Launching my campaign
I officially launched my Senate campaign today in Brisbane. Over 300 people came along to the Gardens Theatre in QUT to share it with me. It is most likely that the federal election will not be called for another 3 months or so, but it can be called anytime from now. I launched my campaign now to send the message that I, and a suite of Democrat House of Representative candidates in Queensland, are ready to go whenever it is called.
You can read my full speech on my website (although I did ad lib a bit here and there, so it’s not quite the same as what was delivered).
There’s also a couple of good reports on it from some Brisbane based bloggers – at Brisbane is Home (with some quite nice photos too) and at Woolly Days. Here’s a shorter (and not totally accurate) mainstream media report too.
It’ll be hard work getting re-elected to the Senate. Every other party and Senate candidate has identified my seat as the one that’s there for the taking. However, I believe I’m in with a credible chance in Queensland – especially if people give specific thought to their Senate vote separate to their vote for their local House of Reps seat.
The question of who will form government understandably attracts most people’s attention, and I’m as interested in that as anyone else. But which people get elected to the Senate can be just as important – sometimes more so. The obvious example is Workchoices. This is one of the big issues at this election – not because John Howard won government again at the last election, but because he won control of the Senate. What happens with our workplace relations laws after the election will depend as much on the Senate result as on who becomes Prime Minister. There are many more examples which are less prominent, but just as important in their own way.
36 Comments, Comment or Ping
al loomis
the oz dems appear to be on the way out of history. if ‘one nation’ and ‘family first’ outpolls you, the vultures are gathering- if indeed they bother.
the founder was about as dim and ignorant as pauline hanson, but much less threatening, so he carved out a niche for himself,without ever adding anything to australian political structure. the greens were a little brighter, and have consequently replaced the oz dems as the ‘none of the above’ party.
it seems a shame the oz dems didn’t use their name to champion actual democracy in oz, but they just weren’t bright enough.
Jul 9th, 2007
wilful
I wish I could vote for you. I’ll still certainly be voting for Lyn Allison, though I expect she’s doomed. It’s a great shame that the ADs appear to be heading into the sunset – they’ve been the most honest, hard-working and pragmatic Party in Australia for the past few decades.
I blame the media in part – they often seemed to perversely misrepresent the role and opportunities of the Democrats at every opportunity. And also the culture of adversarialism – being prepared to negotiate a sensible compromise for better policy makes you seem ‘weak’ and ‘foolish’. That just shits me to tears, that the often nonsensical Greens can seem ’strong’ and ‘visionary’ just because they always say no.
Pragmatism and evidence based decision-making seems to confuse a lot of people – you were too hard to pigeon-hole into little ideological boxes, as much as the media always wanted to.
Jul 9th, 2007
doctor victor kacala
the democrats need a coherent eco strategy that i can deliver.
we [oz] need ‘a third way’ – something along the lines of latham [remember him]. i read a chapter by giddens [lse/sociology] where mark made a contribution on a risk management system [it looked a LOT like some thing i had written some years ago.
in fact, there are number of people who have re-packaged my stuff then called it their own [ip is a really BIG issue].
so, andrew if u want the ONLY coherent eco strategy that is GLOBAL,
give me a call at zolotenko@yahoo.com
else,
thanks for u time.
Jul 9th, 2007
ken
Odd as it may seem to some Andrew – I’ll be looking for your success, principally becasue a bit of balance is a good thing, I think you perform quite well in the Senate when I have heard you, you have to be a better alternative than the greens lord help us, and for the purely selfish reason that I enjoy this blog and as an ordinary joe blow it would lose its significane.
Jul 9th, 2007
PETER JONES
The democrats poor performance is of its own making,
(Going bungee jumping, instead of having sensible policys this year, perchance ?)
This party was once the great hope, for we ,the disenchanted centre of Australian politics,instead it was simply hijacked by the intellectual left (disenchanted by the Alp rights control of that party)and became rapidly
an irrelevence,(though sometimes did good work in the senate).
I used to vote democrat often but voted for other independants last few times.
As, i found out later, did all my friends.
