politics
11 Nov 2009
Greens Ready To Take It To The Next Level
At the coming federal election the Greens will be pushing hard to win a bunch of new seats. And they have every reason to back themselves, writes their new candidate, Andrew Bartlett
As was reported in the mainstream media and on a few different blog posts, it was announced this week that I would run for the House of Representatives seat of Brisbane for the Greens. Having spent nearly 11 years in the Senate as a Democrat, and another nine years before that in a wide range of roles within the Democrats, it’s an interesting change on a few counts.
Deciding to stick my head up again as a political candidate after 16 months of being able to get involved in issues without a party label on my head is not without its impact. I had just about fully adjusted to being a private citizen and activist without any political party involvement, so I had to be quite sure I was prepared to once again jump back into politics. The dismally inadequate response from both major parties to the issue of climate change played a key role in convincing me to put my hand up as a candidate again, although there is no shortage of other issues also needing more attention than they’re currently getting.
Getting involved in the Greens is not much of an adjustment from the Democrats, apart from having to get a better handle on some of the structures and who some of the office holders are. The Greens are still evolving and have developed a broader focus in recent years, and have been shifting into the space and role the Democrats used to play in the Senate. There are far more similarities than differences in the past policy approaches of the two parties. They’ve shown they’re willing to negotiate and compromise, and have put a lot more effort into participating in Committee inquiries — something which is hard to do with a only small number of senators.
The Greens have even taken on a few of the private senators bills originally produced by Democrat senators, including one of mine requiring a parliamentary vote before troops can be sent into combat overseas, which has been reintroduced by WA senator Scott Ludlam.
Despite the obvious fact that the Greens have now become the third party in Australian politics, it should be recognised that they still only have five Senators. The Democrats had more than that from the mid 1980s onwards, right up until their final few years. It was still very hard work being in a team of just 8 or 9 Senators, so for the Greens to have even fewer than that means some issues just cannot be fully engaged with.
This makes the next election crucial for the Greens in a number of ways. The first goal is to obtain sole balance of power in the Senate. This will be dependant on the Coalition losing Senate seats, as well as Greens gaining them.
It is still a difficult ask for a third party to break through in an entrenched two-party system. But that is what has to be the goal for a party such as the Greens if they are not to tread water by only having one or two senators from each state into the foreseeable future.
The Greens tactics will also include concerted pushes in a number of House of Representatives seats with a goal of winning at least one. Like the Democrats, the Greens vote has been smaller for lower house seats in recent times than in the Senate, a pattern which for the Democrats reflected their Senate focus and profile, For the Greens, a higher vote in the House of Representatives will almost certainly also translate into a higher Senate vote. Running a strong and credible campaign in a House of Representatives seat should therefore assist the chances of achieving the Greens’ goals in the Senate, as well as strengthening and broadening the Greens vote base. This is one of the key reasons I decided to contest a House of Representatives seat, rather than try for a Senate spot, despite the differences in campaigning for a lower house seat.
Winning a House of Representatives seat would be a bonus and a breakthrough — something the Democrats failed to achieve, despite a couple of close calls. Seats such as Grayndler, Sydney and Melbourne, and perhaps one or two others, should be goals for the Greens and winning them is not out of the question. Getting the seat of Brisbane up on to that list is a goal for the party and for me.
The Coalition will inevitably lose one of their four Senators in Queensland up for election this time — which will be Russell Trood, who is stuck at number four on the single ticket of the merged Liberal National Party (a bit of a shame really, as he is one of the Coalition’s more thoughtful contributors). There needs to be at least one more Coalition seat lost in one of the states for the Greens to hold the balance of power on their own, although the likely failure of Family First to retain their sole seat from Victoria and the fact that Nick Xenophon won’t be running this time (unless it’s a double dissolution) means there will probably end up being only one person sharing the Senate cross-benches with the Greens.
Apart from aiming to gain the balance of power, another core Senate goal for the Greens will be to increase the size of their representation. Only two of the five are up for election again at next year’s poll — Christine Milne (Tasmania) and Rachel Siewert (WA). Milne is very likely to be re-elected. Siewert’s position is not as safe, but she is still in with a good chance. The big opportunity for the Greens doesn’t lie in retaining these seats, it is how well they go at picking the four or five extra seats that are potentially winnable for them.
