Greenwash Political Action Party and Urban Grassroots Movement for the Green Party

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

The sweetest victory of all - Greens hold all 4 seats in Tasmania

They said it couldn’t happen. They said the Greens couldn’t win the Tasmanian seat of Bass and that the Greens candidate Kim Booth was gone for all money. Some political pundits in the tally room on election night wrote him off as early as 8pm.

And of course during his concession speech Liberal Leader Rene Hidding declared - now infamously - that the Greens had only won two seats.

But late this afternoon with the count nearing completion, it looks like Greens saw miller Kim Booth will be elected after he beat off a challenge from the third ALP candidate.

At no stage in the count has The Mercury given him a chance - as recently as today saying he wouldn’t win. The Age newspaper also had a go - saying we were suffering ‘winter blues’ and had been ‘swept aside’ . The fiercely anti-Green Examiner hometown newspaper said we wouldn’t win either.

And of course the Greens hater from the ABC Antony Green wrote us off more than once. Here is what he said just the other day on http://web.archive.org/web/20061205234838/http://www.upperhouse.info/ - "Bass has tightened on paper, but Labor is still on track to win. With the exclusion of Les Rochester, the party totals are now Labor 2.96, Liberal 2.12, Greens 0.91. The 2nd Green candidate is the next out, and any leakage of preferences will doom the chances of Kim Booth being elected."

I can’t remember how many people told me on the tally room that Kim was gone or how many journalists I told that it would be close and we wouldn’t know until the final cut up of preferences.

So despite the unprecedented scare campaign involving hundreds of thousands of dollars from big business, the Exclusive Brethren and the major parties, the Greens have shone through to hold all 4 seats.

Lots of humble pie about to be eaten I reckon.

posted by Ben Oquist # 2:43 PM 2 comments

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Who's whacky now?

Finally the secretive Exclusive Brethren have taken the first step out into the public. For weeks they have refused all requests for media comment relating to their foray into the Tasmanian election where they ran a series of anti-Greens ads (see previous crikey).

But on Tuesday 22 March two members of the Brethren wrote a letter to the Examiner newspaper in Tasmanian defending their actions.

They state that "we believe Government to be of god" and for "this reason we respect it" but "their conscience precludes them from voting".

And it is the Greens that are called wacky!

While the letter in the paper denies they are connected or affiliated to any political group "whatsoever", we know that the Liberal party state director did meet with the Exclusive Brethren.

Given the amount of money spent and the wacky nature of the Brethren and its activities, questions need to be answered by the Liberal Party about what was discussed, with whom and when.

And anyone who thinks the Exclusive Brethren are just some harmless church group, should have a listen to last week's Hack program on JJJ (March 15 &16) or http://www.peebs.net/ to hear the horror stories of family break up and misery.

At the 2004 Federal election the Brethren also campaigned against the Greens. In particular they targeted Tasmania and Greens candidate Andrew Wilkie in Bennelong. They worked closely with the Liberals as the Tasmanian Liberal director recently admitted in an interview on ABC radio and is evidenced by their pro-Liberal messaging on this leaflet distributed in Tasmania during the 2004 campaign.

Very similar leaflets also appeared in New Zealand where with quick work between the Greens across the Tasman we were able to expose the similarities.

Bob Brown raised the issue in Senate question time in September 2005 and made this speech in the Senate also.

From Greens candidate Jeremy Buckingham we also know the Brethren was funding anti-Greens work of the National Party in central west NSW during the 2004 federal election.

And take a look at the latest leaflet they distributed thousands of all across Tasmania in the very last days of the State '06 campaign.

posted by Ben Oquist # 12:00 PM 1 comments

Monday, March 20, 2006

Weekend elections point to 2007 struggle between Greens and Family First

I’m just off the plane from election weekend in Tasmania and have noticed some misleading ‘analysis’ going around about the Tasmanian and South Australian elections.

Tasmania
One in six Tasmanians voted for the Greens – that’s 16% of the vote across the Apple Isle. Although there was a small swing away from us of 1.9%, this compares to a swing away from the ALP of 2.3% and was achieved in the face of unprecedented negative attacks against the Greens.

In addition to a sustained campaign against the possibility of a minority government, a massive underhand anti-Greens advertising blitz was unleashed in the last days of the campaign funded by the big partes, big business and the religious cult - the Exclusive Brethren.

