Brown garottes Garrett
I was disappointed to hear Green Party Senator Bob Brown launch a full-frontal character assassination of well-known environmentalist and Labor Party MP, Peter Garrett in the Senate today.
Among other things, he said Peter Garrett was “a weak kneed party functionary who caves in to party dictates against conscience. …… and was being “used as an Exocet against his former friends, against his former beliefs, against a life long held philosophy of doing everything possible and of standing tall and strong against those who maraud this planet and its environment, and against our obligation to future generations to stand up for it.”
It is no secret that Peter Garrett campaigned for a Labor MP in the recent Victorian election, which helped prevent a Green Party person be elected. I can understand the Greens being frustrated by this, but it is hardly “sell-out” behaviour to campaign for someone from your own party and against your main competition.
Nor can I see why Peter Garrett should be blamed for pointing out that a preference deal had been agreed between the Liberals and the Greens. Given Bob Brown’s history over many years of ferociously attacking preference deals made by other parties, it’s hard to see how they can be so upset when someone attacks a deal that they’ve done.
No one should be immune from criticism about a policy stance or statement they have made. But attacking the character and basic integrity of people just because they dared to campaign for their own party and against yours seems unfair and extreme to me.
Bob Brown’s speech also indicated that he sees the Greens task and role as a direct replacement for Labor.
“It is not a joust between the man and the man; it is a joust between a philosophy and a philosophy; it is a joust between Labor and the Greens. The Greens are here because Labor has failed, and Peter Garrett has not made one iota of difference to that; in fact, he has made it worse. He has made it worse because he has sold out on key environmental issues on which he was such a grand advocate.”
I must say this sort of stuff upsets and frustrates me. Political debate is already far too partisan and tribal in this country already. Peter Garrett provides a credible voice for the environment and for reconciliation issues, albeit within the constraints that have to come with being part of a large and broad-based political party, and he has displayed a willingness to explore new and creative solutions rather than stick to outdated approaches. It helps build community support for those issues to have someone with such credibility engaged in parliamentary politics.
I’m probably out of step in this era of wedge politics and partisan tribalism, but I have always preferred to look for chances to break out of the old ideological divides and build bridges of support for issues across those divides, rather than just dig the trenches even deeper.
There’s plenty of reason to criticise the Labor Party, and I’ll keep doing it when it’s merited – as I did just last night on the anti-migrant tone of some of their campaigning for example – but I can’t really see the broader benefit of personally targeting and trying to discredit people who are strong advocates for issues or views you broadly share.
Senator Brown’s full speech is below:
Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (1.10 pm)—This week the grandest trees now targeted by the loggers in Tasmania’s Upper Florentine Valley have been dynamited by the logging industry, and with them the habitat of a great range of wildlife in this World Heritage value forest. It is a forest that, instead of being celebrated by this nation, made a national park by the Labor government in Tasmania and nominated for its World Heritage value by the Howard coalition government, is being destroyed in what is nothing other than an environmental obscenity against Australians and their future.
Look at the Stern report and do the figures. Sir Nicholas Stern, in warning about climate change, said that the fastest thing we can do is to turn around the logging of forests in the world. That would have a better effect than stopping all the transport systems of the world in helping to save the world from the onrush of catastrophe from climate change. According to his figures, by stopping the destruction of the forests by Labor and the Liberals, Tasmania would get somewhere between $6,000 and $24,000 per hectare for keeping the forest standing in an age of carbon trading. As it is, we are getting much less than half the lower of that figure from destroying the trees and sending the woodchips, through Gunns, to the rubbish dumps of the Northern Hemisphere. So it is not only an environmental obscenity; it is an economic absurdity.
But there is not one Labor or coalition member of this parliament who speaks out against it—not one. That includes the Labor shadow minister for the environment and it includes my old friend Peter Garrett. I would have expected that Peter would be at the forefront in this parliament in bringing to book in the House of Representatives government policies that are so catastrophic for this nation’s future. After all, the Midnight Oil anthem says: ‘Oh, the power and the passion. Sometimes you’ve got to take the hardest line.’ That is, you have to stand up and be counted, even among your peers, when such a travesty of political judgement is being carried out against the interests of the nation. I raise this matter because of Peter’s intervention in the Victorian elections last week. I was there when he came, and went, to lobby for the Labor Party in the marginal seat of Melbourne. What Peter did—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hutchins)—Senator Brown, you must refer to him as Mr Garrett.
Senator BOB BROWN—What the member for Kingsford Smith, Peter Garrett, did was to deceive the voters of Victoria by an onslaught which included letterboxing a personally written letter to all the voters of Melbourne, and indeed Northcote, implying that the Greens had made a favourable deal with the Liberal Party, particularly in relation to preferences, against the interests of the Labor Party and that inter alia the Greens were letting down the environment. Indeed, he called it a Liberal-Green alliance.
The outcome of the election shows that Labor will have a big majority. In some 25 of the seats it has won which have gone to preferences that majority will come in on Greens or other preferences. In other words, Labor has received a huge boost from Greens preferences in Victoria. The Greens in no seat preferenced the Liberals. Peter was very careful about not stating that directly, but his letter to the voters, which was so deceptive, said that the Greens were helping the Victorian Liberal Party. It talked about the Liberal-Green alliance and about the fact that there was a Greens preference deal which was assisting the Liberals. In fact, the Greens preference arrangements were mightily assisting Labor, and he knew it.