Unless their primary vote is close to a quota (approx 14.3 per cent of the primary vote) by themselves, minor parties are always dependent on preferences from both smaller and larger parties. The way these preferences flow is itself complicated by factors such as how much the two major parties poll relative to each other. This makes predications difficult. But there is no doubt the Greens have a credible chance of new Senate seats in all six states, as well as the possibility of a chance in the ACT if they can get a strong candidate. Given they currently have no federal representation at all from the three biggest states of NSW, Victoria and Queensland, it will be crucial for their community and media presence (as well as the sharing of their parliamentary workload) for them to get seats in these three places.
Queensland is particularly important for the Greens, as unlike every other state and territory they have no representation at any level of government here, including local government. The need to regain a Queensland voice in the Senate outside of the two major parties is one of the key reasons I decided to lend my weight to the Greens and get back out there as a candidate. The gap created in a state’s representation by not having a member in the Senate from a third party — for the first time since 1981 — is very obvious, at least to me. As well, a seat in Queensland will give the Greens a presence across the nation.
The more seats, the more profile and the more resources, as well a chance to better share the workload. This makes it important for the Greens, and for the future shape of the Senate, for the Greens to make a very strong effort to win every Senate seat they are a chance in.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
The best of luck Andrew. I thought 5 years ago that the Greens should take fighting for Reps seats more seriously rather than having a totally Senate-based strategy. By the sound of things you believe this too, and I wish you well.
Good on you for having another crack. It must wear you down a bit with all the walls an head beating caper.
Andrew,
Why don’t you tackle the government directly on Climate Change rather than hope to snare Coalition win-falls?
I think the Nationals stand a chance of taking votes from both as the only anti- ETS Party.
@ EarnestLee:
-probably becasue the most important thing at the moment is forcing the current Labour governmnet to negotiate to its left, rather than negotiating with the Liberals. Right now the govt. has to negotiate with the Liberals or with the Greens AND the independents. So Bartlett is right -the focus should be on getting sole balance of power.
-I must admit though, every time I hear the name Andrew Bartlett, I get this somewhat unpleasant mental picture: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/6745/3575/1600/abwithchookglamour.jp…
@pan.sapiens
The last thing I’d want to do is insert myself into your mental pictures, but I reckon the photo at the top of this article is even more unpleasant (unless you’ve got a thing against hens/chickens, in which case there’s nothing I can say)
Good luck Andrew,
yes the Greens are up against it but anyone trying to quell the power of the two dominant parties will be up against it.
The population needs to be reminded that they can continue to choose between the same old parties or they can choose a promise of something better. For the life of me I don’t know what is stopping people from choosing a new way of doing things - certainly the old way (the old parties and their entrenched wretchedness) hasn’t ever resulted in celebrations in the streets.
Be the change you want to see
www.adambutler.com.au
The Greens have to assure voters that they care about their security. That is, the security of their childrens education, their health, their neighbourhoods, their economic wellbeing. When they are able to do that, internationally, they do well, and start to push over 10%.
The Greens in Australia and elsewhere have traditionally had the problem as only marketing themselves on fringe issues, things like the enviroment that most people care about but which people are willing to trade against the security of voting for someone who cares about the above issues. The perception I get from ordinary Australians I talk to is that “Bob Brown only cares about trees”. If you’re able to address both, you’ll do well. If not, be prepared to languish on 5-10%.
I’m completely serious. You ignore this advice at your peril.
This is very good news! I’m so glad indeed that you’re involved in the lower house election and I trust you can win the Brisbane seat on your own strengths, but fortunately attached to the most useful party at present too.
As a long term Labor voter in the seat of Sydney I will be voting Greens in both the lower house and the senate for the first time in response to the ALPs pathetic policies on climate change and the Goldstone report.
