GreensBlog - the official blog of the Australian Greens Senators

Posted in Immigration | 6 Comments

6 Responses to “How long were the people on this small boat waiting to be rescued?”

1. on November 22, 2007 at 6:11 am1 willy bach

   We don’t know very much yet, but what I have heard so far does not look good for team Howard. I am glad this has happened at a very late stage of the election campaign. Otherwise the Liberals would have worked up a stunt, politicised the Navy and possibly caused the death of some of the people who have now been rescued.

   I am glad they are not going to Nauru, but concerned that they will be out of reach at the Christmas Island super-gulag. This could be the first test of the Kevin Rudd conscience.

   Willy Bach
   Greens candidate for Griffith

   
   
2. on November 22, 2007 at 4:23 pm2 Harvey S

   I think it was rather stupid of Senator Nettle to claim the people on the commercial boat wouldn’t pick up these refugees because they’d be scared under immigration laws.

   Greens - please don’t jump on opportunities to turn media around to you - it makes you no better than the other big parties - spin doctors.

   Just be honest, accountable and passionate.

   
   
3. on November 26, 2007 at 3:54 pm3 Zoltar

   It will be interesting to see the final senate count in NSW, and how close Nettle came to being returned as a senator. At this stage it looks as though above the line preference deals ruined any chance of her getting reelected. Her attack against the Navy and not the government (or at least that’s how it played out in the media), was a mistake, but it seems unlikely to have cost her the senatorship.

   
   
4. on November 26, 2007 at 3:57 pm4 Tim Hollo

   Zoltar, I don’t think this issue had any impact, regardless of how you spin it (Kerry never attacked the navy).

   The way the votes fell was to give ALP and Coalition pretty much spot on 3 quotas each. There was no room for any minor party, regardless of preference deals.

   Kerry did very well to improve the Greens vote again, against the challenge of a huge swing to Labor as well. She will be sorely missed by all of us.

   
   
5. on November 26, 2007 at 5:59 pm5 Zoltar

   To be honest Tim, I zoned out during the latter stages of the campaign, which is strange for a newshound like myself that loves politics to the point of taping insiders. My consumption of print and tv news had declined markedly, and from what I saw on the internet she was reported as having attacked the Navy. Stories like this, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/21/2096896.htm

   I could find no evidence of an attack against the Navy myself, but what she said (or didn’t say) is irrelevant in an election campaign, its the overall impression that voters are left with that matters. If I had wanted to harm Nettle’s reelection prospects I would have raised this before the election and not after.

   I remain curious as to how close she came to getting reelected, and whether the reporting/misreporting of what she said would have made any difference.

   Tim, I think you are probably right, with labor and liberal quotas of 2.99 and 2.72 (at this stage), it leaves little prospect for third parties getting elected. Hmmm, I wonder, if the final vote tally gives labor 3 quotas early in the count, this may help the greens as the labor excess quota should flow to the greens. She may still be in with a very slim chance.

   
   
6. on November 26, 2007 at 6:28 pm6 Rob Mailler

   In order to broaden electoral appeal perhaps the Greens could determine a short but memorable list of their most vital core issues and work very hard to ensure they are genuine experts on these issues. Then create messages to differentiate themselves on these issues and move to the centre on pretty much everything else.

   Then maybe you could pick up enough senate seats to secure balance of power ensuring we get real action on those vital issues.

   The more things you take a unique stand on, the more reasons you give to be opportunistically misinterpreted by your political opponents resulting in people fearing you.

   People may say that would be selling out Green values, but if the price of holding onto some less vital stances is not being in a position to ensure appropriate action on climate change then its a high price indeed. This is really about disciplined and mature politicking.

   People I have spoken with who care passionately about climate change didn’t vote Green because they feared specific elements of the Greens agenda that were unrelated to climate change.

   There are people of all philosophical leanings and political persuasions who care deeply about climate change and they are desperately searching for a party to be their champion on the issues and a significant number are not yet finding that champion in the Greens.

   Climate change represents a tremendous opportunity for the Greens to significantly influence the national agenda.

   Perhaps the biggest risk now is that moderate parties will make climate change their own between now and the next election. Kevin has started down that path, but he didn’t go far enough. With more IPCC warnings he will be a lot further down the path in three years. And with Howard gone the libs are free to make a lot of progress as well. Today Turmbull said Kyoto must be signed and its only the first day, he will move a lot further yet.

   If this is all unspeakable heresy then I most sincerely apologise for disturbing you with it.

   
   

Leave a Reply