Now that Kevin Rudd has agreed to debate John Howard on Sunday night, the question becomes not “will the debate happen” but “what is there to debate between these two”.
The Shakespearean in me reckons it will be “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
So, why not take part in the Green alternative? The People’s Forum on Sunday night is open to all comers - in the flesh if you’re in Canberra, or on the web if you’re not.
The People’s Forum will start at 6pm on Sunday night, before the official debate, with a presentation from Bob Brown followed by questions and answers from a panel of journalists and members of the public. At 7.30, we’ll broadcast the official debate to the audience in the theatre.
If you’d like to come along to the forum in the flesh, it’ll be at the Parliament House Theatre, upstairs from the Great Hall, starting at 6 pm. Bookings are essential, so please either call Bob Brown’s office on 02 6277 3170 or email them here.
But here’s the exciting bit for me. For those of you who can’t come along but want to be involved, there’s three politics 2.0 ways of getting involved.
We’ll be webcasting the event in four segments as soon as each becomes ready at www.greenaction.org.au. You can watch it only a few minutes after it happens!
I’ll be live-blogging the event from 6pm onwards right here at GreensBlog, and I encourage lots of you to come along and join the fray in the comments threads.
And, perhaps most exciting of all, we’re opening up the floor right now for questions to put to Bob on the night. Of course, there’ll only be time for a handful to be put to him, so give us the best you’ve got, and hopefully it’ll be put to Bob during the webcast. Those we don’t get to, we’ll make every effort to answer afterwards.
So, get those inquisitorial juices flowing and post your questions here in the comments thread.
See you on Sunday evening!
I am interested to know what has happened overseas when the Greens have had balance of power, or at least a share of it.
It’s not too late to invite the other parties to Sunday’s event, is it? At the very least, the Democrats will show up. I’d like to see Bob have a go at Mark Vaile, though, for not standing up for farmers with regards to climate change inquiries.
Three questions. The first two are a bit curly and I can understand Bob declining to answer till after the election
1. A number of politicians have decided not to recontest this election, and others who are recontesting are expected to fail. Who will you miss?
2. This election will probably see the democrats wiped from the senate, leaving the greens as the only minor party. Would the voters have made a mistake to allow the democrats to wither?
3. Assume for a moment that whoever wins government finds another 10 Billion in the budget to address climate change, and through the kindness of their heart they let you Bob decide on what one initiative it is to be spent. What would you choose, energy efficiency, wind power, wave power, solar thermal, photovoltaics, hot rocks, carbon sequestation, biofuels, or something else. Remember you can only choose one.
Liberal and labor politicians will be monitoring this site, it might just become an election promise!
Question: With John Howard announcing the election for the Saturday during the middle of ’schoolies celebrations’ throughout the nation - are the Greens planning any grassroots campaign efforts during the final days before the ballot to be a presence amongst the first time voters who will be on their traditional ’schoolies week’ celebrations and less likely to be following the campaigns in the media?
By calling the election for Nov 24th, is John Howard trying to minimise a youth surge towards a Green / Labor vote by potentially disenfranchising young voters by circumstance? for example those who are unaware about how to vote in QLD that weekend when they are registered in VIC.
Although it would be the responsibility of the electoral commission to educate young voters on what they need to do, are the Greens taking any steps to be on the streets campaigning during schoolies to remind first time voters about ‘absent votes’ and other methods of voting to ensure they don’t forget or miss their opportunity?
What a great idea having this forum. My question for Bob is why does he think the big parties are so much more interested in giving tax cuts than investing in services? I know some people are doing it tough but most people i know, even low incoem earners, want to see more spent on health and education.
Keep up the good work!
Peter D, the New Zealand Green Party has been in a de facto balance of power position at various times, and has generally used the position to negotiate improvements (from a Green perspective) in government policy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand … of course the Australian Greens are a different entity if with many similar positions, but you could expect much the same here.
Question: Will you or when do you think it will become necessary to advocate a National Population Cap/Quota/Size for all of Australia to curb Population Growth? Something that has been long advocated by the Australian of the year 2007, scientist Tim Flannery to manage the sustainablilty and carrying capacity of Australia?
Philip, New Zealand’s electoral system is something we ought to be looking at implementing in Queensland at the very least.
The German Greens were courted by the SDP in order to form a coalition government. Notable outcomes include the phasing out of nuclear reactors in favour of renewable energy sources.