The point was to stop the Greens from winning in the seat of Melbourne, which was marginal, and I think he was successful. Effectively, he has stopped a passionate Green voice for the environment in the lower house of Victoria as against a Labor voice, which is another component of Labor policy for logging the water catchments of Victoria, for failing to tackle climate change, for boosting the burning of coal and for putting a tollway through Royal Park—a whole range of policies which the environmental groups made clear in their assessment of policies when going to the election when they gave the Greens nine out of nine but the ALP only 4½ out of nine. The point is that Peter went in to bat against the environment and the environmental advocates.
The question is: what is going to happen now? How is this powerful personality going to affect politics? I refer to Laurie Oakes’s column in the current Bulletin magazine. Mr Oakes said:
Victoria also provided a lesson for Beazley, exposing the stupidity of his refusal to revamp his shadow cabinet. On election day, the Greens underperformed—
due, I might add, to Mr Garrett’s appearance, amongst other things—
but in the final week of the campaign they—
that is, the Greens—
had Labor running scared. Polling suggested they would defeat Health Minister Bronwyn Pike and stood a chance of winning three other inner-city seats. Labor’s response was to rush Peter Garrett into the campaign. Personalised letters from Garrett were also mailed to voters in the threatened electorates. The Green challenge was seen off. What further proof does Beazley need that Garrett should be on the frontbench in a role that properly uses his profile and talent?
I have no quibble with Laurie Oakes’s assessment of the profile, nor of Peter’s talent, but the question is: talent for what? Talent for ending uranium mining in this country? No, he has changed policy on that. Talent for preventing nuclear ships coming into the ports of Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Perth, Brisbane and other cities of Australia? No, he has changed his mind on that. Talent for ending the spy agency facility at Pine Gap, which, amongst other things, mightily upset our neighbours? No, he sang about that once but he has now changed his mind on it. Talent for protecting Australia’s old growth forests and beleaguered wildlife? No; as I explained, he has gone quiet on that. Talent for preventing tollways and instead getting behind Greens policies on public transport—fast, efficient, clean—and helping to turn around climate change? No, he supports tollways, including now the east-west link being in a private-public partnership, perhaps in the wake of this election, through Victoria’s Royal Park. Peter has said that—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT—Senator Brown, please remember that it is Mr Garrett or the member for Kingsford Smith.
Senator BOB BROWN—I will remember it is Mr Garrett. I have forgotten in my long-term familiarity with him. Mr Garrett has said that he wanted to join mainstream politics because he thought from there he could effect change. We have seen the change effected. He has not affected the Labor Party one iota; the Labor Party machine has taken him over and turned him into an anti-Green campaigner. One has to say that it would be a smart thing for the Labor Party to have Peter Garrett of old as an environmental campaigner, but this new Peter Garrett is an anti-Green campaigner who supports Labor policies which are destructive of the environment and which go nowhere near to fostering this nation’s environmental amenity, its wildlife, its rivers, its seashores, its interior, its snow-capped mountains and its wild forests—as the Greens will do whenever we get the opportunity.
I remind you again that sometimes ‘you’ve got to take the hardest line’. We get vilified for being hardliners. I am proud of it, because I do not want to be a weak kneed party functionary who caves in to party dictates against conscience. Worse still, I do not want to be used as an Exocet against my former friends, against my former beliefs, against a life long held philosophy of doing everything possible and of standing tall and strong against those who maraud this planet and its environment, and against our obligation to future generations to stand up for it. We are going to hear a lot more of Peter Garrett in the coming year in the run to the federal election. Let me say at the outset that I welcome taking him on. It is not a joust between the man and the man; it is a joust between a philosophy and a philosophy; it is a joust between Labor and the Greens. The Greens are here because Labor has failed, and Peter Garrett has not made one iota of difference to that; in fact, he has made it worse. He has made it worse because he has sold out on key environmental issues on which he was such a grand advocate.
I note that the first thing that he did during the last federal election was go to my friend Michael Organ’s seat to advocate against the Greens there. In this election, he was parachuted into Melbourne to campaign against the Greens there. If it was done on the basis of ‘our policies are better than the Greens’ policies on the environment’ one would have to accede to it. But it is not. It is done on the basis of trying to trash the Greens and our strong environmental policies as in some way or other being supportive of the very people who we oppose—the coalition in office here and the Labor Party in several states. Letter writer Stephen Kress from North Carlton perhaps put it most succinctly in yesterday’s Herald Sun. I will read from that letter:
Analysis shows that Labor won many seats on Greens preferences along. So much for the Labor lies during the campaign of a ‘Green-Liberal alliance’. But it appears that the Labor smear campaign against the Greens scared enough of their wavering inner-city voters to save Bronwyn Pike and neighbouring seats for the ALP. How such a well-educated and supposedly savvy demographic could fall for such a blatant Labor con job is mind-boggling. The tens of thousands of letters to inner Melbourne from Peter Garrett may have saved Ms Pike, bit for me they trashed his reputation as an honest politician. Perhaps next time inner-city folk won’t be such suckers. To quote a Midnight Oil song: ‘Just another ridiculous steal/ain’t no doubt about it’.
