Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Leave Peter Garrett alone
|
“Hypocritical sell-out careerist” “How Do You Sleep When Your Cred Is Burning” “An environmental sell-out” “The ultimate sell-out” Those are some of the milder attacks on Peter Garrett, not merely courtesy of this week’s decision that the Four Mile uranium mine, subject to strict conditions, didn’t breach Commonwealth environmental protection requirements, but ever since he announced he was standing as Labor candidate in Kingsford-Smith. Well, here’s a suggestion for anyone complaining that the Midnight Oil frontman and anti-nuclear activist is a sell-out: get over it. Let’s start with the decision itself, which contrary to the perception you might have got from the press, had nothing to do with approving the mine itself. Garrett is not the Minister for Mining in South Australia. His responsibility was under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which lays down a specific process for assessing projects of potential national significance. Criticism that Garrett failed to give vent to his professed anti-nuclear views in the exercise of his ministerial powers is staggering. Presumably his critics would prefer that he ignored evidence and his advice and simply decided whatever he felt like. Perhaps we should all do our jobs that way. But in Garrett’s case, as with any Minister of the Crown, he not merely has a responsibility to perform his duties appropriately, but his decisions are appellable. The Federal Court would overturn a bad decision, no matter how passionate the views of the Minister who made it. And if people don’t like the way the EPBC constrains Ministers, well, Garrett initiated an inquiry into the Act, which Allan Hawke is still conducting. Send Dr Hawke a submission suggesting Ministers be given unlimited discretion to do what they like. That’s usually called “sovereign risk”. Both Garrett’s shadow, Greg Hunt, and Malcolm Turnbull, called Garrett a hypocrite despite supporting the decision. That’s a bit rich from Turnbull, whom distant memory tells me is an ardent republican. I haven’t noticed Turnbull using his position as alternative Prime Minister to advocate for constitutional change lately. The Greens’ Scott Ludlam, who is an opponent of all things radioactive, was more sensible, reserving his criticism for the decision itself and the scientific basis on which it was made. The Greens don’t accept the logic that, even if a nuclear industry is unsuitable and far too expensive for Australia, other countries with established nuclear power programs might want to continue them, particularly given the carbon emissions intensity of alternatives like coal and gas. For the Greens, there is no safe way to use nuclear power, and Australia shouldn’t be selling uranium to anyone. Garrett may hold the same views personally, but he joined a political party, participated in the nuclear debate within that party, and lost it. He has abided by the decision of his party. The alternative would be to spit the dummy and quit, an act that would rightly be regarded as one of petulance. Garrett’s woes started when a joke was wilfully misinterpreted during the election campaign and beaten up by a media desperate to instil some life in what looked like a thrashing. Even Richard Wilkins, a man not internationally famous for his ability to spot a hoax, thought Garrett was joking in remarking Labor would “change it all when we get in.” Thereafter his appointment as Minister for Environment and the Arts was interpreted as a demotion as if, having been in Parliament three years, he should’ve been given a senior portfolio. Ever since, Garrett has either been criticised from the Left for failing to do anything, or bagged from the Right whenever he has taken decisions supposedly more in keeping with his personal views. If it continues, which is perhaps the point of the repeated attacks on him, the Prime Minister might decide his high profile is a liability rather than an asset. It’s odd, though, because everyone complains about the time-servers and careerists and hacks that now dominate politics. Garrett — like Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull — doesn’t have to be in politics, or in fact work at all. All could retire now and spend the rest of their days counting their money. All are in politics because they want to achieve genuine change. It would have been easy for Garrett to remain a musician and head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. Or he could have joined the Greens. Garrett would have had a good career as a Greens senator. You suspect much of the vituperation directed at him is because people resent that he didn’t do that. Instead, he went for the tough option, joining a major political party and sticking his hand up for ministerial responsibility and accepting the requirements of party discipline. He did that because he could achieve more that way. And he has. Despite the constant criticism of the Government’s solar policies, the solar panels program was a huge success. Garrett successfully argued in Cabinet for a massive increase in funding after its initial allocation was used up far more quickly than expected. He also secured additional arts funding, particularly for indigenous arts. He got $4b for insulation in the stimulus package — a program Peter Costello proudly boasted of knocking off when brought forward by Turnbull as Environment Minister. The real challenge as Minister for Environment is within government — any government — trying to win internal battles with pro-development and resource ministers, trying to secure and retain funding for environmental programs, trying to convince colleagues round the Cabinet table that the old jobs-versus-environment dichotomy is a con. Garrett’s won some and lost plenty as well. But he’d have known that when he took the decision to join Labor. |
|
|
96 Comments
Hear hear Bernard, I agree on all points.
EXACTLY. Thank you Bernard.
Garrett was screwed by Labor in 1984, when they preferenced the Nationals against his Nuclear Disarmament Party (ouch!).
You can’t think he’d forget that when chosing to join the ALP 20 years later.
Garrett obviously has some steel. Good article Bernard.
Oh Bernard, a bit touchy when it comes to criticism about the former champion of the left.
When comparing Garrett’s environmental passion with Turnbull’s replicanism, you said you have not heard Turnbull use his position to promote the republican movement lately. Well, that is a false comparison. If Turnbull had suddenly coverted to the monarchists the way Garrett converted to uranium mining, then you would be correct.
Unfortunately for you, Turnbull did not convert, therefore you have no comparison.
Garrett on the other hand was espousing back in late 2006 that he would NEVER support uranium mining in any form - unless, as we now know, he was made environment minister, then uranium mining suddenly becomes a good thing.
Is he a sell out - you bet he is!
You should never try to defend the indefensible Bernard, you waste your ammunition and you look silly doing it!
The thing is Bernard, the mining of uranium itself may pose a danger, which is partly why many in the the pre-Rudd ALP (and didn’t he look splendid at State of Origin last night, mixing with the sweaty folk, saying ‘mate’ and ‘shake the sauce bottle’) wanted it all stopped after the 3 mines expired.
The Howard Govt (and Rudd opposition) were presented with a preliminary report last year from experts showing major cancer clusters in areas where yellow cake was mined. The evidence supported a longatudinal study to see what health effects there are on miners and Aboriginal people 20-30 years after mining uranium began.
Surprise surprise, it’s been ignored. Surprise too that the NT has some of the highest cancer rates in teh world in areas where (wait for it) … there are uranium mines! fark me dead, what a coincidence.
So let’s get this right: we don’t want to use nuclear energy here. We oppose nuclear weapons. We may even have evidence that mining the damn thing may be a major health hazard (gee, doesn’t this similar to asbestos??) but because it’s about jobs and export $$, we’re just going to open more uranium mines.
It’s not about the Greens or rabid lefties Bernard, it’s about why Rudd won’t investigate cancer clusters first before he and Garrett et al proceed with another potentially disasterous venture which may end costing far more in health and social consequences.