Yet despite this, the Greens will win at least 3 seats - and possibly a 4th (Kim Booth in Bass). Scrutineers in Bass tell us that there is a strong flow of preferences from the anti-pulp mill independent and that there may be leakage away from the ALP ticket via the strong personal vote for Michele O’Byrne.

Our vote held up slightly better in the south of the State than the north where the underhand attacks on the Greens hit the hardest.

However, as commentator and University of Tasmania academic Richard Herr pointed out in Hobart ABC radio this morning, 16% is a big vote for a minor party.

Under the old Tasmanian electoral system - which the Labor and Liberal parties worked together to remove in 1998 in a devious attempt to get rid of the Greens - we would have won 7 seats.

Meanwhile Greens leader in Tasmania, Peg Putt, got 3000 more votes than any other individual candidate – Labor or Liberal - in the seat of Denison.

South Australia
Great news from South Australia where it looks like Mark Parnell will win the first Greens upper house seat in the SA Parliament.

The Greens more than doubled its lower house vote to 6.3% in a tight tussle with Family First who scored 5.8%.

Although no Family First candidate stood in Tasmania, the preference deal it brokered for the last Federal election saw it almost knock off popular Greens candidate (and now Senator) Christine Milne – despite a primary vote of less than 2%. And as the Exclusive Brethren have shown in this election, the religious right is alive and well in Tasmania.

So with the death of the Democrats, it looks like the next big minor party battle ground will be the struggle between the Greens and Family First for Senate seats in 2007.

Hold on to your hats as we do battle with the religious right in the campaign to Rescue the Senate next year.

posted by Ben Oquist # 3:24 PM 7 comments

Friday, March 17, 2006

Biggest negative advertising blitz ever

No election in Australia has ever seen such a negative advertising blitz from so many sources directed at one party.

The massive advertising blitz being funded by big business and the woodchipping industry against "minority Government" in Tasmania is actually nothing of the sort.

It is a campaign against the Greens. During the final weekend of the campaign every single ad break on evening commercial TV featured attack ads on the Greens and "minority government" (often more than one such spot in each break).

It is not just the Exclusive Brethren (Crikey yesterday) funding advertising targeting the Greens. On top of the Labor and Liberals anti-Green material there is the forest industry's mega bucks and huge spend from the shadowy big business group Tasmanians for a Better Future. Every day, new full page advertisements appear in the paper.

Has an election in Australia ever seen such a negative advertising blitz from so many sources directed at one party?

And this is not the first time that the Exclusive Brethren has entered into the electoral fray against the Greens. Tasmanian Liberals' state director, Damien Mantach met with them and then admitted that the Liberals in NSW had a financial arrangement with the Brethren when targeting the Greens in the 2004 federal poll in NSW. Then there was their controversial anti-Greens campaign in NZ least year.

See the wonderfully positive Greens advertising counter attack here and here.

posted by Ben Oquist # 10:42 AM 0 comments

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Police investigating Greg Sheridan's Scott Parkin leak

You may remember when American peace activist Scott Parkin was deported last year there was intense pressure on Attorney General Philip Ruddock to reveal the reasons for Parkin’s deportation. Mr Ruddock refused all requests, continually stating that for security reasons he couldn’t divulge the details. The ALP was briefed and declined further detailed comment, in contrast to Bob Brown's vigorous pursuit of the issue.

The pressure continued to mount on the Government for deporting someone who looked and sounded very much like a non-violent peace activist with no record of anything remotely related to terrorism. Then, as if on cue, the infamous Greg Sheridan article appeared on page 1 of the Australian on September 22, claiming that Scott was involved in all sorts of dodgy activity.

So how did a right-wing columnist well known for his government sympathies get access to information so security sensitive that even the Attorney General couldn’t tell us about it?

I wrote to the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) about the matter last year asking him to investigate the affair. While IGIS is (or was) conducting an inquiry into the matter overall, he said the specific issue of leaking was a matter for the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and he referred the matter to them for consideration.

I later wrote to the AFP asking if they were going to investigate the matter.

Now the Minister for Federal Police, Chris Ellison, has written back saying an investigation is underway.

So what news from Greg Sheridan? Has he been interviewed by the police? Has he been raided? Speak up Greg, we want to know what is going on.