What we are seeing here is a tragedy. We need young people inspired. We need people looking up to leaders who are consistent, particularly when the going gets tough and who, in the words of that anthem, take the hardest line. But instead of that they have a transformed Peter Garrett. (Time expired)
55 Comments, Comment or Ping
Max Baumann
Bob Brown’s treatment of Peter Garrett is disgusting. No wonder people become disillusioned with politics and politicians. Bob Brown is wasting his time criticising fellow environmentalist Peter Garrett when he should be getting on with the job of coming up with sensible ideas to tackle climate change.
The Greens like to scrutinise everyone else, but they can’t handle being scrutinised or held to account for preference deals.
They are a bunch of hypocrites given that at the last Federal election, Democrat candidates had to put up with abusive phone calls from Greens candidates who were angry that the Democrats put the Greens below other minor parties with policy views that differed from Democrat policy in a pragmatic preference deal that didn’t come off as planned in the end. If the Greens don’t get what they want they have a tantrum.
Bob Brown’s speech is an example of a how his party acts like spoiled little children when they don’t get what they want or when they are criticised. Senator Brown’s speech highlights why the Greens should not hold the balance of power whilst he is leader. The Greens should get rid of Brown and put a true Green like Christine Milne in the leaders position.
Nov 29th, 2006
Daniel
Mercifully we Dems were spared any Greens abusiveness in this campaign (of which I was a part). I suppose that was partly because we were one of the few parties that did consistently preference them. Partly because we are no longer seen as possessing what they feel they deserve.
But we could still observe them making the same kind of attacks on competitors. Hampering the ability of rivals to campaign under the banner of ‘non-violent direct action’ (as was witnessed in them protested at the MP for Melbourne District daring to campaign for herself) may have backfired on them this time. Maybe those inner-city protesters would have had more impact helping suburban colleagues campaigning for the Greens message rather than in bugging others.
I suspect that the Greens assume that the growing awareness of environmental issues in the electorate will inevitably result in the elevation of the Greens to major party status. The other possibility is that it will simply result in the greening of existing major parties. Garrett may well represent a part of that process which is why he confuses and frustrates the Greens so. Of course the Greens will often remind us that they are more than just an environmental party and that they address all issues. By the same token environmental issues can belong to all parties rather than just one.
Nov 29th, 2006
Daniel
P. S. Andrew I only just now noticed the wordplay title of your post – ‘Brown Garottes Garrett’ – shame on you!
Nov 29th, 2006
Mark Bahnisch
Well said, Andrew.
Nov 29th, 2006
sublime cowgirl
ditto.
Nov 29th, 2006
Sacha Blumen
Here here, Andrew. Thinking that your (the Greens) way is the only way, as Bob Brown appears to do, is a bit disquieting.
“I’m probably out of step in this era of wedge politics and partisan tribalism, but I have always preferred to look for chances to break out of the old ideological divides and build bridges of support for issues across those divides, rather than just dig the trenches even deeper.”
Build those bridges – it’s good to do, and much better than digging deeper trenches.
Nov 30th, 2006
nasking
Truth hurts Andrew…but Peter Garrett SOLD OUT & needed a good proverbial kick up the backside. I spent heaps of valuable hours pushing his NDP back in the early-mid 80s, coppin’ heaps of crap from many a Right-Winger in the rural town I lived in those days…only to have him over recent years do more U-Turns than John Winston Howard on a bad poll year. Bob let off steam. Big deal. If anyone deserves to, Bob does.
We’ve all had cathartic acts now & then that have been misread…or too focused on…He’s only Human Andrew.
I respect heaps Garrett has done…but the last few years have been more a mystery & disappointment than an enlightenment.
Nov 30th, 2006
Graham Bell
Andrew Bartlett:
Agree wholeheartedly!
Parliamentarians come in for a lot of abuse about overseas junkets …. but how about a delegation going to visit parliaments and national assemblies overseas not just for photo-opportunities but also for spending real time finding out how their system works?
Such a delegation would, of necessity, be publicized as promoting trade, etc., and promoting trade should be one of its tasks too, along with learning how to have vigorous and yet productive activity both inside and outside the chamber.
Nov 30th, 2006
Evil Pundit
Scratch a Green, find a fascist.
Nov 30th, 2006
YaYa
Pretty much par for the course for Brown. He’s very good at character assasination and destroying the reputation of those he perceives as his opponents (which is anyone else who has ‘green’ credentials and isn’t in Bob’s party) – and he does it in a very calculated manner, usually while claiming to be the injured one.
Of course he’s going to attack Garrett – Brown has built his political career and his party on being THE environmental guru, he can’t afford to have anyone else with similar credentials campaign against him, it takes away his only leverage – it’s why he’s always been so vicious in his attacks on the Democrats.
I’ve always found it weird that someone who professes to be so caring and humanitarian can get away with being so obviously dishonest and vicious towards others but I guess his followers just see what they want to see.
The thing that’s always amazed me is that so many people fall for it.
Nov 30th, 2006
Andrew Bartlett
Intersting point you raise Nasking. I think a pre-meditated 15 minute speech is different to a short spur of the moment outburst, but a fair enough point.