I can feel an online debate coming on - Bernard Keane v Jeff Sparrow.
My yellowcake is on the Irish bloke.
Pedro, I think you missed the entire point of the article. Have another read (slowly).
Spot on, Bernard, well done.
And Wally Slurry, has it crossed your mind that the reason the uranium mines are there is because there was a lot of the stuff impregnated in the landscape in the first place?
It still makes me want to cry. The battles within that Garrett must face daily would be immense, and sometimes devastating, to the man.
Yes Mark - but if you bother to look at some of the health experts findings, it’s the digging up and processing of uranium for shipment which appears to be injurious to human health.
Many things are not harmful when left alone in their natural state. Your argument is like saying poppys are harmless because they are cute little flowers which dot the lovely hills of Afghanistan. …actually that’s not a bad idea, let’s export poppy’s and hope they are not used for any harmful purpose. Big Pete would go for that. After all, a few shots of high grade smack always made his albums sound much better….
Could you help me out with a citation of said ‘health experts’, please, Walter? This is genuinely news to me.
Pwnerous, are you trying to pass yourself off as a deep thinking intellect - oh, I just got shivers down my spine. Well be sure to tell your mommy when you get home how many books you read today, I’m sure she will be proud!
No matter how would like others to look at it (or how you look it at it), Garrett’s position has changed from being totally against it, to being for it if his party is for it. Considering this topic is his big passion in life, yeah, he’s a sell out.
Now please, be sure to read this slowly pwnerous, because I can’t write any slower.
I have a question. It goes back to a decision made about a planned wind farm here in Victoria during the previous Liberal federal government days. The wind farm was going to go ahead, and then suddenly the “minister for the environment” (a-hem!) vetoed it saying that some orange bellied parrots were in danger of being killed by the wind farm because it was in their flight path.
Everyone smiled and laughed and knew the real reason was to protect fossil fuel interests and hinder an alternative.
That being so… this article seems to imply that the ministerial veto is not the end of the matter. Can a court overturn the ministerial veto? If so, why did no appeal take place in the wind farm incident?
But is it really so? I thought the ministerial veto was the final port of call. No more options after that one….
Please clarify.
PS - I am on the side that says Garrett is a hypocrite. Sorry to the rest of you. He can’t be passionately anti-uranium mining 2 years ago and now say it can be done safely with the right safe-guards in place. To avoid the label of hypocrite, he needs to say “I use to say this…. and I now know I was wrong then. I now believe this….”
Instead of such an honest admission, he instead tells us that he fights for his real beliefs behind closed doors but then flys the party line in public. While that is in fact the way things work a lot of the time, (you win some and you lose some but you stay in the group) - it is not the whole story. There is also the point that IF IT HAPPENS TO THE THINGS YOU ARE MOST PASSIONATE ABOUT, THEN YOU QUIT. There has to be a point where you have to bend too far, to stay in the group. It seems for Garrett there is no such point. He can be bent over and beaten continually and he keeps on flying the party flag.
Very disappointing.
Spot on Bernard
Dear Pedro
Read the damn article. Garrett obeyed the law as is his sworn duty. This is compatiable with an opposition to mining.
Do you want him to ignore the law!!!
If you do then we will end up with a government like that of Bush/Cheyney & we all know how well that turned out!
I’m also on the side that says Garrett is a hypocrite. In fact, while I agree with some ALP policies, because I feel so strongly against uranium mining, I would never stand as a candidate for the Labor Party - that’s what having a real commitment to a point of view means, particularly one as vital, dangerous and injurious to health as mining, milling etc of uranium. Garrett went to great lengths in 1999 to point out the dangers of the method of extracting uranium the way the new mine will do it. It was his emphatic explanation re these particular dangers that makes him a hypocrite now.The stuff that goes back into the acquifer will be polluted - isn’t that damaging the environment?Isn’t that part of his portfolio?If he allows the method of extracting the uranium via using acid etc, how can he enforce stringent rules?What are they, and why isn’t the media demanding to know all the relevant environmental stipulations?Not good enough Bernard! You’re just doing a ‘snow job’ too!
The whole process is dangerous, and what about proliferation of nuclear weapons and the ‘terrorist’ threat we’re being bombarded with ad nauseum - we’re the terrorists - putting this stuff in the world when there’s no guarantee of what will happen to it when it’s being extracted in this country let alone sent overseas. Where is it going? What precautions/agreements/stipulations are in the uranium we export now? What agreements with China for example? Bernard? Anyone?
What policies are in place re the workers?Are they regularly checked by health experts?Do they have access to these medical results?What about the people who live in the vicinity of the mine/s?Are they checked regularly, or is it just OK as they’re mostly indigenous people and they don’t count anyway? We had the same attitude when we allowed nuclear tests on aboriginal land that was known to be inhabited by mostly aboriginal people - many of them died, many got sick and some still are!
The US ‘slapped’ the second in charge in Pakistan with a feathe(because Mushareff was their mate at the time) after he admitted to selling/giving information and nuclear materials to other countries. Pakistan is in a perilous state at the moment; they have nuclear weapons, are not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; nobody ever suggests that the UN should send inspectors there(or to India or Israel or??either for that matter).
Where are the permanent nuclear waste storage facilities in the US? Britain?China?Who else are we going to sell it to, India?
I believe, that if cancers had a little ‘caused by tag’ the whole nuclear industry would’ve folded before this. Aren’t those greedy mining companies lucky that there isn’t?
I’ve lost too many loved ones through this cruel disease; and I must query the horrific reality - 1 in 2 or 3 people can now expect to be diagnosed with cancer. I think this is a national emergencey, but apparently not enough people have lost family members or friends to this disease to even ask the questions, or do any research. The numbers have increased in line with the added use of nuclear materials etc. Ask the people of Iraq about Depleted Uranium bombs(one way for the US to use its nuclear waste?). Apathy is also a terminal disease, and sadly, there’s too many on this site who are suffering from it!
I support leaving the filthy stuff in the ground, not using it as a means of polluting the planet and endangering people via one means or another!
Pedro, I’ll help you out:
“But in Garrett’s case, as with any Minister of the Crown, he not merely has a responsibility to perform his duties appropriately, but his decisions are appellable. The Federal Court would overturn a bad decision, no matter how passionate the views of the Minister who made it.”
So it doesn’t really matter what his views on Uranium mining are … which would make more sense than the cynical idea that he’s sold his ideals for a career, or money - neither of which he needs.
Does that help?
Jeff Sparrow is surely having a lend. OR he is so blinkered by some ideological or personal vendetta , or both, against Peter Garrett that he chosen to ignore all the facts surrounding the Uranium mine approval.
Putting aside the fact that there are more cheap shots in your article than at the average Vodka promotion party, why don’t you consider the following facts Jeff?