If the Greens can establish regular half-senate seats in Queensland and Victoria (both within 10% of a quota after preferences) you will be heading to 10 senate seats. While Queensland may be more difficult, I hope the Greens are planning a strong campaign to wrest votes from the ALP in Victorian communities who care about Australias position on Palestine/Israel.
Not only does this strategy have the potential to deliver the Greens the balance of power, it will also remind ALP MHRs who have gone quiet on Palestine (e.g., Tanya Plibersek) that abandonning principle for political advantage is a strategy that erodes both your moral compass and your electoral support. It will be hard to remove Plibersek from Sydneey, but even if the Greens get ahead of the Libs into second spot, it might give her a shock sufficient to change her behaviour.
Best of luck
2 words, Clive Hamilton.
The fanatical cheerleader for the Internet Filter and all things Censorship, Clive Hamilton, is amoungst the candidates that Bartlett is so impressed with.
The Greens have shot themselves fairly and squarely in the foot, both feet in fact. They took a winning cause and for no apparent reason pissed it away. Due to this support for Censorship they have lost my vote and that of many others.
Bartlett as an ex Democrat may well be the best choice for the Greens since they seem to be following the strategy of the Democrats, namely, don’t just ignore your supporters but actively try to do the opposite of what they want. Bartlett has the experience of overseeing the self destruction of the Democrats, therefore he is just the man to oversee the self destruction of the Greens.
Get Megg Lee on board Andrew , you’ll need help as the Womp says.
Good luck Andrew,
Doug Evans
What a scary point in history. What a fascinating election year coming up. The Higgins by election will be a fair pointer to the outcome of the tussles in 2010. The Womp oozes certainty but Hamilton is a crash or crash through candidate. If the electorate is ready to face the looming climate crisis Hamilton might just pull it off. They just might be ready. ‘Get Up’ polling in the seat of Melbourne suggests 80% of ALP voters ready to vote for strongest climate change-renewables policy. If Hamilton triumphs this should produce some pretty frenzied activity on climate & energy policy from the major parties but it probably means the Greens’ star is rising and they will clean up next year. If the penny has not yet dropped Hamilton will crash, the Greens will probably not get the enhanced Parliamentary leverage they seek in 2010 and God help us all.
With regard to preferences, in NSW last time round for the Federal Senate, the total of all primary votes to non major party candidates (Major Party = Coalition , ALP & Greens) was less than one quota. Therfore there is essentially zero chance that a non major would win a senate seat even if they ended up with all of the preferences from all the other non majors. The only way a non major can win a senate seat is if they receive preferences from one of the major parties - as was the case with Steve Feilding.
It follows then that all of the preferences from the non major candidates will ultimately end going to one of the three major parties. And it follows from this that the best chance for the Coalition and ALP to prevent a Green from winning a seat is to put each other ahead of the Greens on there preferencing list. However if they do do this then they risk a non majer winning a seat as happened with the Steve Fielding fiasco.
It also follows that the best way for the Greens to prevent the ALP or the Coalition from winning the final seat is to put them last on their preference list which however would risk one of the loony minor candidates winning the seat as happened with the Steve Fielding fiasco.
I wasn’t going to comment again but the remark by North above really needs a reply. The Greens have an extensive and full set of policies covering every aspect of economic, social, cultural life in Australia. The policies are hammered out at grass root level in branches all over the country. Hey, you didn’t know that? The reason you don’t is that the media narrative is that the Greens only have policies on the environment, drugs, and gay marriage. A narrative supported by the major parties who attack the Greens over drugs in every election.
We now have a media approach to every issue in which the relevant minister is interviewed, then the opposition spokesperson, full stop. Only when the issue is environmental (or drug related) does Bob Brown get to do a one sentence response. He is never interviewed about health, or education, or the economy, or industrial relations, because if he was the general public would find they rather liked what he was saying. Nor does he get to take part in whatever “leader’s debate” takes place at election time. I don’t know whether to think conspiracy, or just shoddy journalism, but it is a fact. You want to know about Green policies across the whole spectrum? Phone your local media outlets, demand they give Green spokespeople a voice as a matter of course.
That’s true @David Norton, but North has a point.