I’m not intending to bag the Green Party – there’s a lot of good people in that party (including amongst their Parliamentarians), as with almost all parties. Labor in Victoria distorted the Greens preference deal with the Libs, but there was a deal none the less. I’m not criticising them for doing a deal, but people are entitled to point it out.
Your mention of Garrett and the NDP is an interesting one. I should look back and see if there were any similar rants given by Democrat people against Garrett at that time – it was before I joined the party but I know it frustrated Democrats such as Don Chipp and Colin Mason enormously. A party with a single issue focus on nuclear disarmament competing directly against the Democrats who had a policy that was indistinguishable from the NDP’s one policy and campaigned heavily on it (and still do, as my previous post indicates).
I know Chipp criticised the impact of the NDP strongly – I don’t know if he attacked Garrett personally, although if he did I’d be very surprised if it was anywhere nears as strongly as Brown has just done. From memory, it cost the Democrats a seat in WA, although the split vote also meant that the Democrats that were elected only got half terms instead of full ones (which ended up not mattering as the 1987 election was a double dissolution)
It is frustrating when this happens, and it happened in part because the Democrats – then as always – were never seen as ‘left’ enough for the Left, and as was shown not long after the election, beneath their single policy the core of the NDP were definitely very Left.
However, in the end, if people want to choose a different vehicle to advance their views that’s their choice.
Nov 30th, 2006
Matt
I think the disturbing point here is that Bob Brown and the Greens feel that anyone who does not share their approach to dealing with environmental issues is some kind of lunatic, hell-bent on environmental destruction. I would never vote for PG but I still respect the fact that he has strong views on certain issues. His comments make people like me even more sceptical of what sections of the environment movement are on about. Having said that Andrew, let’s call a spade a spade and it was a clever political move for a Democrat to post an example of a Green rant. There may be hope for the Democrats yet that they may survive!
Nov 30th, 2006
Stephen Monk
Given the outright lies spread by Family First, the Exclusive Bretheran and others about the Greens at successive state elections, I’m not surpirsed that the Greens have become increasingly negative.
I don’t think that excuses Bob’s rant, but I do think it’s cause for a review (or introduction) of protections against mis-information during election campaigns, and the introduction of compensation / recompense processes following elections.
Nov 30th, 2006
David Jackmanson
My vote will go to the first party or candidate who expressly refuses awkwardly to quote songs or poetry in Parliament.
Nov 30th, 2006
Renz
You can despise so-called terrorists as much as you like but there is one aspect of their ideology that I respect… atleast they take action! Im sick of politicians talking the talk and sitting down and never doing the walk! Im sick of people complaining and never doing anything about it! If we want change, we have to make it ourselves! Why rely on a drawn out “talky-talk” political process? Because that’s the process we are “taught” makes changes? It’s not the process I see America taking part in! Don’t think for a minute that the governmnet will give us anything until they have reaped as much money and monetary gain out of anything they can, before they give us any piece meal offerings! Dis-illusioned with the political process? I wouldnt say I am that, I would say I am just being realistic!
Nov 30th, 2006
Deborah
I agree with Stephen monk and Nasking,
Didn’t notice the other parties standing up to support the Greens when they were being viciously smeared by the exclusive brethren. Family first are showing that they have the same fundie christian mentality.
Why should Peter Garrett be untouchable? To whom much is given, much is expected (and I have been a supporter of his). Garrett’s sat quiet as a mouse in parliament, obviously on a tight leash and muzzled.
I was disappointed in his initial entry into the cut and thrust of politics too. I expected some of the fire and passion to show through, but it didn’t happen, he’s behaved more like the staid lawyer of his first career, than the great angry, principled, voice of a generation.
The firewall must have been hacked through by the ALP.
The Oils’
manager, Gary Morris, who has been with the band for 24 years and
is among the handful of people who know him best, says Garrett is a
thoroughbred, one in 100,000, who demands and receives from
those around him the dedication, ingenuity and principle he
demands of himself.
“His principle is what you have to deal with. Dealing with the man is
really not a problem, but dealing with the principle, that is the criteria
for his cooperation … His principle is the firewall, and few there
be that make it through,” Morris says
Nov 30th, 2006
Nikki
Andrew, I think your comment about Brown seeing the Greens task and role as a direct replacement for Labor hit the nail on the head, the Greens will never be in Government, Brown will never be Minister for the Environment, Labour and Garrett could be. Idealism is great but there are times when it needs to be balanced with pragmatism if anything is actually going to get done. If this means campaigning strongly for your party in order to increase you chance of being in a position to actually be able to effect change, then that is hardly worthy of criticism.
Look at the changes made to the Immigration Act last year, it was not the Greens, nor, ultimately, I believe, the Democrats (although the work done through senate inquiries and campaigns was undoubtedly invaluable), but the action of the Liberals own back-benchers and senators which tipped the balance and forced Howard to act to avoid embarrassment. A small change, but a change nonetheless, and one which came from the inside.
The ability to balance political realism and pragmatism with policy idealism is one of the reasons I gravitate towards the Democrats.
Nov 30th, 2006
YaYa
Why should Bob Brown or the greens be untouchable?
Why is it Bob Brown’s supporters are always perfectly happy to justify his behaviour but if someone dares to campaign against him, it’s a vicious smear campaign.