1. Peter Garrett has for decades spoken out against having more uranium mines , or a nuclear power industry, in Australia.
2. He did so again - publicly - at the ALP national conference when this matter was debated.
3. However, that ALP Conference decided to change the three mines policy and allow more Uranium mines. That conference also decided against a nuclear power industry in Australia (with Peter Garrett pushing that case) .
4. As Environment Minister, Peter Garrett administers the EPBC Act , under which a technical assessment of the environmental impacts of a particular proposal - and only that proposal- is undertaken , and that proposal approved, with or without conditions, or rejected, based on that assessment.
5. That is, as others have pointed out, the law, and a legal process.
6. Under Government policy, more mines are allowed (but no nuclear industry, thank god).
7. So Peter Garrett was simply making a technical decision under that law, and that technical assessment process, regarding this particular uranium mine proposal.
8.He was not deciding whether he still disliked uranium mines or not. He was deciding, as the Minister responsible for administering the EPBC Act, on a particular proposal for a mine, under the law.
Where’s the sell-out, hypocricy, etc in that? If you are against having (more) uranium mines and therefore didn’t want this one to go ahead, blame the new ALP policy, not Peter Garrett.
“Overland” editor ? - more like “Over the top” .
And “never trust a hippy” is a bit unfair, although when applied to the trite and illogical argument of Mr.Sparrow, it is a tempting theory.
Just because rednecks (who want to develop or mine anywhere they like) or cheap-shot merchants and ideologues think Peter Garrett can ignore the law and just do what they want instead, doesn’t mean he can. Like it or not, the system simply doesn’t work that way. So get real, and get fair, Jeff.
Simon
Leave Eichmann alone.
Look Eichmann has already explained that he is not originating the policy, he is merely implementing the policy. Any government is a trade-off between compromise and principle and Mr Eichmann has clearly gone into the regime with the aim of achieving certain things - great roads for example - and a willingness to accept cabinet solidarity on others. I mean really his remit is simply issues of transportation, accommodation and logistics, and people who don’t understand that should acquaint themselves better with the minutaie of the regime he works for - because let’s face it, that’s what matters. Whether you rubber stamp everything you stood against your whole life has nothing to do with it.
Leave Peter Garrett alone - fair enough.
Leave Jeff Sparrow alone - I don’t think so.
Time to put the gloves on Bernard. I’m prepared to bet every last speck of uranium in my possession that you will come out on top. C’mon!
A lemon and lime yellowcake prize for the winner.
Poor Bernard, corrupt journalists, protecting corrupt politicians, is why we are blogging on crikey instead of reading the toilet paper that dares to call itself journalism in this country.
Keep it up and you will lose your job, because if you don’t, we will dump crikey in the toilet as well.
Get it through your thick head. there are less than 6 honest politicians in Australia and Peter Garrett is not one of them.
Thank you, Jan Groen. By Godwin’s Law, I hereby declare Bernard’s case to be proven.
There exists a constitutional convention for those governments loyal to the Westminster System which states that “members of the Cabinet must publicly support all governmental decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them.” The convention is titled ‘Cabinet Collective Responsibility’ and is observed by all players in mainstream Australian politics. The convention goes on to state that if a member of cabinet cannot in good conscience abide by or support the collective decision of the cabinet, then he or she should resign their commission as Minister and return to the backbench.
Standing by personal beliefs or values at the cost of party discipline is not - for me, at least - an example of petulance.
If you can’t support the party line, step aside. To do anything else would prove radioactive to our firmly-held notions of democracy.
Oh Poor Peter, the pressure, the criticism and nobody except for his mates Bernard and Mark seem to understand him. If Peter Garrett felt so strongly once to stand against Nuclear Power what makes him think joining the ALP and winning government on the basis of allowing for an increase in the domestic nuclear industry is ok? If we accept the line that he’s just following orders where does that leave us? As Jan points out, it takes us all the way to the ovens.
But Bernard feels that we should just accept poor Peter is just doing his job. Perhaps, but I don’t agree with uranium period. Its not a grey area, its black and white, leave it in the ground where it belongs. I accept that poor Peter maybe has no alternative in his current position but he’s there of his own free will. I don’t feel sorry for him, I feel sorry for the generations to come who have to deal with the mess he and the ALP are leaving behind as they seek to appease the Gunns and Heathgates, because they have to.
Peter might have good intentions but they’ve gone missing in his duty as a government minister.
When did Bernard Keene start moonlighting as Peter Garrett’s press officer? This surely must be the only way to explain his extraordinary defence of said minister.
I agree Garrett didn’t sell out over this uranium mine decision, he sold out the day he joined the Labor party.
In his glory days he was so anti-nuclear it would make your head spin.
It seems now he has the power he has lost the passion.
Not so long ago he wanted to change the world, now apparently his greatest achievement is to insulate its Australian roofs. Perhaps lack of insulation is why the beds started burning.
The greatest example of his position as largely a figurehead in the parliamentary landscape was his sidelining in the government’s global warming policy implementation. He was obviously seen as not up to the job. OK to wheel him out to announce that TV’s are going to have (voluntary) stickers on them to advise consumers of their power consumption, but much else may be a little too taxing.
I think the bottom line is he didn’t want to remembered as just an aging activist singer but be seen as a player in political change and as luck would have it the Labor party presented him with an opportunity to enter parliament. Unfortunately for him the thing that has changed most is his adherence to his principles.
To all those glorying in their meaningless attachment to ‘principles’ there is a simple answer. Your ‘principals’ mean very little because you do very little, and even less that is effective, about them. Peter Garrett’s has an overall, principled commitment to environmental values. The decisions, and compromises, he makes along the way in support of those values do not mean that he is unprincipled. Far from it, instead he has a principled commitment to getting things done for the environment.
Which is much more than can be said for 99% of his attackers.
Geoff, I think you’ve summed it up pretty well. I would agree that while Garrett didn’t sell out over this particular decision, he seems to have lost his way in Labor.
I like to think he’ll find his mojo again, and perhaps one day we’ll see the Garrett of old; albeit wiser and more savvy. I hope so anyway - for his sake, and ours.
Thanks Bernard. Great article. I admire Peter Garrett enormously. It is so bloody hard to retain any principles when all the midgets try to bring you down. How often does a politician really cling to his/her idealism? The man has strength and dignity. Long live Peter Garrett.
A good article. I fear though that the way politics is reported, discussed and thought about in Australia means that Garrett doesn’t have a bright future. We need to move beyond binary opposites (sellout-idealist, greenie-developer) but I can’t see that happening any time soon. Plenty of evidence for such reducionism in the comments above.
Who the fuck is “Geoffrey Ross Fawthrop” and why is he calling me corrupt?