The Irish Greens have been able to use their position as coalition partners to fight against the location of a major motorway and gas pipeline through culturally and environmentally significant sites.
1. There is some speculation that the Liberals, if they hold power in the Senate after the election will force a double dissolution.
Do you see that as a likely action by the Liberals and how many Green Senators need to be elected in 07 to prevent that after the new Senate commences sitting.
2. The Greeens have committed 22B of the recently announced surplus that the old parties commit to old style tax cuts to climate change action for householders.
There is a repayment quotion on this program [not to exceed the value of the savings]
Any estimate of the actual cost to government over the life of the scheme and what would the Greens do with the balance if they were in government.
3.The Greens are often criticised because they are not seen to behave as a real alternative government, rather as a conscience of government.
How can the Greens overcome the lower house single member system that benefits the old parties and get candidates elected, the basis to becoming government or at least a part of one.
In South Australia water is critical to survival. Can we utilise sea water for fighting fires? Can we use grey water for firfighting instead of using our drinking water?
Here’s another question for Bob: Family First is running a scare campaign to try to divert minor party votes away from Greens to the effect that if Greens hold the balance of power in the senate they will somehow force through a drugs policy which results in free drugs for kids (or something to that effect). We all know that this is a distortion of Greens policy and what a minor party can de facto achieve but for the record I would like to see Bob address this as a 2-part question:
1. Given the Family First scare campaign, what exactly is Greens drugs policy?
2. Can a minor party holding the balance of power in the Senate force through any measure fundamentally at odds with the major parties?
Chris, I’d imagine there’s the risk of burning something nasty in grey water if it were used in firefighting.
Sam: New Zealand’s system (similar to Germany’s) is a good idea but I have a variant I would like to see worked through. The standard mixed member proportional (MMP) concept requires 2 votes: a representative (like here) and a party vote, to get closer to proportional representation. I would like to see a system in which you have 1 vote, and elect a constituency / electorate MP, then the “wasted” votes that don’t elect a member get used up until you have something closer to PR representation in parliament.
The benefit in this scheme is that a party list gives the party structures too much power in determining who gets elected. In my scheme if e.g. Greens get 10% nationwide, but some candidates get significantly more, those would be the ones elected — rather than the ones who the party thinks should be placed higher up the list. There’s another advantage too: you have alternative MPs to the main one, if shared with other electorates. See Representative Member Proportional Voting for more detail of the idea.
Philip,
Your idea has merit and perhaps this variant could be implemented:
Because each electorate must have a similar number of people, the “list” from which additional members are drawn would, for each party, be ranked by primary vote (or some other method). That way, the candidates with the most support are the ones elected, rather than those who make the cut at State/National Council votes.
Suppose an extra solitary billion dollars was found after funding announcements had already been made and had been accepted. Would the Greens support a generous funding of the urgent research needed to document Australia’s remaining languages before they lose all their native speakers?
In fact, since the amount needed to document all languages in the world that are expected to lose their speakers (we don’t use the term ‘die’) has been estimated at a mere $AU2.2 billion, could the Greens push for more international efforts to prevent further loss of endangered languages elsewhere in the world?
I reckon 2.2 billion to save some 3000 languages is remarkably good value for money.
Bob
what is your view on multiculturalism vs. assimilationism?
Is Howard-style assimilationism racism?
Bob
Four quick questions:
1) Why you didn’t invite other political parties to your people’s forum?
2) The housing affordability is at its worst in Canberra and all around Australia. What is green’s solution to this problem.
3) Haven’t heard you talking lately about environment and nuclear issue. Has the issue been sidelined.
4) Given that Democrats are in problem in maintaining as the third leading party and that offers Greens a golden chance to thrive. Yet Greens have so far not come out with any major policies of their own like economic policy or education. How will you justify yourself for this oversight?
Mohammed Ali
Isaacs, Canberra
If the Greens had the balance of power in the Senate, and was coming into conflict with policies of the major party in power, which option would you prefer?
1. Making a deal– passing legislation that conflicts with Greens policy, in exchange for much-needed environmental initiatives.
OR
2. Forcing a double dissolution, meaning that you keep your integrity, but knowing that it is unlikely that the Greens would maintain a balance of power, leaving you less able to push forward an environmentally friendly agenda.
Furthermore, if you chose option 1, what would your limits be– where would you be willing to compromise? Would you be willing to compromise on tax policy, but not on IR policiy? Would you be willing to compromise on education, but not on health (or vice versa)?