The Greens have done plenty of unjustifiable smearing of their own in order to win elections – none more so than Bob Brown himself, he certainly didn’t get to where he is by being nice, honest and caring of the finer feelings of others.
Nov 30th, 2006
lynn white
Well said Andrew.
I find Garrett inspiring for deciding to join a party of government and make a difference that way.
Everyone expects him to be a firebrand, but the fact is, the man is in his 50s, and is entitled to be a bit considered. To me it seems that he has decided to learn the parliamentary ropes and earn his stripes before making a move and he’s been very careful to allow those anointed as shadow ministers to have a free run on policy. But he has, in his time in Parliament, been really helpful to branches around the country and to the pressure groups within the party.
I don’t think he’s a sellout. I think he’s just warming up.
Nov 30th, 2006
nasking
>>I’m not criticising them for doing a deal, but people are entitled to point it out.
true, I just think Greens are tiring of cheap tricks from all sides…considering that if some of their environmental & energy policies had been put into practise a decade ago, this Country might be leading the way w/ Clean Energy research & development, it’s understandable that some might feel somewhat annoyed & are blowing off steam. I’m sure Garrett & Brown will dig deep & find the compassion they’re well known for…& have a big hug again…oneday eh?
>>However, in the end, if people want to choose a different vehicle to advance their views that’s their choice.
well said…& as my dear wife reminds me…she voted Green for Senate last Federal Election…& yers truly voted for the Australian Democrats. Political maneuvering even goes on in households…:)…
Nov 30th, 2006
Anna Winter
I agree, Lynn.
He’s spent the last couple of years going to everything, watching, learning and thinking. He’s learning how Parliament works, but more importantly how the ALP works.
That’s how you make a real difference.
Nov 30th, 2006
Adele
Bob Brown’s intolerance of opposition or criticism seems to be as bad as John Howard’s or George Bush’s. Anyone who is not 100 per cent with him is therefore against him and must be slandered.
This sort of ‘thought police’ approach stifles free speech and independent thinking, and suits John Howard’s partisan ‘culture warrior’ approach down to the ground.
Nov 30th, 2006
could_think_of_a_name
When Peter first entered politics he said that he has dampered his radical views(or something near enough to that) and that he is now a team player, so that might be the explanation for his changes
Nov 30th, 2006
Coalition Unity
It’s good to see that the Greens aren’t selling themselves out to Labor, unlike a another minor party.
Nov 30th, 2006
Deborah
Maybe Peter Garrett will come into his own and he is just getting going – could we have another Keating in the making? I think that he could be the one in the ALP, is he the new messiah in waiting?
Well, all the vision, intellect and passion of Keating but maybe none of the abrasive and abusive style.
Is he as good a politician as Julia Gillard though?
Dec 1st, 2006
Evil Pundit
#22 Adele: John Howard and George Bush are the victims of slander, rather than its practitioners, and you are just adding to the unjustified attacks on them.
#24 Deborah: As for Keating — he had passion, but little intellect and no vision other than pandering to left-wing ideology. We are well rid of him, and comparing Peter to Paul is no compliment.
Dec 1st, 2006
nasking
>>Bob Brown’s intolerance of opposition or criticism seems to be as bad as John Howard’s or George Bush’s. Anyone who is not 100 per cent with him is therefore against him and must be slandered.
I think we all fear the idea that ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely”. A good thing. It strengthens Democracy…forces us in the strangest of times to be suspicious of those who purport to be LEADERS…the INFLUENTIAL. But it seems to me, we are merely playing checkers here, the Murdoch game more simpler, less complex than Chess. I don’t see Bob Brown parading around overseas, standing up in the forefront of Parliament & stating WE SHOULD TRUST HIS GOVERNMENT after the AWB scandal…or IRAQ fiasco…or excusing said lot for using our VALUABLE TAX DOLLARS to promote THEIR interests…THEIR MATES.
I see an individual annoyed. Like Andrew here gets sometimes…like all of us…the disempowered…for making so much sense…& being attacked, screwed over, misconstrued, dumped on, isolated, placed out in the WILDERNESS OF THE MEDIA…time…& time again.
How many people, when they see their FRIENDS…companions, eat their own…in the midst of the STORM…cry out…?
Bob Brown deserves better.
As does Andrew Bartlett.
Survivors…of the storm.
Listen to their stories. And their pain.
It’s been a long, long voyage…
Dec 1st, 2006
Alastair
Perhaps Bob Brown is going overboard about Peter Garrett. However, in my mind the fact remains that Peter Garrett made some very misleading statements about the Greens during the Victorian Election campaign.
For Example: “A vote for the Greens could help get the Liberal Party elected”. This was absolute nonsense and he knew it. A vote for the greens could only help elect the Liberal Party if the voter chose themselves to preference the Liberal Party infront of Labor.
To repeat: NO green votes went to the Liberal Party without the voter choosing themselves to preference the liberals infront of Labor.
That was Peter Garrett joining the ranks of dishonest politicans.
Dec 1st, 2006
Megan Yarrow
It will be interesting to see if Garrett actually does end up making a difference or will he crash and burn like Cheryl Kernot?
Dec 1st, 2006
muzzmonster
EP, Keating may have been a member of the nominally left Labor Party, but how can you possibly describe his actions of floating the dollar, privatising Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank as left wing? To many on the left, that was sacrilege.