That wouldn’t be failed Democrat and Queensland Senate candidate Geoff Fawthrop would it? The bloke who earlier this year told the Courier-Mail “the most common and destructive form of child abuse, the one that consistantly (sic) fills our jails and mental hospitals is without a doubt ‘single motherhood.’ When will alleged experts on child safety and welfare face up to this pervasive sad truth. Maybe then children will be kept where they have always been safest, with their biological fathers”?
And how did you go with Don McLean, Geoff? Did he let you borrow his song so you could change the words and release it for “charitalable purposes” (sic)?
Don McLean huh? No wonder you don’t like Peter Garrett.
You’re fired up now Bernard. Nows the time to take on Jeff Sparrow. Beat up the smarmy little git.
Man, I half read your apologia for Garrett, and haven’t read the comment string, but already I think you’re in denial, never mind corrupt.
Fact is Garrett could have really made a big difference as a NSW Greens Senator. Right now on the climate change package, just as you also write about Steve Fielding sharing balance of power. He didn’t have to be a LabLib, in a golden cage like one of Greg Combet’s domesticated gouldian finches.
Fact is he was Garrett was organised by Bob Carr to wedge the Green party and ngo green movement, just has the ex Premier did on forests here 1995-1999. Carr appealed to his vanity and ego as a front man. And it worked. He’s made virtually no difference to the balance of environmental protection on the big issues of the nation since 2007. Virtually none. But he has made a big difference to the green votes going to the ALP.
Absolutely he is a sell out. Was back during the Kingsford Smith preselection and is today.
My only caveat is that the ALP were the only contender to replace Howard, who I have written before was a dead cert to agitate for nuclear power duel use and therefore nuclear weaponry either via US base or on our own behalf. But oh what a compromise by Garrett.
He should resign before his vanity does any more damage to the ecological sustainability of the country let alone the planet.
Tom, nobody could accuse you of being a sell-out. Because you have absolutely nothing to sell. There is not anything of value in there.
To those of the ‘Garrett is a sellout’ opinion, what is it that he has sold, and what was the price? It clearly is not about money, and also not really power since I’m sure Garrett doesn’t like the ‘power’ of being required to be part of the approval process for a Uranium mine. I think you need to do more than put a label on someone to make a convincing case.
If Garrett was a Greens senator he would also be constrained by having to follow a particular party line. It would be a different line, sure, but none the less still a party line. He has chosen the path of pragmatism and I’m sure does what he can to further his ideals along that path. Others choose a different path, which is not to say they shouldn’t, since our Greens politicians also make very valuable contributions.
Bernard, I have no idea who Geoffrey Ross Fawthrop is, but I don’t think he was calling you corrupt. His grammar is weird to say the least, which makes it hard to follow what he is saying. I think he is saying Crikey has a tradition of a higher standard of journalism. Keep it up, don’t become like the rest of the media. I agree with that much of it.
The comment about single mothers is absolutely appalling, whoever said it.
While his grammar is corrupt it is still clear that he is saying that Bernard is a corrupt journalist protecting a corrupt politician and that he will have to be sacked if he doesn’t stop being corrupt. Clearly, there is some mental corruption here.
I assumed that Fawthrop was a totally obscure nutter but apparently he is a not totally obscure nutter. Or not yet anyway
David, I have read it again and I can see what you mean. I had to read it about 6 times to understand it.
Once you see it, I makes sense. That was silly of me.
Once you see it, it makes sense. That was silly of me.
Oh David Sanderson you are an absolute joke.
But I do agree with the sub-editor - “Leave Peter Garrett Alone.”
Any Minister in any portfolio who is as useless and ineffective as Garrett should be left well and truly alone. His total efforts - whether about rivers, crocodiles, climate change, whales etc etc etc have not been worth the holes in a crumpet.
It’s a joke I don’t get. You’ll have to explain. If you can.
Any stance can be rationalised. Bernard Keane does this very nicely with Peter Garrett’s hypocrisy. A nice piece of writing.
I’ve copped some whacks on Crikey in my time, but being called a mate of Peter Garrett just about takes the biscuit. I’m deeply wounded.
David ‘I don’t agree with uranium, period’ Howe, Gee, it must be nice not to have to think any more. Then you can blithely dismiss a technology that people with serious environmental credibility, who’ve investigated the alternatives deeply, have embraced as our best hope for avoiding major climate change.
Graeme, I asked you to explain your attack on me and you give a cowardly answer. You object to my views but you can’t say why. Why do you bother posting here? You have nothing to say.
Oh, hang on you did say: “The issue of environment is serious in the extreme.”
Your talent for stating the stunningly obvious shouldn’t go unrecognised. Pick up your Pompous Prat medal on the way out.
Mark, does that mean you think we should be building nuclear power plants, to save the world from serious climate change? How many would be a good number for you?
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
Timely and valuable BK.
Geoffrey is a polutant (probably not radioactive) and we must all learn to live with those.
Your subject demands and deserves sophisticated detail not emotional reactions.
Thanks.
Yes, David Howe, we should be building nuclear power plants. Integral fast reactors, preferably. Hundreds, if not thousands. Enough to replace every single coal-fired power station would be good.
shorter BK - “the tough option, joining a major political party and sticking his hand up for ministerial responsibility and accepting the requirements of party discipline.”
Akshally no, he was parachuted into the safe seat/Labor fiefdom previously the home of serial failures Bowen & Brereton rather than work hard as a Green or Independent Senator.
And don’t come the “no power” as a lone voice - viz Xenophon/Chipp/Andren et al.
Passion & principal count for much with an electorate disgusted by bland blow waves (eg SS that execrable excuse for a Foreign Minster), meretricious mediocrities willing to do anything to anyone if bidden by their betters (eg practically all of them) and outright mendacious, greedy bastards (eg the rest).
A Parliament consisting of 70%+ failed lawyers (incl Garrett) can be nowt but a sheltered workshop for pusillanimous poltroons.
If man could live on bile alone AR then you would be exceptionally well fed. There is no argument here - just a belching rave.
Thanks AR - you have linked the issues perfectly.
Poor Dave will spray his bias all over the place without any thought or basis, so don’t hesitate to ignore him. Most of us “contributors” either seek more info, or want to express an opinion - all Dave ever seems to do is level personal abuse, and even attempts to ridicule, on anyone with whom he doesn’t agree.
Sad that!
I’m with Mark Duffett on the nuclear power issue. Yes, it makes things radioactive, but coal-fired power is worse on every other front.
What I’d really like to see is Australia dig a big hole in the ground where no-one lives (and by that I include our indigenous population. Ask them to nominate a few places they never lived and don’t care about) and offer the world a recycling service too.
Pay us to dig it out of the ground, and pay us again to take it back.
(I have views about wind-farms too, but they involve doing bad things to people who complain about the odd parrot sushi)
Perhaps judging Peter Garett and calling him a sell-out based on the current Four Mile Mines incident would be harsh but his history as a Labor MP and as the Minister just makes me cringe.
