plantations.

Unfortunately, or political system and leaders seem to be mired is a sideshow prize fight about only one issue - a price on carbon.  

Gillard is bad, but Abbott is worse.  His plan to hand about billions of our money (yours and mine) to large corporates without any tangible or effective carbon emissions resulting is a complete sham.

Both Gillard and Abbott really need to lift their game.

Links

• Multi-Party Climate Change Committee - Think Change
• Carbon tax promise has Julia Gillard choking on her words | Herald Sun
• Carbon price compensation: businesses not like households | Crikey
• Gillard plans FY13 carbon price | News | Business Spectator
• Prime Minister Julia Gillard tells Gough Whitlam Oration Labor will never partner with Greens, news.com.au : 
• Bob Brown warns Julia Gillard's attacks on Greens are 'divisive' | Herald Sun 

Liberal, Nationals and Labor converge to shut out Greens

When political parties lodge their "group voting tickets" with the Electoral Commission, their distribution of preferences reveals deals that have been done between them.  These "group voting tickets" number all candidates in order and determine the order of voter's preferences for those who vote "above  the line" by putting a "1" in a single party's box.

Looking at the "group voting tickets" lodged for the 2010 Victorian State election, the following preference deals are evident:

Labor and the Country Alliance
Labor has a directed preferences to the Country Alliance in Northern Victoria and Eastern Victoria regions - which could result in a right wing candidates getting elected who would oppose new National Parks, support native forest logging and support duck shooting and hunting.

Labor and the Sex Party
Labor has directed preferences to the Sex Party in Northern Metropolitian ahead of the Greens.  This is likely to have no effect as the Greens are most likely to win a seat on first preferences.  In exchange, the Sex Party is directing lower house preferences in some seats such as Melbourne to Labor ahead of the Greens.

Liberals and the Sex Party
A deal has been done between the Sex Party and the Liberals, making them strange bedfellows. The Liberals have given the Sex Party second preferences in Northern Metropolitan. The Sex Party give immediate preferences to the Greens in South Metropolitan, but as the Greens are likely to have a full quota, the next preference to be effective is to the Liberals ahead of Labor, defeating Labor's Jennifer Huppert and electing Liberal Georgie Crozier (source: Antony Green).

The Sex Party may have even put the Greens last everywhere. The are looking like "the porn and pimps party" run by the big money of the adult industry and are supporting Labor.

Labor and the Greens
Labor has directed second preferences to the Greens in five of the eight upper house seats.  In exchange, the Greens have directed preferences to Labor in 11 of Labor's 13 most marginal seats (Mount Waverley 0.3%, Gembrook 0.7%, Forest Hill 0.8%, Mitcham 2.0%, South Barwon 2.3%, Frankston 3.2%, Mordialloc 3.5%, Prahran 3.6%, Burwood 3.7%, Ripon 4.3%, Bendigo East 5.4%, Bentleigh 6.3%, Ballarat West 6.5%)

Labor has also directed preferences to the Greens in 79 of 88 lower house seats, but this is of no real benefit to the Greens as the only seats where they are likely to get elected are direct contests between Labor and the Greens, which means Labor preferences will not be distributed.

The Greens appear to have withdrawn preferences in two of the 13 (possibly Gembrook and one other) in retaliation for Labor directing preferences to the Country Alliance in the upper house.  The Greens have stated that they did not direct preferences to Labor in lower house seats in regions where Labor preferenced the County Alliance.

Liberals and the Greens - no deal
The Liberals announced their decision to put the Greens last in all lower house seats across the state. This breaks with their practice in past elections of putting the Greens ahead of Labor on their how to vote cards.

There appears to be four possible reasons for this.  The first reason is that the Greens were apparently not offering the Liberals anything they wanted - such as more open tickets (no preference direction) in key Labor marginal seats.

The second reason appears to be ideology. John Howard stated that the Coalition had nothing to gain by helping the Greens take seats from Labor. This was due to perceptions that the Greens would always support Labor and their agenda was more extreme. "I think my side of politics has got to be very careful about giving preferences to the Greens. In my view the Greens are worse than Labor". "The Greens are fundamentally anti free enterprise. They have terrible  foreign policy attitudes and they have a lot of social policy attitudes that a lot of Labor people would find abhorrent."  Senator Helen Kroger expressed similar views.

It is interesting to note however that both Howard and Kroger participated in previous decisions to preference the Greens ahead of Labor.

However, there was a split within the Liberal party on this.  Ex-Treasurer Peter Costello stated that it made good political sense for the Coalition to direction preferences to the Greens in the four inner city seats of Melbourne, Richmond, Northcote and Brunswick as Labor losing these seats would make it easier for the Coalition to win government, and because Labor would be directed campaign resources on two fronts - the inner city contest with the Greens and the other Labor marginals mostly in the outer Eastern Suburbs.