Though claiming to be democratic in outlook, the reality is that andrew is just as committed as Tony Abbot to forcing his own philisophical/quasi religious practices onto everyone else.
If you doubt this, remember andrew is committed to forcing the duck hunters in Qld to stop hunting ducks.
Now i have never hunted ducks and probably never will but i support the rights of others to do so.
(within reasonable guidelines, regarding endangered species).
The mark of a true democrat is how closely they
conform to the Voltaire principal.
“I do not agree with anything you say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it”.
So even if Andrew hates the hunting of ducks, he should be,as a Democrat fighting, to ensure that others are unable to take that right from them.
Instead Andrew champions the reverse principle of
trying to have people forced to adopt his personal philosophy by law.
Using the same principle that Andrew espouses in practice, it would just as valid to seek the legal outlawing of the Democrats, simply because their philosophy ran counter to yours.
( For example their consistent stupidity, childishness and profound ignorance on defence related matters, Don Chip would not have been proud of your performance there, or i suspect about the hunting of ducks.
Want to have real relevance to the Australian people as a senator.
Then stop having rubbish as policy.
more to follow
Jul 9th, 2007
PETER JONES
The democrats poor performance is of its own making,
(Going bungee jumping, instead of having sensible policys this year, perchance ?)
This party was once the great hope, for we ,the disenchanted centre of Australian politics,instead it was simply hijacked by the intellectual left (disenchanted by the Alp rights control of that party)and became rapidly
an irrelevence,(though sometimes did good work in the senate).
I used to vote democrat often but voted for other independants last few times.
As, i found out later, did all my friends.
Though claiming to be democratic in outlook, the reality is that andrew is just as committed as Tony Abbot to forcing his own philisophical/quasi religious practices onto everyone else.
If you doubt this, remember andrew is committed to forcing the duck hunters in Qld to stop hunting ducks.
Now i have never hunted ducks and probably never will but i support the rights of others to do so.
(within reasonable guidelines, regarding endangered species).
The mark of a true democrat is how closely they
conform to the Voltaire principal.
“I do not agree with anything you say, but will fight to the death to defend your right to say it”.
So even if Andrew hates the hunting of ducks, he should be,as a Democrat fighting, to ensure that others are unable to take that right from them.
Instead Andrew champions the reverse principle of
trying to have people forced to adopt his personal philosophy by law.
Using the same principle that Andrew espouses in practice, it would just as valid to seek the legal outlawing of the Democrats, simply because their philosophy ran counter to yours.
( For example their consistent stupidity, childishness and profound ignorance on defence related matters, Don Chip would not have been proud of your performance there, or i suspect about the hunting of ducks.
Want to have real relevance to the Australian people as a senator.
Then stop having rubbish as policy.
more to follow
Jul 9th, 2007
muzzmonster
Al, You can hardly be a student of Australian politics if you cannot acknowledge the positive impact the Democrats have had on Australian political life.
I don’t pretend to be an authority on all the legislative improvements they have ensured, but what I do know is that when they had the balance of power, they ensured that the Senate acted as true house of review – something that has been sadly lacking in the last 3 years.
Jul 9th, 2007
muzzmonster
Peter’s argument equating free speech to duck hunting makes no sense. By this logic Peter would support anyone’s right to do what they enjoy, be that hunting ducks, walking naked down the street or racially abusing Asians.
Surely we should acknowledge and rejoice that some people go into politics to try to make Australia a better place rather than simply to exercise power for their own ends.
Jul 9th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Well Peter, if you believe a liberal democracy means letting people inflict any degree of cruelty they like on animals, then you have a different notion of liberty than I do – your stance is consistent with making it legally to torture, mutilate or starve dogs or cats. I will of course defend your right to advocate barbarity, but don’t expect me to support making it legal.
Not surprisingly, with that level of analysis, your assessment of my positions on defence issues simply shows you have no idea what my views actually are, let alone have a coherent assessment of your own of what a sensible security policy would be.
You also clearly have no idea of what Don Chipp’s views were – on either animal cruelty (he set up the ground-breaking Senate select Committee on animal welfare which led directly to major improvements in the treatment of some animals) or defence (I suggest his views on defence issues in the 1980s would be seen as more radical than what mine are).