Has anyone conveniently forgotten that it was him who ‘conditionally’ approve the Port of Philip Bay dredging? the withdrawal of ANAM funding (ironic considering he was a former rock star) or supporting the building of the Bell Bay Pulp Mill in Tasmania?
I’ve done some homework and blogged about this whole ‘what has happened to Peter Garett’ thing. To a certain extent, I think Peter, himself probably admits to it - the whole ‘toeing the party line’.
My only question is this, “How far would he go to support the party’s decision?”
I agree Grae, you are both on the same level and could link together perfectly.For the sake of decorum, however, we should all avert our eyes. The joining of very mediocre minds is never a pretty sight.
Yes, praise Peter Garrett for being a slave to the party machine rather than standing up for something he believes in.
GEOFF SINGLETON - “I agree Garrett didn’t sell out over this uranium mine decision, he sold out the day he joined the Labor party.” Indeed! Why didn’t he join the Greens? I’d have had more respect for him then.
Some people have a very strange view of principles; as though they’re something that can be adjusted, remodelled, sacrificed etc for a more ‘grand’ or politically expedient position. With all the songs he wrote against the nuclear power industry(which includes uranium mining, obviously), his position as President of ACF; his strong argument against the very methods of extracting the uranium he’s just given permission for, with the associate dangers he claimed in 1999, I’m more than entitled to call him a hypocrite, as my kids and anyone else who knows me would have the right to do, if I changed my views, like him?
It is a fallacy that nuclear power is the answer to climate change. It is just not true, that the whole nuclear industry does not emit Co2, or indeed any other dangerous emissions that are carcinogenic/toxic and destructive.
It is not true that solar power is not able to compete with coal powered electricity generators for base load power.
Professor David Mills, who spent 30 years of his life in solar research was forced out of Australia by the Howard government because they refused to assist via funding. On October 1st 2007, he appeared on the 7.30Report with representatives from 2 companies in California US, who are excited about the positive steps towards solar power for day and night base load power, which will be cheaper than nuclear and probably coal as well, using his years of testing etc. They are going to inject huge sums of money, so they wouldn’t be taking a risk if they weren’t convinced? The time frame mentioned was approximately 5 years - almost 2 have passed already!(You can read the text on http://www.abc.net.au/7.30)
There is no permanent storage facility for nuclear waste (unless the NT is made into one??). The situation re nuclear waste has been a dire one for many years now, with waste leaching into waterways etc in many countries. Nobody has convinced me, that all stages of the nuclear fuel cycle is safe; emissions from every stage including uranium mining contain carcinogens and other toxins that only increase cancer incidents and genetic mutations in animals and humans. Some of them are lodged in the testes and ovaries with subsequent genetic mutations.
If all power stations around the world were changed to nuclear, there’d only be about 3 yrs of good quality uranium left - then we’d have to find a renewable alternative, or enrich poor grade uranium which also emits dangerous toxins. The reactors in the US, Britain in particular have reached their used by date several years ago - it is dangerous for them to continue. In 2006, 3 of the 10 reactors in Sweden were closed due to a manufacturing fault - it was only good luck that prevented a meltdown. Many other reactors in the world were built in the same manner.
There is no moral justification to open another uranium mine - it’s only a lust for mining companies and their profits that motivates this latest decision.
That’s what Peter Garrett has sold out his principles for - getting into bed with the big polluters and their lust for profits now - and to hell with the rest of us! He’s supposed to be the Minister for the Environment, not the Minister for Mining Companies and profits!
Bernard, you still haven’t asked/demanded any answers to the relevant questions from either myself or others? How much research have you done? Where’s your list of pertinent questions?
CAMPBELL MOODY - You can’t make bombs out of coal. Nuclear power plants make lots of plutonium a year, and you need a very small amount of that to make a horrific bomb. What if terrorists cut the water supply to a reactor? You get melt down and a Chernobyl incident. It’s very strange, that even after 9/11 the US hasn’t taken any precautions to prevent such an event?Then there’s the reactor demolition after 15-20 years? You can’t just pull it down and put a footy field on top? No manufacturer has been made to cover the cost of this, or storage and transport of waste, or the police power to protect us etc. These necessities are not included in the cost per kilowatt hour! Proponents of nuclear power conveniently leave these facts out in their cost assessments - and history has shown, that these costs always suffer from ‘blowout’? That means, that billions of dollars of our money would be needed to safely dismantle old reactors - our taxes that would have to be taken from health, education, public transport etc?
Finally, would you like to have depended on the Howard Government to tell the truth about leaks or terrorist threats or costs or ???Remember kids overboard and AWB? Mamdouh Habib? The NSW Rees government? Or any of the others for that matter!The Bjelke-Petersen govt? Rudd or??Anyone? No way! Pushing the nuclear ‘solution’ is allowing governments to behave like ‘police states’ in order to protect us, and then they’ve shown to be very hesitant re the truth. I don’t want to take the risk, thank you!
It seems to me that there are two “sides” that can be identified in this discussion:
1) Those who say it is ok to be a part of a group and try to change the group from the inside, but you fly the flag of loyalty publicly (even if it is something you disagree about)
2) Those who say it is ok to be a part of a group, so long as you don’t have to compromise on the most important issues that matter the most to you. In such a case, you should leave the group.
I know that I hold to number 2. Obviously some of the writers hold to number 1. But to be honest, I think there must be a point at which we really all do hold to number 2. Imagine if you joined a group with idealism at the start and it turned into a Nazi party that sought to exterminate a race of people from the face of the earth. Do you hang around and try to change the party from within while it goes about its business of killing Jews? Do you fly the “we have to kill the Jews” flag with the party rationale, while attempting to change the party from within behind closed doors? I use this example as the most extreme thing I can come up with to demonstrate that at some point we must all agree: you will eventually reach a point where you leave the group over your highest beliefs - if they conflict with the group.
Garrett disappoints us (who admit we are in group 2) because we believed that he was passionately anti-nuclear industry and passionatley anti-uranium mining. He clearly can live with things we were led to believe he would never live with.
There seems to be two other ways to describe people:
1) Those who think to be a team member of a group is more important than personal principle.
and
2) Those who think that personal principles are higher in the end, than even aligance to a group you like for many other reasons.
The comments throughout this discussion seem to fall one way or the other.
Evenly expressed, Jim, but nevertheless wrong. The point that you’re missing (inexplicably, as it’s already been expounded by several others) is that it’s not just about group loyalty vs personal principles, it’s about the rule of law. What you’re saying is that Garrett should stop Four Mile on grounds other than those set down by statutes governing ministerial responsibility, which is to say, spurious. Or, putting it another way, the ends justify the means. That way lies anarchy.
I’d like to note that someone called slackbastard on a site I can’t link to compared me to the “leave Britney alone” guy and that was most amusing.