Ex Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett weighed in with an attack on Helen Kroger, stating the Liberals should direct preferences to Labor in the inner city seats, but then later backed Ted Baillieu's decision not to.

Premier John Brumby also made an extraordinary direct appeal when he begged for Liberal voters preferences for Labor ahead of the Greens, stating that Liberal voters should realise a Labor government would be better placed to tackle the big policy challenges than a minority government with the Greens holding the balance of power. ''For the Liberal Party to de facto elect Greens members of parliament is quite anathema to the Liberal Party,'' Brumby said.

The third reason is that it seems there were perceptions within the Liberals that the Greens would not form a minority government with them in the event of a hung parliament, which would have been likely if the Greens won four inner city seats.   The Liberals were possibly thinking "if we have got nothing, we have got nothing to lose", or they may prefer staying in opposition to the prospect of entering a minority government with the Greens.

The fourth reason, probably the most likely, is that Labor got onto its big business mates and used them to persuade the Liberals to put Labor ahead of the Greens.

So the Liberals announced their decision to direct preferences to Labor in the four inner city seats, and attempted to claim the high moral ground by claiming "voters now have a clear choice" and that "a Labor majority government is better than a Greens-Labor minority government.  Brian Walters, the Greens candidate for Melbourne stated that in doing so, "The Liberals and Labor seem to have formed a grand conservative coalition to shut out the Greens".

Mandatory preferences are not good for democracy
The electoral requirement for parties and candidates to specify "preference flows" for Upper House voting in Victoria (and the Australian Senate) opens up the playing field for parties and candidates to do all manor of "preference deals", which sometimes results in candidates being elected from a tiny percentage of the vote as Stephen Fielding (Family First) and Peter Kavanagh (DLP) were from Labor preference deals.

This is anti-democratic as voters are not involved in or even aware of such deals, yet their votes go where the party apparatchiks have decided.

A solution is to give voters the right to decide NOT to distribute the any or all of their preferences.  For above the line voting this would mean that a "1 Liberal" vote would go only to the Liberal candidates and not "flow on" to others.  For voters who do wish to allocate their preferences they could go 1, 2, 3, 4 etc above the line, or number any desired squares below the line in sequence - stopping when they want to.

In the lower house, how-to-vote cards favour political parties who have the resources to (people and/or money) to have them printed and handed out.  This provides a heavy bias against any independent candidates who don't have the resources to do this.

A solution would be ban handing out of how to vote cards, and provide fixed printed versions in every polling booth.   This would have the added benefit of eliminating the massive waste of paper from the hundreds of thousands how-to-vote cards printed and mostly discarded.

In conclusion
The Liberal-National coaltion's decision to direct preferences to Labor has certainly have impacted the Greens chances in all four inner city seats, but a lot still depends on the voters, many of whom may not follow their party's how to vote cards and choose where their preference goes.

If Liberal voters in these seats follow the Liberal how to vote card, then a vote for the Liberals will be a vote for Labor. 

If you live in the seat of Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick or Northcote (or any other seat for that matter) you would do well to allocate your own preferences and not follow any how to vote card.

It is also possible that  Labor preferences may elect the Country Alliance to the Upper House, and that they may hold the balance of power in the upper house.  Yet another right wing group could hold the government to ransom.

Links
Note that some of the articles below would have been written by party apparatchiks and fed to the media, and may bear no semblance to the truth!

• Antony Green's Election Blog: Legislative Council Preference Tickets 
• Kennett Attacks Kroger Over Green Preferences | AustralianPolitics.com : 
• John Howard urgers Liberals not to give preferences to Greens : 
• Liberals In Conflict Over Preference Deals :
• Preferencing Greens may be Libs' best option | The Australian : 
• Victorian Liberals Put Greens Last On How To Vote Cards The Age
• How-to-vote cards awaken the rebel in inner-city voter The Age 
• Coalition Puts Greens Last | Greens On The Outer : The Age
• Deal founders on Greens' arrogance | The Australian : 
• Greens cling to lower house hopes :
• Of course the Liberals prefer the right-wing Labor party to the progressive Greens | An Onymous Lefty : 
• Greens still positive despite preference deals - iPRIME Albury : 
• Antony Green's Election Blog: Implications of the Liberals putting the Greens last in the Lower House : 
• Preference snub renders Greens 'a lost cause' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) : 
• Labor’s Greens obsession on show over preference deals | Crikey : 
• Liberals split on Greens preference snub | The Australian : 
• Lateline - 15/11/2010: Greens lose Coalition preferences : 

An opportunity for a new form of government

The 2010 Australian Federal election results are not yet finalised, but it appears that no party has enough seats (76) to form government on its own.  This situation has not occurred in Australia since 1940.

The Greens have won their first ever lower house seat at a general election (Adam Bandt in Melbourne).