While the right of journalists to keep their sources confidential is critical, it is also important to know if our top security agencies are leaking in such a way that provides political cover to the Government.

The Scott Parkin affair leaves huge unanswered questions about our security agencies and how politicised they might be. I hope this police inquiry can help start to get to the truth.

posted by Ben Oquist # 12:00 PM 2 comments

Monday, March 13, 2006

Julia of no idea

The ALP in-fighting we need

With all the current ALP factional infighting, the one thing missing is a genuine debate about ideas. Ideas and options for Australia, not ones only relating to internal Labor party process.

There are real differences that run through Labor, but the new fault lines don’t run along the factional divide.

Take Climate change for example. The big issue that will shape much politics here globally into the future. Kim Beazley (right faction) and Anthony Albanese (left) were out to spruiking Labor’s a climate change policy as progressive. Meanwhile Martin Ferguson (left) is at one with John Howard on the issue - presumably along with Stephen Conroy (right), who is a well known climate sceptic.

Similar scenario on refugees. As Matt Price pointed out in The Australian there is still resentment at Julia Gillard (left) for adopting the anti-refugee policy she developed as immigration shadow. Carmen Lawrence resigned from the front bench because the policy lacked enough compassion and humanity. And while some on the right were concerned, Laurie Ferguson (left) is fervently anti-refugee.

There are real differences within Labor that are worth debating relating to the future of Australia and, indeed, the plant. But where is the debate on these from leadership aspirants like Julia Gillard?

According to the recent Morgan/Crikey poll a huge number of Greens supporters are fans of Gillard. But I think we need to think about her a little more deeply.

While Julia Gillard has agreed that factions don’t mean about ideology anymore, she hasn’t articulated what differentiates her from other people inside Labor in policy terms. It is all about loyalty (to Crean or Beazley) or process (should the front bench be appointed or elected).

Gillard actually represents everything that is wrong with Labor. Her political attachment to Neanderthals like Michael O'Connor and Martin Ferguson show she knows nothing about the future. A sustainable future and economy with plenty of jobs and a healthy environment simply do not lie in trashing our native forests and burying our heads in coal, uranium and the nuclear cycle.

Gillard’s trashing of Mark Latham's forest policy (parts of which were adopted by Howard 6 months later) Australian Story without any apparent understanding of the issue showed how shallow she is.

And where does her close colleague Simon Crean stand? We have heard about his views on the problems within Labor, but what are his views on the emerging new environmental fault lines in politics. Does he support his ally Martin Ferguson’s strident support for uranium and out of date coal technology?

If we want to be build a happy, secure sustainable society where the natural planet’s beauty and resources are available for everyone to enjoy and live from, we need leaders who can see the future beyond coal, woodchipping old growth forests, nuclear power and weapons.

To me Julia Gillard comes across as a person who stands for nothing expect 'Julia for Prime Minister'. Where are her ideas, not for Labor but for Australia? Where is her vision? I reckon she would be the worst type of 'whatever-it-takes' Labor leader.

posted by Ben Oquist # 11:08 AM 2 comments

Friday, March 10, 2006

Greens advertising in South Australia

As you know the South Australia election is only days away. The Greens have a chance to break into the Upper House for the first time with our excellent candidate - Mark Parnell, from the SA Environmental Defenders Office.

But the competition is stiff with Family First today revealing an $80 000 plus TV advertising campaign.

The Greens have just recorded their own new radio ad featuring Bob Brown. With a little help it can get good airplay in the final week of the campaign.

Contact Sarah in Adelaide - sarah.hanson-young@sa.greens.org.au if you can contribute. I’ve kicked in $500 and a $50 from you will sure help.

posted by Ben Oquist # 3:44 PM 1 comments

Thursday, March 09, 2006

Tasmanian election advertisements

The Tasmanian election is proving to be an exciting one for the Greens.

With all the revelations of the underhand tactics and secret dirt units of Lennon's Labor Government it's worth having a look at some of the TV ads and campaign material.

Check out the latest really powerful TV advertisements being run by The Wilderness Society.

The Liberals have issued a mountain of misleading campaign material about the Greens in Tasmania in the last week just as occurred in the 2004 federal election campaign when the Liberal Party and the Herald Sun peddled misinformation about the Greens policies.