Dear Bernard, at least i attempted to do something, long ago and far away about a system which was then and still is corrupt. Every government since federation was eventually tossed out of office under a cloud of corruption, incompetence or both. As an alleged journalist, you should be more aware of this than i. All investigations into child abuse for decades have found that biological fathers are rarely involved. Whereas mothers are commonly responsible for neglecting and abusing children. Please Bernard if you want to continue supporting child abuse then go on refusing to “question motherhood and apple pie” like the rest of the media.
And it’s a good thing you are out of politics Geoffrey. A very good thing.
Perhaps worse than corruption is an ingrained tendency to believe whatever rubbish suits your own peculiar prejudices, regardless of the bountiful facts to the contrary.
Sanderson,
I beg to differ. Pam Allan wanted me on her staff according to a well sourced rumour - Steve Taylor mid 90ies.
Soon to be ALP mayor of Waverley, Peter Moscatt wanted me to jump ship and ‘grind teeth’ with the ALP Left against the ALP Right.
Beazley wanted me to work on his youth round table in 2000.
But here’s the truth of it Sanderson. I’ve been mulling over what’s different between crome dome and myself after all we both went to Ursula College at ANU, though I doubt he’s on a gluten free diet.
I’ve thought a bit about this recently: It was 1997 or 98 in the teeth of the first Howard Govt. I still had leverage with the peak green groups in NSW after the close election victory back in 1995. I drafted a statement attacking Howard’s woodchipping policies for the state greens network NEFA, SEFA, all the peak groups including TEC, NPA, NSW NCC, FOE, ACF etc. I still have a copy somewhere.
It was delivered in front of Howard’s electorate office, when Gunns was not even a glint in Paul Lennon’s eye, with a briefcase of woodchips for the occasion. The assembled media pack was quite big, press, electronic, some tv too. And it struck me in front of that crowd like a blinding light - that the only benefactors of this stunt was the ALP with an equally open slather pro woodchipping policy courtesy of Paul Keating (verus Deferred Forest Areas debacle 1995-96 monstering Minister John Faulkner).
I chucked it right there in front of the Big Media. Cleaned up the woodchips and walked away - the plan was an ostentatious arrest in front of the media throng with senior coppers on hand. No problem arrested many times before. Matthew Moore current FoI editor at Fairfax wrote back then an icily contemptuous comment piece about pity the trees for such ineffectual protest action. But he didn’t understand in his reptilian way that like Mal Meninga I just couldn’t do it - that is effectively be a political sl*t for the ALP. Too good a memory of Paul Keating killing forests and too many principles.
That’s the difference.
Giggle.
Indeed, I’d go so far as to LOL.
Okay so he’s not a life long staffer for the ALP, I withdraw that, but this is what crikey wrote, contrary to lack of declaration above:
“Simon Baulderstone: former environment adviser for Paul Keating, worked on the Sydney Olympics and recently popped up as a Peter Garrett minder.”
in
” Friday, 30 July 2004
Where are 150-plus Hawke-Keating staffers?”
http://www.crikey.com.au/2004/07/30/where-are-150-plus-hawke-keating-staffers/
Leave it up, Bernard. Do that.
I assume it is Tom’s rococo fantasy life that is causing the amusement.
And I’m proud of this too champ, better than a song in the charts, to be sure: http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/id127.html
US $3B aluminium smelter hits the wall of green opposition, part funded by this no value individual. Worth retiring on … perhaps.
Currently link posted under moderation …..
this is what crikey wrote, contrary to lack of declaration above:
“Simon Baulderstone: former environment adviser for Paul Keating, worked on the Sydney Olympics and recently popped up as a Peter Garrett minder.”
in
” Friday, 30 July 2004
Where are 150-plus Hawke-Keating staffers?”
Interesting.
I wrote ‘leave it up Bernard, do that’ in reference not to my soliliquy about 1995-1998 goings on, but Simon Baulderstone’s intervention for Garrett above. Because it was under moderation and not appearing to the readers of the string.
I wrote leave it up because it had been declined already once. I thought it was because I called him a ‘life long ALP staffer’ which might be exagerating but only a little.
Then I put it up again with link to crikey in 2004 reference but again it was under moderation.
So I put it up a third time, finally with no link, which went through, and since it had already appeared Bernard could hardly decline the expose of Baulderstone’s ALP provenance without courting an accusation of bias.
Why would BK want to protect Baulderstone’s connection to Garrett connection to Keating? Is he a big source of BK stories? Is he another Gouldian Finch?
LOL.
……………………………………
As for you Sanderson (is that 61 year old photographer of Bellevue Hill?), regarding “no value” individuals as you condescendingly refer to, let me suggest that in the age of dangerous climate change a Zegna wardrobe, French antique clock, Shrek DVD, airline hostess collecting fop is the epitome of ‘no value’.
Or to put it another way paraphrasing Dirty Harry a good man should know his limits.
Feel free to convey the sentiment.
But BK or someone at crikey let my link go through on hard work for the compenaros in Patagonia and for that I say thankyou. I earned it.
One thing I can also say for free notwithstanding the Garretts and their bogus Mittagong Forum of toadies and fools there is one thing I’ve learned of real value over these sometimes fraught, faithless, or painfull years of environmental politics: No one, except God or Gaia or whoever the f*ck is up there, can take away a vocation. It’s mine. I own it. You can’t have it.
Geoffrey Fawthrop, you have got it right in one respect: biological fathers are rarely involved. How about having a go at the absent fathers, not staying around to take responsibility? Single mothers usually do a good job under difficult circumstances.
“Perhaps worse than corruption is an ingrained tendency to believe whatever rubbish suits your own peculiar prejudices, regardless of the bountiful facts to the contrary.”
So wrote Dave Sanderson!!
And doesn’t he let his peculiar prejudices show! His ceaseless cringeing insults to anyone who has an opposing view does Crikey no service at all. He writes unashamedly about mediocre minds - a bit of self-examination would be a valuable exercise.
Nevertheless, I have to say that the exchange that has followed BK’s piece has been most interesting and thought provoking - except for DS.
Tom, your conspiracy theory mind is in over-drive. Any post that has a link automatically goes through the moderation process - it has nothing to do with BK.
Your speculations about a Bellevue Hill photographer are totally random, as a 90’s teenager might say.
Enjoy your vocation although I doubt you will have a queue of people at your door demanding to take it off you.
Not sure I get your point regarding me , Tom (McLoughlin) . Yes, I was an adviser - and proud of it - for Labor Ministers/Prime Ministers Richardson, Hawke and Keating , for a total of about 8 years. So what ? (inter alia, hardly “life-long” - I was a journo for longer, and have also been a self-employed consultant for longer) . I also worked (nearly always part-time) for Peter Garrett for a couple of years too, before he became a Minister . So what?