The three previous (incumbent) independents have been returned to office.  These are:

• Tony Windsor, New England (rural NSW)
• Bob Katter, Kennedy (rural QLD)
• Rob Oakeshott, Lyne (rural NSW)

In addition, it is quite likely that Andrew Wilkie may win the seat of Denison in Tasmania as an independent.

Negotiations are in progress between the three confirmed independents and both the Labor party and the Coalition as to how a minority government might be formed.

I think this is a good outcome for democracy.  All those elected (all parties and independents) have been selected via the current electoral process by the people of Australia.  It is incumbent on them to form a stable and effective government.

These three confirmed independents have stated that a new form of government will be required to provide the stability required, and that traditional party politics should be shelved to make this happen.  I agree.

If either major party forms government in their own right they tend to run their own agenda along their party line rather than respecting the best interests and wishes of the Australian people.  They are basically accountable to nobody until the next election.

We saw this with the Rudd Labor government ignoring the recommendations of the extensive Garnaut Review of Climate Change and concocting a fatally compromised Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS), that was initially supported by the Coalition opposition, then opposed.  It failed because it was no good.

The Henry Tax Review finished early in 2010 was eventually released by the Rudd Labor government, who then chose to implement only 2 of the 137 recommendations (the mining tax being one of them) in the midst of an election campaign for political reasons.

Rob Oakeshott made the point on the 7:30 Report (special election edition 22/8) that a lot of time, money and effort has gone into these and other similar reports, which could be considered by the next government with more care and attention than the previous one.   In short, the next government should use this type of information to formulate policies for the future covering energy, carbon pollution, taxation and water utilisation and conservation, rather than just playing short term political games about these important issues.

It seems that the old political parties have become part of the problem contributing to lack of action on climate change and inadequate planning and investment in infrastructure for the 21st century.  They are stuck in old paradigms of winning, losing, being "in government" or "in opposition".

Why should 51% of our elected representatives be given the right to "govern" in an autocratic manner with the other 49% consigned to "opposition" where they spend most of their efforts whining, criticising, attacking and just opposing for the sake of it?

If Malcolm Turnbull would be a better treasurer than Wayne Swan, why shouldn't he get the job?   Our current political system totally precludes this (for this example with a Labor Government in office).

The Labor, Liberal and National parties are out of touch and out of date.  The Greens need to be very careful they don't end up in the same state.

Tony Abbott seems to think he has won the election and Labor has lost, apparently oblivious to the reality that the Australian people have given him no mandate to govern.

Julia Gillard seems to be adopting a better negotiation approach to possibly forming a minority government with the support of the independents and the single Greens lower house member.

I think we need a form of government where all 150 lower house MPs are accountable for delivering stability, innovation, good management of the executive arm of government and planning for a prosperous and sustainable future.  Bring it on please.

External links

• Parties tussle to form government, The Age
• Greens hedge their bets, The Age
• Labor leads race for minority government, The Age
• Hung parliament looms, as voters punish Gillard, The Age
• We deserve to lead, says Abbott, Heraldsun
• Politics abhors a vacuum, ABC

11th hour hatchet job on the Greens on Lateline

The Leigh Sales interview with Michael Kroger and Paul Howes on 20/8/2010 lacked balance in one very serious aspect.  

We heard the Labor point of view (Howes) and the Coalition's (Kroger), but both of them attacked the Greens about them potentially holding the balance of power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

We did not get to hear the Greens point of view on this.  Such unbalanced coverage is likely to impact the Greens vote  during this election, particularly among those voters who have not yet made up their mind (up to 1 in 10 apparently).

A spokesperson from the Greens should have been represented in this discussion for fairness and balance. This segment was not accurate, impartial or objective in its coverage of the Greens.

I wish to lodge this as a formal complaint.

=============

You can leave your own feedback about this here.

Wong plays more politics with climate change - all talk and no action

The Labor party is back in election mode and restarting their campaign after the campaign started by Kevin Rudd turned to custard.  Having deposed Rudd as Prime Minister and shut him out of the new Cabinet, Julia Gillard has rewarded those loyal to her by keeping them in their ministries - despite quite obvious failures for a few of them to deliver.

Penny Wong for example failed to deliver an emissions trading scheme.  The accountability for the failed CPRS was hers, not Kevin Rudd's.  Instead of architecting an ETS based on science and evidence based reduction targets, Wong set about "negotiating" with the fossil fuel industries and running a political wedge within the Coalition ranks.  At no time in this process did she (or anybody else from Labor) negotiate with the Greens, who publicly committed to a science-based emission reduction target of 40% by 2020.

Wong "browned down" Labor's CPRS by gifting billions of free carbon emission permits to polluters and even doling out free cash payments to coal-fired power stations out of the public purse.  Then she negotiated with the Coalition and further "browned it down" so that if implemented, Australia would have achieved no emission reductions by 2020 and bought dodgy "offsets" from overseas.