When you’re actually interested in listening to what people are saying, rather than inserting your own prejudice over your pre-determined assumptions, give it another go.
(and I’m not sure why bungee jumping has to be mutually exclusive to having sensible policies either – indeed the bungee jump was about a serious policy issue, which was crippling public liability insurance, but I guess relevance is irrelevant when there’s a cheap shot to be made)
Jul 9th, 2007
wilful
One thing that clearly distinguishes the ADs from other parties is the level of membership participation in policy setting. The party is far more democratic than any other in that aspect – not the confused misinterpretation of democracy that Peter Jones likes to apply.
Jul 9th, 2007
David
Andrew.
Anyone that knows of you personally knows that you’ve given the job your best and have been very passionate even in the Senate.
The Democrats record speaks for itself and even on welfare and veterans/defence issues.
It is too easy for people to criticise but the runs are on the board. We know that the media has played its part and the Senate contest in general is far too important to ignore.
There are so many issues that I have major concerns and Andrew, please check Malcolm Farr’s latest piece.
Jul 9th, 2007
Lynette2
I’m not in your electorate and don’t know anyone who is, so I’m pretty useless to you really.
Nevertheless, good luck with it Andrew.
Jul 9th, 2007
Justin Campbell
Sorry I couldn’t make it Andrew. I couldn’t get a park and I was already late. I guess the car park was filled with your suporters.
You should come to the Yads meeting. (-:
Jul 9th, 2007
Jacques Chester
I have to say that your blog has turned around my thinking on who to vote for in the Senate. You’ve got guts being the only Parliamentarian who really puts his thoughts out there, which deserves respect.
If only you were in WA, I’d vote for you.
Jul 9th, 2007
TrishaM
Dear Senator, While I admire and applaud many of the principled statements and actions of the Democrats, and wish them well, I’ll look very carefully at the preferences deals made at the next election before I promise anything, though I’m in South Australia, so nothing personal. I admire and enjoy your blog- wish more politicians would do the same. I have learned a lot here, and have been alerted to many policy and other issues left out of the newspapers. I admire your warm-hearted comments on many issues, and your reasonable repsonses to the wackier of my fellow responders, or at least allowing them to continue to post.
I wish I could get the taste of the GST out of my mouth, and the sinking into the sunset of the token (and complicated) system for a refund on books for students .. I’m still quite angry about all that. (Not blaming you for that one personally.)
After TAMPA and the pusillanimous Beasley response to Howard’s disgusting dog whitling (“Oh, yeah! Me too, John!”) I contrasted your stand, inclusing yoru visits to Nauru with immense relief, and have waited in vain for Rudd to show some backbone on this. He won’t get my vote this time, though I’m a 4th generation previously-rusted-on-Labor-voter. I greive for the loss of the vision I thought we all shared in Australia. Good luck, and if I lived in QLd I might even vote for you. The Dems here seem principled, but as I said, I’ll look at the preferences. If I have to, I’ll vote below the line.
Jul 9th, 2007
TrishaM
Oh, and PS – I’ve had concerned Kiwi friends asking me to amplify your press statement about changed to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority .. can you expand on what changes will be made to Indigenous representation? I’ve read what’s on their website but can’t really see what you are driving at. (Which will be the point of what they’ve waffled on about, I imagine.) Thanks you for your time, if you can do that.
Jul 9th, 2007
Kim
Andrew, on the liberal democracy and animal rights question, you might enjoy reading the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s recent Frontiers of Justice, where she discusses animals as a test case for the care owed to those who don’t fall within the traditional liberal notion of a reasoning being.
Jul 10th, 2007
Kieran
Andrew,
I’m a Green, we’re out trying to nab your seat. All the same it would be a crying shame to lose you from the Senate.
Your hard work on the issue of refugees in particular has earnt my respect.
wishing you all the best,
Kieran.
Jul 10th, 2007
CORAL
I don’t think the Greens have much chance. They’re too extreme.
A lot of people are talking about voting for the smaller parties and independents now. Some have never voted that way before.
I think people like Pauline Hanson’s policies better than they used to, because they are tired of being overrun by huge numbers of people from other countries.