(I do, by the way, want the Greens to have the balance of power, and I have enough faith in people like Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle that, if faced with difficult choices, they would make the best possible decision. Nonetheless, there WILL be difficult choices if they have the balance of power, and I’d like to know more about how they plan to approach that).
If you obtained the balance of power in the lower house, would you consider offering your support to either party for exchange of a ministry portfolio? If so, what steps would you put in place so that you (or your fellow party member) doesn’t end up in a compromised position, as many perceive Peter Garrett to be in, and what obstacles would you see as most significant to it working - ie, party politics, economics, business interests?
I’m a staunch Liberal supporter but I must say I am impressed with Larissa Waters on the most part.
I am however concerned about your policy on Work Choices, nuclear energy and the Iraq war.
I don’t necessarily want a hostile Senate but I don’t necessarily want a dead duck Senate either.
What can you say to tip me over the edge to vote for you?
You are the only other party I would consider voting for in the Senate.
What can you tell me about Larissa?
Questions for the Bobster,
1. Looking back over your own political activity during the Howard years, is there anything you regret? Any mistakes and/or lesssons for the future?
2. Given that (a) the Greens have been consistently right about every issue of substance over the past decade, including the Iraq War and Climate Change, and yet (b) polls still show the Greens polling below 10%, what does that tell us about human nature, the nature of modern politics, and the nature of the Australian people? Are the Greens doomed to remain a minority party because people are basically too greedy to do the right thing?
3. What is your vision for the global network of Green parties? Can you envision a day when Green governments around the planet work together for the common good of all, rather than courting short-term nationalist popularity?
What would be the result to the economy, if no action were to be taken to tackling climate change, or if the measures were no effective enough?
According to analysis at http://andrewleigh.com/?p=1658, 28% of the Liberals’ $34 billion tax cut will go to the top 10% and 25% of the ALP’s $31 billion tax cut will go to the top 10% of incomes. This amounts to $9.6 billion and $7.7 billion.
How would this money be better spent?
I recently went to a talk on geothermal power and the best project in that area is around $1-billion short of the cash needed to get past proof of concept to implementation.
What would the Greens do to change the balance from yet more coal power to supporting initiatives like this, particularly considering their potential position as the balance of power in the Senate?
Here’s a question for Bob relating to urban water supplies.
The environmental impact statement for the proposed Traveston Dam on the Mary River in SE Qld was released last week. There is no mention of the effects of climate change, detailed assessment of risk of extinction of species such as the Mary River Turtle, Mary River Cod or Australian lungfish. In addition it states there would be minimal impacts downstream as far as the Great Sandy Straits and Fraser Is is concerned.
On an already over allocated river where current flows do not meet the environmental flow objectives of the Water Resource Plan, why are climate independent and cheaper water supply alternatives not being considered instead of building new dams?
Alcohol abuse is growing problem in our society, and has negative effects from the role in alcohol in car accidents, violence, drownings,and psychological problems e.g. reduced memory.
What policies will the greens promote to reduce the negative impacts of alcohol abuse?
Will the greens lobby for warning labels on alcoholic beverages, about the dangers of excessive drinking?
What policies will the greens implement in preventive
health, to deal with the growing obesity epidemic?
And how much money would be spent in tackling obesity, and in what areas?
The majority of OECD countries spend much higher amounts of money on public transport federally than the Australian government does.
So Will the greens lobby for increased public transport funding at a federal level, for bicycle infrastructure, trains, buses etc?
Also do the greens support the building of a fast train, between Sydney and Melbourne, which would help reduce greenhouse gases from plane and car travel between the two cities?
[...] to all for the questions from the previous thread. We should get at least a couple of them asked [...]
Bob
Why is there a general perception that the Greens would be unable to manage the economy and would cause the flight of capital?
Making private houses more energy efficient is all well and good, but will the Greens make big industries (including the coal industry) more energy efficient? I’m sick of other parties gaining green points by advocating energy-saving procedures for private households, when we all know that it is the big industires that create most of the problems. It’s time to make industries socially accountable (like the rest of us) They want the rights of private individuals, lets make them also take on the social contract of private individuals.
Hi
how can climate change be fought without costing people their jobs? What can the greens do to help get the government moving on climate change?
[...] asked a simple question about whether or not the Greens would push for endangered indigenous languages in Australia to be [...]