Then the skillfully crafted wedge against the Liberals failed - Turnbull was ousted, and the new opposition leader sidestepped the trap set and opposed the CPRS - as it turns out for the wrong reasons, but for the right outcome.

Penny Wong had no "plan B" despite an offer from the Greens to negotiate on an interim carbon tax as described the Government's own advisor on climate change and economics - Professor Ross Garnaut.  Kevin Rudd then took the rap for the CPRS failure and said he would do nothing until 2013.  This was the beginning of the end of his time as Prime Minister of Australia, even though it was Penny Wong's failure.

I waited keenly for Julia Gillard, as the new Prime Minister, to say what she was going to do on climate change.  She acknowledged that action is required and that climate change is serious, but said that "we need to reach consensus on a price on carbon within the Australian community".  This is code for doing nothing.  

There will be no consensus when the fossil fuel industries spends hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda and funding climate denialist groups, as we saw happening in the lead up to and during the recent failed Copenhagen Accord.  So Gillard stands for yet more talk and no real action.

Has Penny Wong learnt from her recent dismal failure with the CPRS?  Apparently not.  She is attending a 

Climate Adaptation Futures Conference at the Gold Coast along with over 100 climate scientists from around the world.  They are talking about how to adapt to climate change, not whether it is happening or not - which is now regarded as a given by climate scientists.  Unfortunately, this is cure rather prevention.  

Penny Wong told the Conference that:

"it was important to remember that science was at the heart of understanding climate change"

So how does she explain ignoring recent climate science and setting only a 5% reduction target under the CPRS?

"For too long those who deny climate change is real have muddied the debate, for too long they have hijacked this issue to pursue their own agenda."

I agree with her on this - but is Penny Wong who has hijacked the issue for petty political reasons.

"The reason we don't have a price on carbon is Tony Abbott tore down a leader (Malcolm Turnbull) and installed himself on the basis that he doesn't believe climate change is real, and the Australian Greens voted with Mr Abbott."

Some classic blame shifting here Penny.  As previously noted, she did not negotiate with Greens on the ETS at all, or after it failed!

"Julia Gillard has made clear her commitment to this issue, and her views about the need for a price on carbon" 

Penny Wong and Julia Gillard can achieve this tomorrow by negotiating with the Greens senators and getting two Liberal Senators to cross the floor.

It is time for Penny Wong to stop playing politics and to stop making excuses for doing nothing.  We need a carbon tax and we need it now.  Get on with it.

Greens win Fremantle polling over 44% for a new paradigm

Today, Adele Carles, the Greens candidate for the Fremantle byelection, won the seat. This is an event that represents a turning point in Australian politics.

It is the first time a Greens candidate has polled over 44% of the primary vote. The previous record was 38.96% in the 2005 Marrickville by-election.

It is only the second time that that the Greens have come first on primary votes, the first being when the Greens outpolled Labor's primary vote in the NSW state district of Vaucluse in the 2007 election.

Adele Carles defeated the Labor candidate, who polled around 38% of the primary vote. The Liberals did not field a candidate.

This represents a paradigm shift in Australia's political landscape. With both major parties found wanting on critical issues such as climate change and water policy, the Greens platform of reshaping Australia to a sustainable and climate friendly economy has been endorsed by a clear majority of Fremantle voters.

If this is replicated across several other House of Representatives seats in the upcoming 2010 federal election as appears likely, the Greens could well hold the balance of power and enter into a coalition government with one of the major parties.

This would mean pathetic policy such as Labor's 5% emission reduction commitment would be "greened up" to within the 25% to 40% range scientists say we need.

And the 3+ billion gifted to the polluting coal industry by Kevin Rudd would instead be redirected to zero emissions clean energy alternatives.

There is now considerable hope Australia can seriously address the climate emergency that we are confronted with, and contribute to an effective global agreement on reducing emissions and tackling climate change.

Exernal links

• 2009 Fremantle By-election - ABC Elections (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Post script
This is the second time the greens have won a single-member lower house seat in Australia - the first time being when Michael Organ won the federal House of Representatives seat of Cunningham in a 2002 by-election, when the Liberals also did not field a candidate. On that occasion, Organ received 23% of the primary vote and was elected by the preferences of other candidates (as was Adele).

My speech at the senate candidates event at North Melbourne

I attend another of the series of the "meet the senate candidates" events being held across Victoria for the preselection of the Greens lead senate candidate for the 2010 federal election.

This time, we were given a hypothetical scenarios where, as Senator for Victoria, there were four options to attend events.

These were:

1. The first action of the Swan Hill Climate Action Group
2. The Melbourne Writers Festival, discussing the Parallel Importing legislation removal
3. The inaugural conference of Democracy Watch in Sydney, discussing election campaign funding and transparency
4. Voting in the Senate on a the acquisition of 5 extra jets, following a special extra sitting day to discuss this issue.