Family First stands for traditional values, of which this country is sorely in need.
We now have 25% of 14-year-olds engaged in sexual relationships, and at least 10% of 15-year-old girls experimenting with one another. I wonder where that’s coming from?
In many instances, animals are valued more highly than people.
The RSPCA insists on a jail term for someone killing 4 cats, when they kill thousands of animals themselves every year. Where is the logic in that?
Jul 10th, 2007
Justin Campbell
Coral if you vote for family first or Pauline Hanson to fix our social problems your mistaken.
One thing families already are receiving more from the state then they contribute in taxes. All the major parties already lookout for families as they are such a huge voting block.
Second, Australia isn’t being over run by immigrants. We have a skill shortage we need people. As a person working in recruitment I can tell immigration is doing a poor job of deciding who can come here but we do need the people.
Third, electing family first won’t change the fact that minors are having sex or girls experimenting sexually with each other. Which does seem to becoming more common. Knowledge about the risks of sex and how to reduce those risks may help and government policies that empower young people.
If you want to blame anyone for some of the social problems blame John Howard. The baby bonus put a plasma tv in every single mum’s house.
Jul 10th, 2007
Evil Pundit
I blame the Labor Party and the Democrats for social problems. Together they’ve managed to prevent any meaningful social reform up until the last election.
Over the last ten years the Democrats have consistently positioned themselves as an anti-male, anti-Australian party and now they are reaping the electoral consequences of that stand.
Jul 11th, 2007
CORAL
Justin:
I didn’t say I was voting for either Pauline Hanson or Family First.
I seriously doubt that the baby bonus put a plasma TV in every single mum’s house – but I do object to baby bonuses and tax cuts going to high income earners, while low income earners continue to suffer.
I believe that whatever is legalised is being encouraged. Family First probably wouldn’t legalise homosexuality. They wouldn’t allow homosexuals to adopt children – certainly not when there are large numbers of heterosexual couples who can’t have any.
Today’s young people are very well educated about sex, but they haven’t been taught any sense of morality.
I don’t think it is true that families receive more money from the government than they pay in taxes. I think that’s a myth put about by John Howard.
I agree that the Howardship has been contributing to a lot of social problems using multiple means – mostly to benefit wealthy businessmen and child support payers.
There is no shortage of workers in this country. The statistics have been fudged so employees can exploit overseas workers in conjunction with the new industrial relations laws.
We ARE being overrun by people from other countries. Go out into the street and take a good look around you.
Jul 11th, 2007
PETER JONES
To muzzmonster, animal activists always seem to have difficulty telling the difference between people, and other species of animals.
Ducks are not human and humans are not ducks.
You are right though, if i saw someone racially abusing an asian duck, not only would i not care, but i would never intervene on the ducks behalf, and if ducks care to waddle down the road naked, not only would i not be offended,
but i might even support legislation allowing nude swimming beaches for ducks,if the democrats put it foreward.
Of course if the asian in question was human, i would do, what i did some years in Prague, run to their aid, and help them beat off their abuser, (they turned out to be a nice couple from Singapore).
As to people walking around naked, i support their right to do so within specified areas, but not on the street in city or suburbia (too distracting for us drivers).
I remember a certain Richard Jones (no relation thank goodness)who in the 1970s campained for the right, to inflict the sight, of his rather small naked penis, on other bathers at public beaches.
Now his groups claim (with which i heartially concur,though i have never been ,any sort of nudist)was that it was unreasonable to force them to comply with the moral rules (and therefore, religious,philosophy) of religious and quasi religious groups to which they did not belong and with whom they did not agree.
Result democracy.
They were given areas to indulge their legitimate interest, and the population at large, was protected from the oh so public reminder, that “they needed to buy cocktail frankfurts, for the kids party on the weekend”.
So you would think that this experience would,
inspire him to go forth in future, and support
others, struggling to prevent their legitimate interests, being suppressed by quasi religious cults.
Did he ? “Bollocks”
He became an animal rights activist and M.P,
and tried to strip legitimate rights from others.
More to come.