One of the sometimes frustrating aspects of politics is that perception is ‘reality’, and if people perceive that a party only covers a few issues, then they respond accordingly, even if what they believe is wrong.
One of the big challenges for the Greens is to get a strong message out about economic policy issues, as they are usually seen as absent from many of those debates, even though they have policies in those areas.
That doesn’t mean they don’t ever say anything on those issues, but rather that it rarely gets reported.
Having said that, the Greens often don’t emphasise economic stuff in their campaign literature. That may be a bit different this time around though, as they will consciously seek to broaden their base.
I think you are saying you agree with me Andrew.
Good luck with that perception thing in the face of media indifference. And good luck with the campaign literature, and with it making a difference. I was a Greens’ candidate in 2004.
By the way, it’s Horton, not Norton.
Sorry David - I’d just been reading a separate message from David Norton. Must have stuck in my head.
Yes I’d say I’m agreeing. I agree its a hard slog - always is for a third party in a two party system. But one has to try, so will see how it goes
Clive Hamilton has made the Greens policies a joke.
Clive Hamilton has publicly stated a support for policies contrary to Greens published policy. Hell, the man claims to have helped formulate the policies which are contrary to published Greens policy but which he still supports.
The Greens must think the voting public are morons if they believe we will vote for a Party which has published policies and repeated public statements from candidates in complete diametric opposition to each other.
I have been very impressed with Senator Sarah Hanson-Young and her considered responses to questions about the plight of the Tamil asylum seekers. I’m sorry to hear she won’t be standing for the Greens again.
Because of her responses (and an obvious lack of difference in too many crucial areas between the two main Parties), I will also give my primary vote to the Greens in both the Senate and House of Reps for the first time.
And it’s great news to hear Andrew Bartlett will be standing as a Green for the House of Reps, offering the electorate a genuine, viable alternative to our two xenophobic major parties, whose over reactions to the plight of the Tamils, has revealed the ‘all at sea’ immigration policies of both the major Parties.
Best of luck Andrew- I am a Queenslander and you have my full support.
I am also in agreement with previous comments regarding voter perceptions of the Greens as “only being interested in trees, asylum seekers, nuclear power and gay marriage.” Although those of us who already vote Green know this not to be neccessarily true, many more voters still need convincing.
Why not try splitting the Government and the Coalition over an issue like the abolision of State government? There’s an issue that I know is a red hot one in Queensland, especially in rural areas, one that certain to get you more than a little in the way of media attention in this age of the Queensland ALP falling all over itself.
Oh I encourage everybody to read the full greens policies before voting Green, of course the devil is in the details and in amongst all the “cute and cuddly” stuff there are some truly terrifying insights into the real agenda; the big daddy, which is scattered throughout the policies, is:
- basically give sovereignty for ALL of Australian law over the UN
But here’s just a few other highlights:
And the final gem is to peruse all the “fund” statements in the Measures sections and then ponder how any country could possibly afford the fund even a fraction of these policies.
Yep Andrew you will be getting my vote ….. NOT!
I hope you bring the same success to the Greens that you did to the Democrats
Icedvolvo - that is the most laughable and grotesquesly dishonest misrepresentation of Greens policy imaginable.
As I said above, pereception can be really reality in politucs, and I guess you figure a monstrous lie might be more believable than a mild distortion.
And perhaps if you repeat the lie often enough some people might believe it.
I don’t how well I or the Greens will go, but I will at least continue to be honest about my and others policies. Maybe you should try it sometime
Andrew, you and I have met on many occasions and I know you are not a fool. What is grotesque is that you could abandon those ideals you once held so dear about honesty and openness and join the Greens because unlike joe public, who is fooled by the media smoke and mirrors of the “save the baby gay koala” image you know what the real agenda is; as you say, “perception” is everything. Don would be turning in his grave!
As an challenge pick any one of the issues I described above and we can debate it to death here in full public view :-)
icedvolvo
As you say I am not a fool. This means that:
(a) I don’t bother paying attention to people who assert to know the ‘real agenda’ of the Greens or the Democrats when they clearly have no idea of either;
(b) I know that people who proclaim to support ideals such as honesty and openness whilst aggeessively spouting a load of dishonest nonsense are either hypocrits, fools or both
(c) I am not going to waste my time ‘debating’ an issue when the starting point is nonsense and the ‘challenger’ has already displayed no interest in accuracy or honesty. That would be neither a challenge, nor a debate.