I chose option 2 due to the large audience of around 500 people, and the opportunity to reach an audience that shares our values but due to their age and background are statistically less likely to vote for us.

You can read the speech I wrote - as the "Greens Senator for Victoria" at this hypothetical future meeting, here.

Rudd's CPRS won't solve climate change

Kevin Rudd's flawed emissions trading scheme with its very weak 5% reduction target and ridiculous 15% upper limit is unlikely to be passed by the Senate. I disagree with Michelle Grattan's conclusion (Age 1/5) that the CPRS in its current form is better than nothing.

The CPRS, in addition to grossly inadequate targets, also gifts billions to the worst polluters. In doing so, it removes incentives for the worst polluting industries to clean up their act. It is also way behind the recommendations of scientists and the Bali convention where emission reduction ranges of 25% to 40% were flagged.

Australia would be laggard at Copenhagen with the CPRS, not a leader. Hopefully all parties in the Australian Parliament will agree on effective measures to reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change that the Australian people are demanding. We need to reframe politics from being part of the problem to being part of the solution.

Seeking preselection as the Greens Lead Senate Candidate for the 2010 federal election

This is my supporting statement as a candidate for preselection as the Greens Lead Senate Candidate for the 2010 Federal election.


I am asking you to support me as the Greens lead senate candidate for the next federal election because I believe that I have the skills, experience and knowledge to campaign well and to be a very strong Greens Senator for Victoria.

I believe this is crucial time in history. We are in a climate emergency, experiencing peak oil, and the global financial system crisis is causing much distress throughout our society and across the globe. I have the skills and experience to articulate these challenges and work collaboratively within both the Greens and the community to develop effective solutions that the Australian public is looking for.

We need to leave behind the petty partisan politics of the old parties and forge a new engagement with the Australian people to revitalise democracy and proactively transition our country to a sustainable future.

I will proactively support and promote Greens policies and values for peace, democracy, care for the environment and social justice. I believe these are vitally important for our shared sustainable future and for social cohesion.

I have developed a prominent profile in the community on green issues and advocacy, including water conservation, energy policy, climate change, forest protection, public transport and conservation of our natural environment. I have been a regular participant on talkback radio, and have had several letters to the editor published in local, state and national newspapers.

I have been a strong advocate for improved and safer recreational and commuter cycling through my membership and activities with the Boroondara Bicycle User Group.

I have worked extensively with a local climate change action groups and networks. Most recently, I attended the inspiring Climate Change Summit and Day of Action in Canberra and the Australian Climate and Forest Alliance conference preceding it. I am also mindful that policy measures and legislation to address climate change must be carefully designed to avoid disproportionate and unjust impacts on low income households.

I am a self employed independent IT consultant currently working in the energy industry. My work includes providing consulting, management and IT advice on climate change and emissions trading.

I initiated the Greenlivingpedia.org project in 2007 to provide information, campaign resources and collaboration on green living, green building and green community action in Australia and globally. I am very keen to promote the wider use of information technologies such as wikis, blogs and social networking within the Greens and government to strengthen our democracy and increase grass roots participation.

Our sustainable house renovation, featured on Greenlivingpedia, has been open on several occasions to promote sustainable design, building and energy practices within the community. We have established a permaculture garden as our most recent project.

Many people hoped that the new Federal government would embrace real action on climate change, repeal Work Choices and reverse the racist Northern Territory Intervention inflicted on indigenous Australians. On these issues and others we have been disappointed. It seems the two old parties occupy different sides of the same coin.

The Greens provide a new paradigm and a new politics. We must break the shackles that industry lobby groups have on government. Through power sharing arrangements in the Senate, I and the other Green senators would hold the government of the day to account, as Bob Brown, Rachel Siewert, Christine Milne, Scott Ludlum and Sarah Hanson-Young have been doing so well.

In the longer term, we need to aim to form Australia’s first Green government. This means we need to win lower house seats in addition to electing Senators. A well planned and executed campaign will do both.

I have a thorough knowledge of and commitment to the Australian Greens’ Charter, policies and processes. Running as the Greens candidate for Kooyong in 2001, 2004 and 2007 has provided me with experience and confidence in campaigning, initiating and participating in debates on both local and national issues such as climate change, social policy, energy policy and environmental issues. Our vote increased in each of these elections.

I have also run as a Greens candidate for State Government in two elections. Running for the old upper house seat of East Yarra in 2002, where I achieved 15% vote, provided me with experience similar to a Senate campaign. Our Green Team in this campaign achieved record results in the lower house seats of Hawthorn, Box Hill, Kew and Burwood.

Over these campaigns I have developed the ability to speak in pubic and articulate Greens policies on topics ranging from the Iraq War, to climate change and providing more local kindergarten places for our children.