Jul 11th, 2007
CORAL
I don’t like hunting – whether it be ducks, kangaroos or humans.
When my uncle was taking a pleasant walk through the bush, he was gunned down and killed by a kangaroo hunter – leaving his widow with 2 toddlers and a 6 week old baby to care for on her own.
Jul 11th, 2007
John Tracey
Well I think the whole bunjee jumping thing was brilliant but it wasn’t followed through on.
Perhaps Australia’s most astute polititician ever, the late Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen had two key media policies that drove his exceptional popularity. One was “any publicity is good publicity” and perhaps his most famous technique of statecraft, “feeding the chooks”.
John Howard has learnt from old Joh’s wisdom. The gaggle of journalists that gather around Kirrabily house early in the morning hoping to get yet another image of J.H. going for a walk certainly resembles chooks gathering at the chookhouse at sunset waiting for their food.
Senator Bartlett has put his toe into the hot water of publicity stunts a couple of times and jumped out straight away. The bad media that was the recoil of the bungee jump, while admitedly painting an unflattering picture of the senator, was a major factor in creating the senator’s profile outside of his traditional support base. If, in the face of media hostility, he had of jumped just one more time, anywhere, (it’s not too late) then we would have the phenomenon of a defiant bunjee jumping senator, not a failed media stunt senator. Bunjee would be proudly and most importantly ideosyncratically stamped indellibly onto the senators public image, like the chook and face paint. Of course the senator saw the whole bunjee thing as a stunt to draw attention to a particular issue (which I and I suspect most others cant remember) and as such he was sucked into the vortex of media cynicism and teasing.
The present polls showing John Howard and Kevin Rudd’s popularity going down and up are directly connected to the degree and timing of exposure that their faces have in the media, no matter what the issue.
Jump Andrew, Jump!
(or at least have a dance with Kerry-Anne)
Jul 11th, 2007
PETER JONES
Andrew, as expected, you duck (pardon pun) & weave, throwing up a smokescreen, of emotive invective to hide behind, in your attempt to avoid addressing the real issue under discussion.
That is cowardly, intellectually dishonest and pure sophistry.
I think we should get you some minstrels, & change your name to,
“Sir Robin the Brave”.
Those who read my previous entry will know that nowhere do i advocate the starvation,torture,or mutilation of canids or felids.
Nor for that matter the roasting of kittens on spits.
Of course as duckhunting is traditionally legal, you know i am not asking you to make it legal.
In fact i am asking you support the rights of duckhunters to be able to continue, just as you would demand of those who find homosexuality disgusting, & contra to their moral & religious beliefs, that they allow gays to practice & not to discriminate.
Your idea of liberty, seems to be, you should be able live your, life in accordance with your cults quasi religious beliefs, but those that do not share them, should be forced to live their lives by them also.
I dont see liberty there.
I will of course support your right to be a bigot, but dont expect me to support making it legal.
There is no moral high ground for food.
We all consume other life forms in whole or part, animal activists simply draw an arbitrary line in the sand at a point, different from others in society, for personal emotional comfort, just as monks in the middle ages officialy reclassified rabbits as fish, for friday lunch convenience.
If you think shooting a duck is torture,best talk to someone who was as guest the Egyptian secret police.
I did not know you were “jumping” for liability, but it would have made no difference.
I thought you looked like a “Complete Prat”,and you lost any remaining credibility the party had, my friends felt the same way.
If you want public respect dont
put on a “Fozzie Bear” suit & walk around saying
“WOKKA WOKKA WOKKA”
Jul 11th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
You’re right there, Mr Jones – you shouldn’t say that if you want respect. Mind you, your concluding “WOKKA WOKKA WOKKA” statement makes more sense than the litany of logical inconsistencies, misrepresentation and ad hominem which was in the rest of your comment.
If you really want to hold a position as ludicrous as suggesting a liberal approach equates to absolute, inconstrained individual liberty, then you should be honest and say so. Otherwise you’re just throwing up particularly poorly constructed straw men. You either support the unconstrained right to inflict cruelty on animals, or you believe there should be constraints – then the debate is about where to position those constraints. I support one of those constraints being against the slaughter of ducks for sport, as it is undeniably cruel and clearly unnecessary, just as the slaughter of cats or dogs for sport should be.