Dear Member of Parliament and MEDIA,
banks have been duly warned by media and individual customers about charging exorbitant profits on default fees way over the ACTUAL COST, making them in fact a fine, illegal for companies and individuals under commonwealth LAW, as only Governments can legitimately fine anyone.
Once offenders are notified of that fact, then surely any such ILLEGAL charges made AFTER that time would be a FRAUDULENT act.
ALL MEDIA and POLITICAL PARTIES MUST state their position on enforcing or pressuring FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS* to act within the LAW.
That obviously means allowing charges of only rounded figures to the nearest whole DOLLAR of the ACTUAL COST of generating any default notice; Estimated in most cases about $1.00.
The BANK OMBUDSMAN seems to be FAVORING BANKS collection of illegal fees, and can no longer be trusted to act “INDEPENDENTLY”. We need Government to deal with these institutions, by regulation and censure.
PROCEDURES for failed collection or overdraft or late payment’s FIRST RESPONSE should be handled in the cheapest manner, (PC gen letter) at least.
BTW:- how many people noticed that banks don’t need to really do ANYTHING other than gear their PC to REFUSE payment if insufficient funds are available?
This action costs nothing, and GENERATES NO FEES. I suggest that banks really have such systems BECAUSE IT GENERATES massive income from a void where no income could be made otherwise.
Customers get notices from recipients of payments if it fails anyhow, so any notice by BANKS on such matter is superfluous.
Fees charged by lenders are (really illegal fines) TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, as they already get ADDITIONAL INTEREST for every day of non-payment. Such charges are in effect a CONVENIENT MONEY GOUGING SCAM, nothing else!
Organizations charging unnecessary fees such as the above can ONLY keep doing so while we do nothing, and keep this robbery quietly within us. To stop it only need a few words or letters to your MP to act, and let him know you will refuse to vote for him if he allows such robbery to continue because of his laziness.
Any additional cost is double-dipping. Any fees of the type they HAVE been charging is NOT ONLY EXCESSIVE or ILLEGAL or UNNECESSARY, but can actually CAUSE a person on a tight and limited income to default further, leading to possible BANKRUPTY, simply as a result of these illegal / unnecessary charges. ASK if this Wouldn’t constitute a causal performance which adversely affects company profits in the end?
REFERENCES:-
(1) - default fees ‘penalties’, - legal principles - cases such as Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd and O’Dea v Allstates Leasing System (WA) Pty Ltd.
(2) - current bank agreements - engaging in unconscionable conduct within the meaning of section 51AB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cwlth).
Robert Koomans, C/- letterbox @ 96 Serviceton Avenue, Inala Qld. 4077.
day Phone 07-3879-1476.
just got the latest issue of the Greens magazine (being a member that’s what I get)…. anyway without even lookin at it, again I saw it’s filled with just environmental issues
when are the bigwigs in the Greens (Political Party) goin to realise that most of us whilst caring of the environment are much more concerned with the social and economic issues of Australia, and look to the Greens to be the new left of politics in oz… not some political branch office of the wilderness society!
makin of oz a clever country is a farce… no matter how educated you are - if there’s no one to hire you… being educated is useless
at 45 with a degree in human resources, an associate diploma in industrial relations, and a grad dip in library science and a grad cert in ohs and hr and doin further studies in ohs… what’s the best I can hope for in the way of work - taxi driving!
the Greens need to be much more concerned between the growin gap between the rich and poor rather than the endangered blue speckled bullfrog in Arnum land
as a result of a 50k plus hecs and massive other incurred debt and years of problematic unemployment - I’m looking down the barrel of homelessness and dispair
and quite frankly I became a financial and active member of the Australian Greens to bring about social and economic advancement for the not-so well off - not to be some tree huggin vegin content with living in a tent in Ninbin.
Rob:
I have forwarded your concerns about the content of Green Magazine on to the editors.
If you would like to contact them directly, you can do so on greenmag-AT-greens.org.au
I do appreciate your concerns, but the content of Green Magazine does not necessarily reflect the breadth of work the Greens Senators cover in their portfolios.
If there are any particular issues that are worrying you, please feel free to contact our offices.
Cheers
Tim
By the by…
i can’t here to ask questions….
i just want to say thank You for your info….
=========
bob
Alcohol abuse affects millions. This site has a lot of useful information.
Alcohol Abuse