I have been a Greens member for over 10 years, during which I have gained extensive experience in party processes and mechanisms as a Victorian State Councillor, a member of Eastern Suburbs Regional Council and the local Boroondara and Whitehorse branches and a member and convenor of the Victorian Election Campaign Committee.

I have actively participated in policy development as a long term member of the Forest Working Group. I led the preparation of our revised forest policy statement during the 2006 Victorian State election., during which I ran as the Greens candidate for Box Hill.

I have represented Victoria at national level at the 2005 and 2008 Greens National Conferences as part of our delegate teams, and worked intensively on the National Election Campaign Committee during the 2004 Federal election.

I have developed time management and negotiation skills and good interpersonal skills through both my experience with the Greens, my professional employment, and my work with several volunteer and community groups.

I have a passion for the outdoors, including bushwalking, cross country skiing, volunteer Search and Rescue for over 25 years, recreational and racing cycling, kitesurfing and revegetating our local South Surrey Park with indigenous plant species.

In summary, I believe I will provide leadership on the issues that really matter for the future of Victoria, Australia and the planet. We now have an urgent imperative for this.

I seek your support to be the lead senate candidate for the Greens in Victoria, and after the election, to hopefully be Victoria’s first Greens Senator.

Preselection timeline
9/4/09 Nominations closed
23/4/09 Candidates finalised and declared
24/4/09 Ballot packs posted to Australian Greens Victoria members
22/5/09 Ballots returned to Returning Office, care of State Office
25/5/09 Preselection Result announced to party members

See also

• Peter Campbell for the Senate - more details on my nomination

Senate inquiry into Commonwealth funding for public transport

I attended a public hearing today in Melbourne (Monday 30/3/09) of the "Inquiry into the investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services"

Senate inquiry public hearing in Melbourne on Monday 30/3/09

This first ever national inquiry into public transport was initiated by Greens for WA Senator Scott Ludlum and is being conducted by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Senate Committee.

The inquiry is covering:

• Assessment of direct federal government funding for public transport infrastructure
• Assessment of the benefits of public passenger transport, including integration with bicycle and pedestrian initiatives
• Lack of useful public transport for many people in middle and outer areas of Melbourne and Victorian towns.
• An audit of of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services
• Measures by which the Commonwealth Government could facilitate improvement in public passenger transport services and infrastructure
• The role of Commonwealth Government legislation, taxation, subsidies, policies and other mechanisms that either discourage or encourage public passenger transport (including perverse FBT incentives for people to drive their 'business" cars more).
  
• Best practice international examples of public passenger transport services and infrastructure.

As Melbourne's population grows and the challenges of climate change and oil scarcity become more pressing, it's clear that the city will be disadvantaged without a massive injection of funding into mass public transit now. The chaos commuters experienced during the heatwaves early this year, may only be the tip of the iceberg.

I listened to the Victorian Government submission today and was surprised to hear that they think the two mega rail projects in the Victorian Transport Plan (the $4b Regional Rail Link for a new track from West Werribee to Southern Cross Station and the $4.5 billion Melbourne Metro – a new rail tunnel between the city’s west and east) are the highest priority public transport projects. They also claimed that long promised by never delivered rail lines to Donvale and Rowville could not be built due to "lack of core capacity" with the current rail network. I certainly do not believe they have presented sufficient evidence to justify these claims.

Taking public transport is a critical climate-friendly means of travel and reduces our reliance on the cars that are choking Melbourne. But you cannot user it if is not there.

I spoke with Senator Ludlum after the hearing; he informed me that submissions can still be made to this inquiry - at least up until this Friday (3/4/09).

If you have time, please write a submission about the need for federal funding for improved public transport, and for better integration with bicycle and pedestrian initiatives.

The Committee prefers to receive submissions electronically as an attached document - email: rrat.sen@aph.gov.au

External links

• Senate Inquiry details, including terms of reference
• Cars beating public transport to tax breaks | theage.com.au
  
  

Howard greenwashes climate change with weak carbon emissions scheme

Howard's proposed carbon emissions trading is just a greenwash that won't address climate change. It is too little and too late.

Emissions trading in Europe (where they have been doing it for years) has not benefited the development of renewable energy.

With no (or soft) targets/limits, there won't be any reduction in carbon emissions. At least $35 per tonne for carbon is required before wind can compete on a level field with coal. $50 per tonne is required to make carbon capture/sequestration competitive due to its very high development cost (and don't forget the risk that it may not actually be economically feasible).

Permits must be auctioned, not given away to polluters. Otherwise the highest emitters such as coal fired power stations get a free concession to pollute, and the value of the permits is devalued.

Permits must be temporary licences, not property rights, otherwise owners will claim compensation from taxpayers when they lose them if we actually do succeed in cutting emissions.