The Greens have countered with a wonderfully positive leaflet for the final days of the campaign - "Your family's future is safer with the Greens"

posted by Ben Oquist # 4:29 PM 0 comments

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Beazley's new climate change pitch is old

With Kim Beazley making a big pitch on climate change today it would be good if he actually said something new. Pre-reports of his speech in this morning’s media don’t give one much hope. At least three of the big ticket items look like a re-hash of old announcements.

1. Reduce Australia’s emissions by 60% by 2050.

This is old. It was the ALP’s 2000 national conference in Hobart that first noted the need to reduce emissions by 60-80%. The international debate has certainly moved a mountain in the last 6 years but not the ALP’s policy.

What’s more it is weak. What is really needed is an intermediate target, like the 20% by 2020 adopted by the South Australian Liberals 3 weeks ago.

As we mentioned then it is this intermediate target that will actually force real action in the short and medium term. A long term target means it is too easy to put off action to the never never.

2. Increase the renewable energy target to 5%.

This is old. It was first announced by Simon Crean 3 years ago. While environment spokesperson Anthony Albanese on AM this morning said the ALP would agree to much higher targets, the Financial Review reports today that such targets will not be committed too until closer to the federal election.

3. Ratify Kyoto.

Good but this was first announced by Kim Beazley in the 2001 election campaign in the Botanic gardens in Sydney.

Overall the problem is that the ALP at federal and state level in NSW remains addicted to coal.

It is the same problem they face on forestry policy. Kim Beazley was quick to cosy up with John Howard upon his return to the leadership when he announced he was at one with the PM on the destruction of Tasmania’s forests.

While ever the likes of Martin Ferguson remain prominent, the ALP will be tied to the old, jobs-poor economy instead of the new, clean, green, jobs-rich industries of the future.

posted by Ben Oquist # 11:13 AM 1 comments

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Rescue the Senate

With Thursday 2 March marking 10 years of John Howard, it is worthwhile reflecting that there are bigger fish to fry.

The real challenge for progressive politics in Australia is not getting rid of John Howard, but rescuing the Senate from conservative control.

For this to happen, the Coalition must win only two of the six Senate spots in at least 2 states (or one territory and one state) at the 2007 election. A swing of less than 5% in key states can make this happen.

Of course the Greens are key to such a result. We are the only viable force capable of tipping the balance, but we must reach new people and lift our support.

Let’s use this horrid anniversary to ignite the campaign to Rescue the Senate.

The ongoing and interminable debates about who will succeed John Howard actually misses the point for progressive Australia. When the Prime Minister changes, so does the country -so the famous saying goes. Which seems as true as ever now with many people saying they feel ashamed of what Australia has become under his leadership. But there are more ways to change the country than that.

Imagine the conservatives having another term with the Senate under their control. The current wave of reforms being proposed will look like a picnic. And even if the ALP were to win this election or the next, how many progressive initiatives would pass the parliament if the Coalition still had Senate control?

Yet imagine a Senate with the Greens – not Family First or Barnaby Joyce – in balance of power after the next election. We would see a wealth of positive progressive initiatives, ideas and debates taking centre stage in Australian life.

And this is something within the grasp of the Greens, and something almost wholly for us to determine. Lifting our current support by a few percentage points could deliver this. If our party and Senators can produce the goods over the next two years and bullet proof ourselves from the attacks better than we have in the past, then it matters little who is the leading the Federal Coalition.

Rescuing the Senate

At the next election - the Greens vote must ensure that the Coalition does:

a. Not win 4 of the 6 seats available in any state (last time they won 4 seats in Queensland).

and either

b. Not win more than 2 of the 6 spots available in at least two states.

or

c. Not win more than 2 of 6 spots in any one state and lose a seat in the ACT (the two Territory seats are elected for a three year term only and are 'spilled' at each election).

Bob’s 10 year anniversary too

By the way - it is also 10 years to the day since Greens parliamentary leader Bob Brown was elected.

He has outlasted 10 other party leaders... Lees, Kernot, Stott-Despoja, Bartlett, Grieg, Hanson, Harris (One Nation), Beazley (first time round), Crean and Latham have all been and gone during that time.

So it's just John Howard and Bob Brown still standing.

posted by Ben Oquist # 6:00 AM 3 comments