Dec 1st, 2006
MrLefty
Brown’s point was perfectly valid:
“he was parachuted into Melbourne to campaign against the Greens there. If it was done on the basis of ‘our policies are better than the Greens’ policies on the environment’ one would have to accede to it. But it is not. It is done on the basis of trying to trash the Greens and our strong environmental policies as in some way or other being supportive of the very people who we oppose—the coalition in office here and the Labor Party in several states.”
If Garrett had campaigned against the Greens on policy, he wouldn’t have deserved to be seen as a dirty-tricks political sell-out.
But he didn’t.
He came down to spread some lies about the Greens; to try to convince voters that a vote for the Greens was somehow a vote for the Liberals (when the ALP looks like getting its last LC spots from Liberal and Fundy First preferences). He came to be the public face of, and lend credibility to, a dishonest smear campaign. One against his former allies.
Of course they feel betrayed. And of course they’re critical of him – not because he disagreed with them, or campaigned against them, but because he did it with lies and innuendo, and not honestly and on policy.
If Garrett’s such a heavy-hitter, and if he’s writing letters about the conservatives being the real enemy, then why didn’t he come down to campaign against the Liberals?
Instead Garrett spent his hard-earned credibility on a lie in order to help the ALP at the expense of the Greens. Brown is perfectly right to point it out.
Dec 1st, 2006
Labor Lefty
Mr Lefty is complaining that “the ALP looks like getting its last LC spots from Liberal and Fundy First preferences”. Is he suggesting that the Greens are closer to either of these parties that the ALP is and that the Greens deserve to win seats on their preferences?
He also said Garrett campaigned “against his former allies.” I didn’t realise Garrett used to be a member of the Green Party? or is that just one of those ‘the environment movement’ = ‘the Green Party’ assumptions, and anyone who disagrees with the Green Party is by definition anti-environment?
Didn’t the Greens spend a decade trying to take seats off the pro-environment Democrats? That’s how Bob Brown won his own seat in the first place if I remember rightly.
Garrett didn’t campaign against the Liberals in Melbourne because the Liberals weren’t the main competition, the Greens were. People know he has credibility as an effective voice for the environment, so he was well suited in appealing to potential Green voters. Why is this a crime?
Let’s face it, Garrett’s ’sin’ was to decide to try to work for change through the Labor Party rather than the Greens, and that’s why the Greens will never forgive him. The fact they are prepared to destroy a credible pro-environment voice because of their own political ambition just shows they are the same as any other political party – power first and principles second. Same as the ALP, but at least we’re honest about it.
Dec 1st, 2006
ken
Alistair – so what
Leftys’ – the ALP’s objective was to win – that’s politics and it worked, Garrett plays for his team – get over it.
Dec 1st, 2006
MrLefty
“Leftys’ – the ALP’s objective was to win – that’s politics and it worked, Garrett plays for his team – get over it.”
No-one’s objecting to Garrett playing for his team. We’re objecting to him LYING AND DECEIVING for his team. You might call that “politics as usual”, and maybe it is for many, but I guess those of us on the left had hoped that Peter Garrett would be different. Turns out he’s not.
And those of us who thought we were on the same side as the Labor left have gotten a rude awakening.
And no, “Labor Lefty”, I think the Greens are consistently principles first, power second. Garrett deserved the bollocking on principle.
Dec 1st, 2006
ken
I have sympathy for your pain – howveer any suggestion that the left (including Saint Bob) is immune from LYING AND DECEIVING when it suits – just like any other form of right left, in the middle. calathumpian or whatever is itslef lying and deceiving.
Dec 1st, 2006
YaYa
Bob Brown and the Greens were perfectly happy to strech and twist the truth in order to win his own seat in Tasmania when he first stood for the Senate – something that was noticed by people from across all other parties. His and the green party’s tactics and actions were neither principled nor honest but they were very specifically targetted. When some people pointed that out at the time, they were told well that’s just politics.
Guess that cuts both ways
Dec 1st, 2006
Labor Lefty
Mr Lefty says “those of us who thought we were on the same side as the Labor left have gotten a rude awakening.”
Same side? Is that why the Greens spend all their time attacking the Labor Left and trying to take our seats?
Mr Lefty has refused to answer whether he thinks the Greens deserved the preferences of Liberals and Family First more than Labor.
Is Mr Lefty seriously trying to say there was no preference agreement between the Greens and the Liberals? I hope not, because that would be LYING and DECEIVING, which I am pleased to read that the Greens never do.
Even if Garrett did lie in an effort to help his party hold on to a seat, which I don’t believe he did, surely the appropriate response is “Mr Garrett’s statement is a lie”, rather than laucnhing a huge spray saying he has sold out the environment?
Dec 1st, 2006
muzzmonster
I see nothing wrong with pointing out (and even attacking) someone’s decisions on allocating preferences (though we all know that these are entirely up to the individual voter).
Why? Because the preference deals may appear contrary to the party’s espoused ideals. If they are not credible on preference negotiations, they may not be credible on policy. Bob Brown knows this as he has done it to others.
Dec 1st, 2006
MarkL
Personally, I am kicking back and roaring with laughter at the sight of the terminally deluded (the Greens) bleating about the ALP machine operating on a basis of business as usual.