Much more relevantly, I just happen to have personal views, and knowledge of the processes and political realities.
So how’s this for a novel idea ? Let’s stick to the substance of the issue, rather than going down the Sparrow path of cheap shots, suggesting my opinions somehow don’t weigh as much because I was an adviser to Labor pollies. By the way, I have also advised - still do - lots of other people and lots of other organisations . Cheers, and enjoy your day !
Tom McLoughlin: I’ve never been able to understand your comments. They sort of flit around but never quite land anywhere. You remind me of an old theatrical going through his/her scrapbooks. Would it be asking too much of you to stick to your point. If you have one, that is.
Geoffrey Ross Fawthrop. Either you are astonishing rude, or astonishingly English. I assume the latter. Why do you think independent online newspapers are so popular in Oz? It’s because WE KNOW Rupert Murdoch owns the bulk of the printed press, WE KNOW his lack of scruples and standards. WE KNOW the Herald Sun puts out a screed for the people in the community who are unencumbered with excess intellectualism.
Yet you would have Crikey go down the gurgler because a writer expressed a point of view contrary to your own. You sound like a fledgling Rupert Murdoch yourself.
Dear Mr McLoughlin or whatever title you’re travelling under: I don’t have anything to do with Crikey’s comment moderation. My title is “Canberra correspondent”, which I thought would have made it clear I wasn’t, say, “Crikey webmaster”. I have many better things to do than sit and wait for you to post whatever conspiracy theory drivel you’re peddling. Among them are trepanning myself with a rusty drill, watching the complete works of Michael Bay and working on a biography of Kevin Andrews.
“Why would BK want to protect Baulderstone’s connection to Garrett connection to Keating? Is he a big source of BK stories? Is he another Gouldian Finch?”
Jesus. Bring back John James. With all due respect to said “Baulderstone” I haven’t the faintest clue who he is. Get something resembling a clue.
Is John James gone? I was thinking we haven’t heard much from the Religious Right recently.
No worries, Bernard, don’t get too upset. As you can see Baulderstone by his own admission is a serious player. Fact the moderation list mechanism re links is not explained is not my mistake but now it is clarified. For all I knew each author had employee responsibility to moderate. As you might logically think given expertise in the topic covered (?). So it’s not you, who then declined Baulderstone comment (twice)?. I challenge you to name them.
I already knew about Baulderstone from back in the mid 90ies sharing the national office of The Wilderness Society in Sydney which is my expertise (you should get a clue). He’s not a light weight having been env adviser to Keating including the critical time the peak green groups 1995-6 repudiated Keating and Howard got his devastating start.
That’s serious history and you are doing democracy a big favour ventilating all this on this string. Fact you didn’t know is significant. But I am happy to say your coverage of broad range of policy issues day after day is quite intimidating (to me) and happy to defer to your impressive knowledge base on so many other matters.
In short no one can know everything. And the fact it took three posts to get Baulderstone’s provenance exposed is in fact an issue for crikey even given the workload. What if crikey had not published that list 5 years ago. Would my third attempt have been knocked back?
Venise as explained previously I am a lobbyist community media person and as such I play politics. I’m not interested in good writing style or high circulation or popularity. I aim to change policy with pressure. Exposing Baulderstone all the way back to the Keating machine biased defense of Garrett is all about pressure on the Rudd Govt who as you will have noticed has been forced to expend his political capital of coverage of his business woman wife Rein. Itself squandered given the murders in Jakarta bombing.
Unlike alot of readers I’ve been a candidate, elected, held pressers etc and had a degree of success. I write from a real politik not a populist view. If you don’t get it, keep trying or give it up, doesn’t worry me. Fact you repeat your whinge suggests a whisper in your heart you know there is a world of expertise out there you want a piece of.
My main response to Keane, Baulderstone, Sanderson, Venise, is regretably ‘under moderation’ because I linked to two google potential ID’s of “Sanderson”.
I am only adding one other comment: I’ve worked for various organisations but always under my own name, I would ask you to not suggest otherwise.
The only exception being matters of personal security requiring anonymity, or say to protect someone else who could be traced through me. An example of this latter case was pseudonym when I indicated I knew who the Quadrant hoaxer Katherine Wilson was - because being a greenie, having published on Genethics before, I thought his might have led to her identity only indirectly because I don’t know her personally. Then I posted on my own name that it was she 24 hours later. I strongly believe generally in saying what you mean and meaning what you say and owning it publicly. Or correcting it with grovel.
I have a law degree to help me avoid anything actionable against me, don’t have assets anyway except my education, and I’ve never been sued unlike say the founder of Crikey, God bless him.
Tom, you forgot to mention that you have also been trained by ASIO to use Google and the interweb to hunt down your opponents. It must be a sad loss for them that your skills are no longer available to them now that “personal security” has become such a pressing concern.
I am sorry to hear about your asset situation. May I suggest that you sue me in order to redress this most unfortunate state of affairs.
My respeck for Tom doubled - nay, redoubled - when he said he knew who the Quadrant hoaxer was, but ZOMG! carefully masked his identity to ensure it didn’t lead to her discovery. Onya mate. Chivalry is not dead.
So the response ‘under moderation’ was blocked.
In short - for Baulderstone to work for Keating and Garrett previously and not declare this speaks volumes about the ALP view of it’s own obligations of transparency and accountability. It’s obvious the reader should be given the information to judge for themselves.
Regarding Keane, taken at his word not the moderator, though subscribers are not to know whether authors do the moderation, which is at least one logical approach. Further not knowing Baulderstone’s role is a real deficit for a political writer (‘get a clue’ indeed), but then I’m constantly impressed by Keane’s breadth of policy coverage on a daily basis well beyond my knowledge base. The fact Keane knows stuff I don’t doesn’t change the correctness of my post or exposing Baulderstone’s ostensible bias. Nor is rudeness to a paying subscriber many years now called for from a leading writer.
Regarding Sanderson, there are suggested profiles via google. But really Sanderson why don’t you do the decent thing like Baulderstone and reveal your actual antecedents? That would be an honest thing to do.
Re Venise, similar, ALP connected? Also my publishing is not about popularity or shallow issues of style, or high circulation via my blog, it’s about pressure for political change using facts - for example Baulderstone’s bias above, and his chutzpah claiming irrelevance. As if.
One other thing about respect Keane, take notice of Mark Colvin’s approach to the audience and interview subjects, where he is invariably respectful. Colvin, a veteran journalist, Oxford scholar etc, who has suffering immeasurably for his craft, is a wonderful example of a media practitioner. We can’t all be so classy.
Oh Sanderson on ASIO, my grandfather Eric helped the spy in the Petrov Affair write his book, a guy called Michael Bialoguski, but back then it was ASO, while Eric was a sub editor or something at the SMH/war correspondent/confidant of PM Bob Menzies. I requested his security file recently but there is none apparently. I should have asked for my own after I sent several $K to Columbia in recent years. ….. go figure champ.