I have pursued open engagement, accessible to anyone who can access the internet, in a wide range of forums for five years or more. People know what I believe and what I think - which includes believing that you’re talking a pile of distorted nonsensical rubbish.
Andrew,
Did you notice: every sentence you wrote started with “I”! Hello Andrew it’s not about you or what you believe, it’s about the GREENS policies which you will have no choice but to vote for on the floor!
Every statement made, although admittedly possibly taken to a somewhat extreme interpretation, was taken directly from the “Measures” sections of the Greens Policies. If you are not prepared to defend those policies then so be it.
As to agendas I am intimately familiar with the Greens [I never mentioned the Democrats], I had close daily contact with the Party, their parliamentary reps, staff and media stunts for many years so I am not surprised that you refuse to enter debate!
As an aside and with reference to the Democrats they were the only half way decent political party and the only alternative for the thinking voter until their original ideals were corrupted by trying to “out green” the Greens. But most of all they were the ONLY Party (Greens included!!!) that supported truly open government, which in my opinion, was the last hope for Democracy to survive. It is a great shame that the ADs did not use their balance of power to enforce an Open Government Policy when they had the chance. That opportunity is now lost and as a consequence we are on a downward spiral into a Brave New World where “environmentalism” is used to control every aspect of our lives via some quasi socialist dictatorship, which your own party is calling for i.e. ala Hamilton et al and the calls for the “suspension of the democratic process” to fight climate change.
Andrew, you have obviously reached the only sane conclusion - ignore Mr/Ms Volvo. If you had any doubt about the agenda, the last sentence of the last reply would remove it.
Yes, it is the sane approach David. The final sentence reinforces my previous comments.
However, I will reply to a few of the extra attempted distortions of Mr/Ms Volvo - mainly for the benefit of anyone else reading, as it is obvious they are not interested in anything other than perpetuating distortions.
Seeing I was the one challenged to a ‘debate’, it is silly for Volvo to then try to suggest there is something ‘telling’ in my responding in the first person rather as some personification or embodiment of Teh Greens. It is equally silly to suggest I would wish to avoid debating Greens policies.
Seeing I have just become a candidate, I am expecting to and looking forward to promoting Greens’ policies and vlaues - not least because so many of them are similar to and build on the Democrats’ legacy over many years. But I am not going to waste my time engaging in a forum such as this with someone who has clearly shown no interest in accuracy or reason, and either has no knowledge of the Greens’ policies (and their similarity with much of the past policies Democrats’) or has no interest in accurately reflecting them.
As an aside, as with the Democrats, the Greens also provide scope for an individual consceince vote on the rare occasion where an MP’s views are at odds with the party’s. I wouldn’t expect such occasions to rise very often - I don’t recall a single time where I voted against Democrat policy, although I was part of split votes on occasions - but frankly I’m a long way off getting back into Parliament anyway.
Also, I think the Greens are well placed to progress open government policies, and should be even better placed after the next election. The Greens’ record shows support and agitation for moves in that direction, as well as being one which was almost always supportive of Democrat moves in that direction. Whether Ms/Ms Volvo has some other notion of what constitutes ‘Open Government’ I don’t know - could well be some sort of unworkable CEC-style stuff based on the overall tenor of his/her distortions, although that’s not something the majority of the Democrats supported since the early days.
I’m guessing CEC/La Rouche.
OK Andrew which policy issue do you want to debate? You said you were going to and then said nothing?
As to voting: name an occasion when the Greens have split votes, I am only familiar with Federal and NSW houses but I only know of one occasion. Hamilton, another Greens candidate, won’t be happy if you break ranks :-( He might just have you committed to the Climate Denial Gulags or sectioned for some “denialist” psychiatric disorder as some other NM authors have suggested.