Mr Garrett dropped his “lifelong environmental convictions” in a heartbeat during his Dasascene conversion to ALP policy. Amazing what having your own snout in the trough does for “lifelong environmental convictions”. They flash-evaoprate in nanoseconds.
Absolutely hilarious.
And who can forget his priceless whiplash moment in July 2004, on the Today show? (Transcript below)
MarkL
Canberra
Dec 1st, 2006
MarkL
Here’s the Today Show transcript, with Garrett’s whiplash “lifelong principles? What lifelong principles” moment and his bizarre attempt to change the subject:
INTERVIEWER: What about this news we’ll have more US troops training on Australian bases?
GARRETT: We need to have a full and thorough discussion about these issues. The thing I object to more than anything else is that we’ve got Australian foreign policy being determined by senior officials in Washington. The merits or otherwise of those issues need to be fully discussed by people, not unilaterally enounced and dumped on people in the middle of an election campaign, following in on from American defence officials.
INTERVIEWER: In the past, you have described US bases in Australia as the biggest pimples on the face of adolescent Australia. Is that what these new bases will be?
GARRETT: I don’t know. I haven’t seen the details. I don’t know that much about it and that’s the point. We need to have an open, generous and considered discussion about these issues so Australians themselves can weigh up the merits. It’s been conducted in a fevered atmosphere. This is something for Australians to think through and Australians to discuss.
INTERVIEWER: Mark Latham thinks it’s a good idea.
GARRETT: Well, if Mark Latham thinks it’s a good idea and that’s what the party view is, there’s merit in it and we’d accept it.
INTERVIEWER: You turned around quickly there. That was a quick turnaround.
GARRETT: That’s not the point. If Mr Latham thinks that’s a good thing to happen, he will have considered it properly and everyone in the Labor Party will respect it. No question marks about it.
INTERVIEWER: You sound like a good party man.
GARRETT: I hope so. Haven’t seen the detail of Son Of Star Wars. That’s the difficulty.
Hmm. Might be better if sung to the Oils “US Forces” tune while lurching about like a crazed crab on crack.
MarkL
Canberra
Dec 1st, 2006
Norman Stoddart
Wasn’t Bob Brown also parachuted in to bolster the Green campaign? So what is he banging on about by attacking Garrettt.
Never forget how he undermined and did over Robert Bell (malmost akes the attack on Garrett seem an exercise in Jane Auten politeness) – or even that he only got his parliamentary ‘break’ when Democrat Norm Sanders retired from the Tas House of Assembly and Brown got in on a count back.
Brown destroys his own credibility by these outrageous politcally inspired character assassinations.
More importantly, given the crash of the Greens in Vic from predicting up to 10 seats (4 lower house seats and up to 6 upper house) to a max of 2 seats, one wonders where they can really go now, and may be that’s what really worries Green Bob Brown Pants?
Dec 2nd, 2006
Evil Pundit
Keating may have been a member of the nominally left Labor Party, but how can you possibly describe his actions of floating the dollar, privatising Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank as left wing? To many on the left, that was sacrilege.
The Left has its factions. As for the actions you mention, they are economic in nature and thus don’t interest me very much.
It was Keating’s pandering to the anti-male, anti-white and anti-Australian policies of the Left that drove me to hate him. I actually voted for Keating’s party in 1993, but I was already starting to regret my choice as I listened to his sexist acceptance speech — specifically thanking “the women of Australia”, who had largely voted Coalition, and excluding the men who had actually elected him.
Keating’s reaign was when I turned from supporting Labor, Democrats and Greens, to the Coalition and One Nation.
Dec 2nd, 2006
Deborah
It is the women of this nation who consistently show good sense. If it was up to the men (oh it is, isn’t it?, always has been, in this world of white male supremacy) we’d be up to our ears in war (oh, we are) fighting all our neighbours (oh, we are) spending all our money on rich men’s clubs/corporations (oh, we are) spending too little on the sick, poor and needy (oh, we are), keeping women at home as baby factories (oh, we are) never letting them interfere in the big boys born to rule games of power, corruption and oppression.
Yes, there’s so much to fear from women EP, you are right to hate them.
Way past time we had some female leadership, (not the Thackerite, pseudo male) we might get some really good things happening for humanity.
I’m hoping Gillard will take the reigns.
Dec 2nd, 2006
Evil Pundit
I don’t hate women, Deborah. But you so obviously hate men, as demonstrated in your little rant blaming men for all the world’s woes.
That’s a typical feminist attitude of total sexism.
This is why I hate feminism: it is a philosophy of total hypocrisy, which claims to be against discrimination, but is in fact a vicious form of discrimination in itself.
Dec 2nd, 2006
Louise
It is the women of this nation who consistently show good sense.
You can’t possibly be serious, Deborah. I’ve seen many women in this country show anything but good sense.
If it was up to the men (oh it is, isn’t it?, always has been, in this world of white male supremacy)
Crikey! This is almost enough to put me thoroughly in EP’s corner. No wonder some men are so angry with feminists. And it’s totally understandable that he thinks feminists are men-hating. Some feminists *certainly* are.
we’d be up to our ears in war (oh, we are) fighting all our neighbours (oh, we are) spending all our money on rich men’s clubs/corporations (oh, we are) spending too little on the sick, poor and needy (oh, we are)
Are you serious? Do you seriously believe women are actually *better* than men?