Tom McLoughlin. Oddly enough I have no connection with anyone in the Labor Party. I’ve never grown up really. In that I’ve always thought ideals stood for something, that they mattered. Someone actually cared about the mess Oz has made of the land. I refer, of course, to the Greens. To someone like you I imagine this is like saying I’d vote for the Communist Party. Which I so absolutely wouldn’t.
I was brought up by my lovely grandmother and scarcely saw my mother. She had been a third rate actress. She did have blinding ambition and she and my step father mixed with as many right- wing pollies as possible. The sheer brutality of their thoughts appalled me. I don’t mean they were talking about killing anyone, but their certitude and self-belief was chilling.
Once my mother gave me a georgous suede coat with a lynx collar, I have to say it was divine. However, principles are principles. I object to seeing wild animals being killed for their skins. Somehow it’s a little more acceptable if the animals are farmed. I thanked her with sincerity and explained I couldn’t accept it. From then on I was a Communist and boy did she spread the word around. She was the perfect example of new money-for her everything had a price tag. Coming from the gutter she had the usual syndrome of money not being able to buy good taste or soul.
These right-wing pollies , such as Henry Bolte, Alan Hunt, no I wont go on with the names. For them things could always be fixed. And if someone expressed a view contrary to their own, they were blasted as Communist.
Not one of them had a philosophy for the Liberal Party and Australia. They repelled me. Also they were boring at parties, I got sick of being chased by them, Susan Sangster’s father was one of the worst.
I vote Green and put in Labor as my second choice. This because they attempt to have some ideals.
Look at Malcolm Turnbull, a typical Lib; he sheds a belief like a snake sheds it’s skin. I suspect that the only reason he was leading the Republicans was because there was a huge chance he could meet and mix with the new entrepreneurs. Not forgetting influence and ever more money.
I don’t have much against you Tom or for you either. But you do flit around with your comments. Your syntax goes out the nearest window and I find it difficult to understand your points. Almost impossible. I guess I sort of have a vision of an avuncular gentleman who could be quite nice if he wasn’t so besotted by a party devoid of morals, beliefs, or principles.
Now you know me as well as I know me. ‘Bye.
Venise, I don’t think Malcolm is a typical Lib. For example, he is very different from John Howard.
I agree that the Australian Republican Movement was and maybe still is an elitist organisation. This was partly because it supported a model that people seemed to find hard to understand. This was evidenced by the ‘No’ result despite the majority of Australians identifying as republicans. So for anyone who joined it, there was the opportunity of making business and social contacts, particularly in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. However, I strongly believe that Malcolm is a sincere person and genuinely believes in the republican cause. He has not changed this belief - he is only recommending a tactical move of waiting until the end of the Queen’s reign. Another failed referendum would not help the republican cause.
Jillian Blackall. I never thought of as being an elitist organization. Anyway could a Republic be more elitist than a monarchy? Also I thought one of the major things which screwed it were the two members-was one of them called Phil Cleary? He and someone else who said if you don’t vote for MY form of Republicanism you can vote for the monarchy. These two men, plus John Howard’s rigging the vote in the first place, killed all hope of the Republic in my lifetime.
I cannot believe Malcolm Turnbull is a sincere person. One evening on Channel Two he had been given a piece of Liberal beat-up, to which he followed his instructions such as,” It has never been Liberal Party belief etc.” (it turned out he had been given the wrong answer by his minder) Without even missing one beat, or acknowledging there had been a stuff-up, he continued on as if this is what he’d been saying all along. They pay actors to fake sincerity. I don’t see why this should happen with our politicians.
I agree that another failed referendum would not help the cause. However, you have to realize that people, as they get older, become more and more conservative.
And Buck house has an astonishingly effective PR department. By the time QEII does depart the scene. All of those people will have been brain-washed into believing Camilla, Parker Bowles Windsor, was just born to be Queen. I stress the women in the electorate because, as we all know, they live a lot longer than the men. Also with Charles looking more and more demented Camilla will take on the PR for her future role.
The thought of any politician being sincere is akin to asking the favourite for the fourth at Ballarat to take the lead role in the ballet Swan Lake.
Venise, on good activist politics - I think of it like martial arts and pressure points. You may not know the reason for the blow until the resultant damage to the nerve endings is manifest - a crumpled figure dissolving from the field of play.
Effective activism is when someone somewhere doesn’t want something published.
Venise,
The ARM republican model and the monarchy were the only choices in the referendum. Malcolm was right to emphasise this to counteract the distortions put out by the monarchists.
I still believe that the referendum was lost mainly because of Labor voters who didn’t understand the model. Liberal republicans voted yes. Liberal monarchists voted no. Only Labor republicans were silly enough to vote no.
Looking at the way William Deane set himself up as unofficial opposition leader from the position of Governor General, imagine what it would be like having a directly elected president.
Jillian if a directly elected president would be a problem, then why are directly elected politicians not a problem? To gain pre-selection for a safe electorate in the liberal, labour, national & green parties you first have to prove that you have no morals, will ignore your constituents and do as the party whip tells you no matter what.
I agree generally with this article and think that the environment movement place far to much emphasis on Garret and his unquestionable shift in positions. However, as federal minister for the environment, he did have the power to require Heathgate to remunerate the groundwater rather than simply dumping mining solution into the acquirer at the end of the Institu leach mining process. Simply dumping the solution is a practice that Heathgate would not be able to carry out in North America and is a practice that has no place in civil society. People can be disappointed in Garrett, as minister for the environment in failing to take this simple step.
Geoffrey,
Re preselections: I will not defend Labor or Green and I don’t know much about the internal workings of the Nationals. Traditionally, the Liberal Party had a number of Members crossing the floor. This didn’t happen under the Howard government, which was disappointing for some Liberal supporters including myself. There were times when it would have been a reasonable thing to do. Things are changing again, the most recent example being the issue of the debts of asylum seekers being cancelled. Some Members said they would cross the floor and so the Coalition ended up not calling for a vote.
The Environment Movement recognised that Peter Garrett was a hypocrite when he joined Labor. It’s only now that the Peter Garrett/Midnight Oil fans like me are realising this.
But then men are only idealists while it’s getting them laid. Look at Gandhi for instance. He was getting laid right to the end. Once idealism isn’t working, then it’s a battle for money and power so they can then at least afford to pay to get laid. Peter Garrett has now successfully made that transition.
His fans, the Environment Movement and I just have to accept that fact and get over it. Everybody else just have to accept the fact that he is indeed a hypocrite and get over it.
Well, Bill, that is a cock-eyed theory. Are we to assume that your pecker-led idealism is now somewhat droopy?
Can’t argue with that.