As to open government, as far as I am aware ACE is the only MP to move an Open Government Bill and he received no support from any party including the Greens! Being “well placed to progress open government policies” is a meaningless throwaway for the Press. Point me to a Policy that lays it out in plain words?
CEC ha hahahaha! That’s ironic, I get their amateurish press releases and Gospels of “Isherwood”; they are just the mirror image of the the Greens: an element of truth mixed in with mostly rubbish!
Whatever you reckon, Mr/Ms Volvo. Mirror image indeed.
Please re-read the above. I am not going to waste my time repeating myself.
And you want to represent the Greens in Parliament ….
I really hope the downward trend in Green votes makes its way from Europe (France excepted) to here in time for the next election but I fear we will have to suffer 4-8 years of a Green controlled senate before it dawns on joe public that he has been conned. Problem is that the nutjobs on the far right are just as divisive and dangerous
Ah Democracy don’t you just love it :-)
“And you want to represent the Greens in Parliament ….”
Um, yes. You’ve finally noticed?
“I really hope the downward trend in Green votes makes its way from Europe (France excepted) to here”
No prizes for guessing you’re a rabid anti-Green, but I see your willingness to let your personal views justify rampant dishonesty even extends to portrayals of Green votes in other countries - the German Greens gained the highest vote in their history at the German elections just two months ago, with a 2.6% swing giving them 10.7% of the vote and 68 seats in the Bundestag.
When the Greens gain the balance of power in the Senate following the next election, the few people who might have previoulsy believed outrageous and self-confessed “extreme” distortions such as yours about the Greens will only need 4 - 8 months to realise they are complete nonsense, not 4 - 8 years.
As my article above notes, the Greens in the Senate are already moving more into the role and space occupied to mostly good effect by the Democrats in the past. They will have the opportunity to further broaden their approach and appeal to more of the centrist voters the Democrats used to attract. There will be some pitfalls along the way of course - greater support and greater power brings with it greater responsibilities and greater political risks - but they have a more solid core foundation of grassroots support than the Democrats ever did, and the benefit of being able to see the mistakes the Democrats made and hopefully learn from them.
I stand corrected, Germany (as well as France) increased Green vote. However the big winners in Europe were the extreme right wing neo nazi/racist parties and as I said they scare me as much as the Greens.
I hope for this countries sake that you are even partially correct and the broadening of voter/representative base will keep the extremists within the Greens in check but watching the likes of fanatical Trotskyists (you know who I mean and they will almost certainly get up) doesn’t fill me with any great hope of rational government.
As a final shot I would urge everyone considering voting Green (and this is after all a left leaning ejournal) to read the Green’s Policies very very very carefully.
Dear Andrew,
Best of luck with the campaign. Quite a tough job you’ve set yourself, and I wish you every success. Glad to see an ex-Democrat with enough fight left in him to delve back into federal/state politics.
As a recent contributor to this site (with my completely innocent and non-controversial article on porn!), can I suggest ignoring those folk with nothing better to do than employ oblique arguments unrelated to the topic at hand and hope they’ll eventually shuffle off and get a hobby or something?
I mean, we all know the Greens secretly want to remove all the white, heterosexual and non-vegetarian citizens from the country and turn Sydney into the world’s largest self-sustainable hippy commune. What’s the point of harping on about it?
Kindest regards,
Pete
www.petemalicki.com
“I mean, we all know the Greens secretly want to remove all the white, heterosexual and non-vegetarian citizens from the country and turn Sydney into the world’s largest self-sustainable hippy commune. What’s the point of harping on about it?”
And with Clive “suspend democracy, cos you’re all Nazis” Hamilton and Lee “The Trotskyist” Rhiannon as lead candidates for the Greens they are well equipped to do just that.
No no no Pete, get with the program. All heterosexual males will be forced into gay marriage (this means you, volvo), and you vill enjoy it.
Gay marriage with animals, right?
www.petemalicki.com
Ah David, and what makes you think I am not already enjoying both it and a vegan diet, I find your assumption that all “deniers” are white heterosexual meat eating males offensive!
Well, yes, Peter, of course, but only after a long slippery slope that gay marriage is the thin end of the wedge of.