You don’t have to agree, but please don’t bother with your patronising nonsense. If you can’t put an adult argument, you can’t expect me to keep wasting my time responding.
Jul 12th, 2007
Andrew Bartlett
Trisha – sorry I missed your question asking me to “amplify my press statement about changed to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority .. can you expand on what changes will be made to Indigenous representation?”
The changes have already been passed – pushed through the Senate by the Coalition majority (also with the support of Family First).
Previously the Authority was required to include one member who represented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities along the coast adjoining the Marine Park.
The changes increased the size of the Authority by one, but also removed the requirement for there to be an Indigenous representative on the Authority (a chance made without consulting with or even notifying those indigenous communities, I might add)
Jul 12th, 2007
PETER JONES
Andrew, guilty as charged.
I have begun using your own sophist “Ad Hominem” methods against you.
Even you, would agree that your arguments are mostly “Argumentum Ad Personae”, and deliberatly skirt around most issues i have raised.
Quid Pro Quo Andrew.
Of course those who actually read my comments know that i have never suggested unrestrained
rights to anything, indeed the issue is, where to position those restraints.
The key to these parameters should be a combination of historical law & practice combined with moral and practical consistency,
ensuring that no one is discriminated against,
and all activities/interests are treated equally, excepting, behaviours/practices which deliberatly, cause harm to other humans.
The general philosophy applied should be one of
permission rather than denial.
We must guard vigilantly against those bigots in society, who would insist on their philosophical
perspectives/behaviours being forced on others,
simply because others activities/behaviours, run counter to the religious beliefs of the cult to which they belong.
Eg If wou wish to practice your heterosexuality, you must allow others to practice their homosexuality,if you are a liberal you must allow others to be communists or democrats,if presbyterian you must permit catholicism,if pro life you must permit pro choice, if you are an animal libber you must permit duckhunting.
Whilst we have all adopted differing philoshphical perspectives we should only apply them to ourselves & always respect the rights
of others to undertake their activities if they so choose within the parameters outlined above.
Remember whilst not all perspectives are accurate
or necesarially sensible, people have a right to undertake them.
Remember, if animal libbers have the right to ban duckhunting today,( because they dont like it & it runs counter to their cults philosophy),because they have the political numbers,to enforce it.
Jul 12th, 2007
CORAL
It isn’t only animal activists who sometimes can’t differentiate between animals and people. It was a kangaroo hunter who couldn’t differentiate between a kangaroo and my uncle.
There’s no need for anyone to hunt ducks, rabbits, kangaroos or emus for food any more. You can buy all of these at the supermarket.
I wish people wouldn’t skin cats alive, and/or eat them for dinner, and/or make the skins into fake stuffed cats to be sold in shopping centres.
My sister had 2 beautiful cats (with lovely coats) go missing in rapid succession. She suspected the Vietnamese neighbours. Now her new cats are seldom out of her sight.
I disagree with you, Peter Jones.
You are possessed by the modern Me Syndrome through which you believe that all practices and behaviours have to be accepted, so YOU may do anything YOU like – whatever it is.
A successful society is not built on Me Syndrome or the acceptance of ALL beliefs and ALL behaviours. It has strictly enforced laws which uphold wholesome lifestyles.
Jul 12th, 2007
paul walter
Andrew, best of luck. I hope the sort of mentality you represent gets back into parliament rather than the spiritless and empty neoliberal selfishness represented here by certain of your citics.
I also wish some of the more well-intentioned people who nonetheless seem to possess this irrational fear of progressives, be they Greens or Democrats, due to the vile and violent tabloid newspaper and TV witchhunts launched against decent people in politics, would take a moment’s pause to think again.
Please, finally begin to see through the spindoctors’ claims, to recognise those who are really responsible for the death of Australian Democracy.
Jul 13th, 2007
red crab
best of luck andrew
never give up and never give in.
Jul 14th, 2007
ghost writer
ab does not NEED luck,
he has had his lucky,
break in life,
the rest is random cream?
Jul 20th, 2007