Howard has quite obviously been forced by public opinion to reluctantly do something to look like he is addressing climate change. Unsurprisingly, he has failed to address the root cause - which is the burning of fossil fuels.

Malcolm Turnbull has just stated that "the long term direction is for zero emission energy", but the Howard government is light years away from this and is giving $500m to the coal industry.

Here is the roadmap they are studiously ignoring:

• Reduce consumption through efficiency measures.

• Boost renewable energy such as biomass, wind, and solar and zero emission geothermal energy and reduce coal-fired generation

• Gas can be used for power generation to transition to lower emissions

• Set scientifically backed emission reduction targets of 20% by 2020 (at a minimum) and up to 80% by 2050

• Use the world global average temperature to measure progress; if it keeps rising more stringent measures are immediately required.

Kevin Rudd is avoiding any short term targets for emission reductions too, so Labor's policy for reducing carbon emissions is currently not much better than Howard's.

We need a paradigm shift to a new jobs-rich economy based on renewable energy. With both major parties dodging and weaving on this, the only clear option to safeguard our future is to vote Green.

Labor, Liberals and Family First oppose Senate motion on climate change

It is interesting to observe the serious lack of real political commitment from Labor, Liberal and Family First parties to seriously address climate change.

On 10 May 2007, Senator Christine Milne (Greens Senator for Tasmania) moved that the Senate:

(a) notes that most industrialised nations now accept the imperative of constraining global temperature increase to 2 degrees or less to avoid catastrophic climate change; and

(b) agrees that the imperative of constraining global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels should underpin government policy responses to global warming.

7 Senators (Greens and Democrats) voted for the motion, while 44 voted against it.

Labor, the Liberals and Family First all voted against it.

The pre industrial average global temperature was about 16 degrees. The average global temperature has already increased by 0.8 degrees to 16.8 degrees. It is past time for urgent action to address climate change.

The science is clear, and the catastrophic results are increasingly apparent, with yet another Government report about to be released with shocking findings, including major risks to some of our most basic services and necessities - including water, electricity, transport, telecommunications and buildings. Melbourne has just experienced its driest ever year, getting only half its yearly average rainfall as of 15 May 2007.

Unfortunately, most of our politicians are prepared to play games and fiddle while Australia burns.

Links
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds100507.pdf Senate Hansard, 10 May 2007
Climate change: shock findings for Victorians , The Age, 16 May 2007
Melbourne records driest 12 months, The Age, 16 May 2007

Election strategy, political football and climate change

I bumped into Bob Hawke in Melbourne airport just after the 2004 federal election, and asked him what on earth happened with Mark Latham and Labor's strategy for the election. He replied that Latham had earlier sought advice from him and he told him that

“you need to take a lead position on your key strengths and you need to cover the key issues that your opponents will use against you”.

I consider this sage advice.

In 2004, Labor arguably ran on education (e.g. school funding) and health (e.g. Medicare Gold). The Howard governed countered them on education by running a scare campaign on funding for non-government schools being reduced (as per their “hit list”).

The environment has been a differentiator between Labor and the Liberals, but in 2004 Latham played a game of cat and mouse on forests with John Howard. Instead of taking a leadership position on forest protection and taking it up to Howard, Latham was lured into a trap which was deftly sprung when John Howard visited Tasmania and famously hugged members of the CFMEU in Hobart. Labor's Tony O'Connor of the CFMEU denounced Labor's forest policy in favour of John Howard's. While this did not actually cost Labor the election, it certainly did not help them much.

Interestingly, Hawke also pointed out that one of Howard's former key strengths – national security – was effectively neutralised as a campaign issue for him when the “43 eminent people” including retired defence chiefs, diplomats and former senior bureaucrats strongly criticised Howard for deceiving the Australian people over the Iraq war and pointing out that Australia had not become a safer place as a result of the war. However, Labor was not able to capitalise on this, although they did ask a series of questions in Parliament on this topic. See PM shrugs off foreign policy attack for more information on this.

Howard also effectively attacked Labor's economic credentials by running a scare campaign that interest rates would rise under Labor, which Latham was not really able to counter in the public mind despite signing a dubious guarantee that interest rates would not rise under a Labor government .

Latham's earlier wins on policy issues like books for children in schools and reducing parliamentarians superannuation disappeared in the cut and thrust of the campaign and the ensuing media storm.

So what will the strategies for the major parties be for the 2007 Federal election? Here is my take on it.

Labor will run on:

Education

• Increase funding and boost the ailing public education system.
• Position Labor as the “education experts”
• Point out that investing in education is an investment in the future
• In Rudd's budget reply, he has announced significant funding for new technical education, which could enjoy popular support.