That’s odd, because I had always thought we were equal. How strange.
keeping women at home as baby factories (oh, we are)
Who’s doing this? Oh I forgot, the women like me who *choose* to spend our best years giving birth to and raising our children are choosing something lesser. How silly of me! I forgot – I have no ambition.
never letting them interfere in the big boys born to rule games of power, corruption and oppression.
Why anyone would want to do any of this is totally beyond my comprehension.
Yes, there’s so much to fear from women EP, you are right to hate them.
Deborah, this really is looking very hypocritical.
Dec 2nd, 2006
Louise
Sorry, my above post was totally OT.
Dec 2nd, 2006
MarkL
Wha…? My, this Greer-eque hate-speech is deeply illogical. Let us parse it a little.
If it was up to the men (oh it is, isn’t it?, always has been, in this world of white male supremacy)
COMMENT: But Howards government includes more female members than any other in Australian history, my dear lady. And the Empires are gone. Most non-white locals run their own countries these days. Perhaps you missed this?
we’d be up to our ears in war (oh, we are)
COMMENT: Where? At peace with Indonesia, assisting with governance improvement in PNG and Bougainville, rebuilding a neighbouring country in the Solomons, trying everything EXCEPT military force to STOP a coup in Fiji. Trying to rebuild Afghanistan from those remarkable feminists the Taliban, and trying to build civil society in Al-Muthannah.
fighting all our neighbours (oh, we are)
COMMENT: Who? Not Indonesia, PNG, Solomons, Vanuatu or NZ and we HAVE no other neighbours. Maybe penguins?
spending all our money on rich men’s clubs/corporations (oh, we are)
COMMENT: Hmm. Nothing about this in the Federal budget whatsoever, dear lady. Making this up as we go along, are we?
spending too little on the sick, poor and needy (oh, we are),
COMMENT: Last time I checked welfare spending was over 50% of government spending. This is too little?
keeping women at home as baby factories (oh, we are)
COMMENT: Where? Are you channelling some dead Taliban bloke, or just attacking Muslims in general? Whatever it is, this is not the case in any workplace or house I have seen in Australia.
never letting them interfere in the big boys born to rule games of power, corruption and oppression.
Comment: Alrighty then! So, dear lady, please tell us when Howards Thought Police come to your place to drag you away to the Gulag. BTW, by saying this, you are interfering as you claim, and you just DID it, so that invalidates your point!
MarkL
Canberra (and ROTLFMAO)
Dec 2nd, 2006
MarkL
Could not resist:
Way past time we had some female leadership, (not the Thackerite, pseudo male)
Commment: That was THATCHER. BTW she was married & IIRC had children, the ability to create life being THE unique female gift.
we might get some really good things happening for humanity.
COMMENT: Hell yes, Like Benazir Bhutto, she gave Pakistan nukes! Oh, well, umm, not her. Erm, Helen Clarke! She gave NZ mass unemployment… oh, wait…
How about Angela Merkel?
I’m hoping Gillard will take the reigns.
COMMENT: But she is a ‘Thackerite, pseudo male’, 40+ years old, not married, no kids, cannot cook, career politician, never had a job outside the Unions or ALP… and is a consummate player in the murderously ruthless world of male-dominated ALP factional politics!
SHE is YOUR ‘great hope’ for female leadership??
Oh, my….
MarkL
Canberra
Dec 2nd, 2006
Yulia
…..aannd yet another interesting discussion gets ripped off topic and degenerates into a narky pointless exchange that has abosultely nothing to do with the original post. Well done.
Dec 2nd, 2006
Ken
Perhasp Yulia – althouhg the post was about garotting and outragoeus statements. Some can’t help letting it out every now and then.
Dec 4th, 2006
pc person
Why are you surprised with your fellow senator’s antics, Andrew? Brown would have to be the most despicable, dislikable, hate filled politician in Canberra. Mind you Garrett is only a little better.
I say bring the ultimate fight contest on. I want to see both these losers on the mat.
Dec 5th, 2006
muzzmonster
This thread reinforces my belief that the adversarial nature of politics can breed unseemly hatreds.
I know that friendships and respectful relationships can and do form across party lines (as Andrew has demonstrated on this blog), but I get the impression that some pollies and staffers (perhaps because they’re one step removed from other individuals) can sometimes be more negative about those they share similar ideas with than those that have few policies in common.
Dec 6th, 2006
ken
Your right muzzz- mainly becasue its not about ideas its about power, relationship breakdown, disappointment and failure (much like ex-partners the best haters of all!!). Certainly a human fraility not limited to adversarial politics.
Dec 6th, 2006
david butt
seems reasonable to me to critique Garrett’s claims of principle, given his preparedness to sign up to the ALP, an organisation with many policies that are profoundly ecologically irresponsible.
The questioning of Peter Garrett’s environmental credentials should be undertaken in the light of his compromising of principle in order to gain power. This compromise is fundamental to policy on the environment and any prospect of positive change.. is there any prospect of a powerful politician elected under Australia’s parliamentary system who can retain a principled stance on ecological issues?
Dec 9th, 2006