Workplace relations

• Campaign on the issue that worker entitlements have been lost via Australian Workplace Agreements and the Howard Government's Work Choices reforms.
• Labor has committed to removing AWAs

Climate change and the environment

• Position themselves as better than Howard on climate change by ratifying the Kyoto agreement and setting targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
• Keep the CFMEU and coal miners happy by committing to grubby coal funding.
• Tread carefully on Tasmanian, Victorian and NSW forest protection to avoid a repeat performance of 2004. Tony O'Connor and Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon have already fired warning shots on this issue.

Infrastructure and long term planning

• Rudd has announced a policy for improving extending the speed and coverage of broadband across Australia to boost Australia's capabilities to use the Internet for competitive advantage.

Labor will seek to mitigate Liberal attacks on:

• Economic management credentials, including keeping interest rates low and running a budget surplus
• Being controlled by the unions and compromising Australia's productivity
• Endangering the economy and our standard of living by reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• Rudd's inexperience compared to Howard

The Liberals will run on:

The economy

• Claim credit for Australia enjoying prosperous times, low unemployment and a healthy economy (even though the minerals boom has been a major contributing factor to this)
• Continuing to run a budget surplus
• Reduce taxation to keep the electorate happy with more money in their pocket
• Position themselves as the only party capable of continuing to run a healthy economy

Education

• Howard has already taken it up to Rudd with the announcement a funding boost for universities with a new $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund, which will initially produce $300 million to $400 million annually for capital works and research facilities.

The environment

• Climate change. $741 million over five years on climate change has been announced, including funding for solar panel rebates, and deductions for the cost of establishing carbon sink forests. There is speculation that Howard will introduce an emissions trading scheme closer to the election date to strengthen their position on climate change
• Water tanks - $200 million over six years to support installing water tanks and other water-saving devices by schools and community organisations.
• Nuclear power and grubby coal. Howard is positioning both nuclear power and grubby coal (referred to by him with the oxymoron of “clean coal”) as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He is on dangerous ground here as neither will address long term energy sustainability, and neither will not be available in time for the immediate reductions we require.

Other items significant for the election in Costello's budget include:

• The aged. Immediate bonuses for about 85 per cent of people over 65, bonuses for carers
• Low -income earners. An extra $1.1 billion paid into the superannuation accounts of low-income earners.
• Child care. Changes include increasing the child-care benefit and fast-tracking the child-care tax rebate
• Defence. An additional $2.1 billion over 10 years to improve recruitment and retention of personnel.
• Road and rail. New budget funding for roads and rail of $22.3 billion over five years.

The Liberals will seek to mitigate Labor attacks on:

• Howard's ongoing commitment to the failed Iraq war, and his reluctance to reveal an exit strategy
• Recent interest rates rises
• A reduction in the growth of productivity
• Australian workers not getting “a fair go” due to Howard's workplaces reforms and AWAs
• The Howard government's lack of real action on climate change, despite growing public concern on this issue. Australia also appears as a pariah nation on climate change, constantly seeking to avoid commitments to setting emission reduction targets, criticising the Kyoto Agreement and failing to ratify it.
• The increased cost of housing – pushing affordabilty beyond the means of most first home buyers

Where I think both major parties will fail:

• Setting the aggressive targets and policies to address climate change. In particular, both major parties will avoid setting strong immediate targets and strong targets for 2020. Both will attempt to buy time on this, and maintain that they are taking appropriate action.
  

• Protection of remain high conservation value forests, including old growth forests not currently protected. The Liberals favour large companies continuing to plunder our forest, even though forest destruction contributes to climate change and loss of water. Labor is locked into a militant CFMEU (Union) position of logging jobs rather than forest protection - even though the logging jobs will go once the remaining forests are destroyed.
  

• Funding for a national high speed rail network similar to that operating in Europe in Japan. This is in the "too hard basket" for both Labor and Liberal who support spending vast amounts of money on the road system instead. This is in spite of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report of February 2007 that states trains use about one third the fuel of trucks per net tonne kilometre.
  

• Funding for cycling transport infrastructure to make it safer and more convenient in both urban and rural areas. Again, this is in the "too hard basket" as multi billion dollar toll roads such as Melbourne's Eastlink are being constructed.
  

• Putting in place effective policies for reducing power consumption and the reducing the requirement for base load electricity.

• Setting an exit strategy for coal burning and exports. The Liberals are addicted to the revenue for coal exports, and Labor is protecting coal miners jobs. But we got of whaling didn't we?
  

So what about the Greens?

This is topic for a separate posting. Some of the above points where major parties may fail could be addressed by them. They will be under strident attack from both Labor and The Liberals who are not keen to lose any votes to newcomers or to share the balance of power with other parties.

Will the Greens be able to counter attacks by the major parties and consolidate growing public support for many of their core policies which have now become mainstream? Or will they be marginalised and characterised again as “extreme”? Will Labor and Liberal really take action on climate change, or will they succeed in just greenwashing themselves?

Stay tuned.