Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt
The idea of politicians thinking and acting independently, rather than as mindless cogs in a political machine, is appealing to many people.
As a Greens member, I am active in a seat with a sitting Independent MP and sometimes have to justify my membership of a political party to progressive and environmentally aware friends.
Younger people especially often feel that organising in groups somehow makes politics cynical and unworthy. Even the Greens are accused of being ‘greedy for power’, simply by running for election.
This view can undermine our democratic process by discouraging people from voting at all. But mostly it can influence political outcomes by making Independents seem a more attractive option – perhaps removed from the ‘taint’ of political parties? Recently in Australia, John Ralston Saul made his view known. He urged people to join and influence democratic political parties, particularly young people. He asserts that political party organisations are the most direct path for social reform: “change is made by the people who hold power… if you don’t take power in the legislature, you can’t change policy.”
This is a refreshing message for Australia, where we regularly hear about the trend to keep ‘politics’ at arm’s length. A drip feed of media reports expand on the theme that “political parties have a bad name; they’ve become a turn-off for the young, many of whom want to engage only on an ad hoc issue-by-issue basis.”
But where’s the substance behind this negative perception? Is there any evidence that an Independent delivers more for his/her electorate than a representative from a political party? And what about the reform and change that environmentally aware voters want – who can best deliver that?
To find out, I compared the Parliamentary performance of Adam Bandt, Green Party MP for Melbourne, with Andrew Wilkie, Independent MP for Denison. In September 2010, they were both elected for the first time as members of the House of Representatives in the 43rd Federal Parliament.
On several measures, I found significant differences in their Parliamentary performance from September 2010 to June 2012:
• Total number of speeches made in Parliament: Bandt 120, Wilkie 49
• Number of Second Reading speeches (the main opportunity for MPs to make policy statements on proposed legislation): Bandt 42, Wilkie 6
• Number of amendments to legislation proposed: Bandt proposed 16 packages of amendments – including Greens’ changes to social security laws, work health and safety laws, a coal seam gas bill, and improvements to the coverage and impact of the mining tax; Wilkie proposed two packages of amendments – one of which was to reduce the number of mining companies that have to pay the mining tax, even though there are no mining companies in his electorate.
• Number of motions proposed: Bandt 21, Wilkie 2
• Adjournment debates: Bandt 8, Wilkie 3
• Constituency and Member’s Statements: Bandt 16, Wilkie 10
• Private Members Bills (proposed new laws sponsored by the MP): Bandt 12, Wilkie 4
These figures suggest that in terms of Parliamentary work, the Independent is totally out-performed by the Greens MP.
Importantly, the figures also indicate that the Independent has a narrower policy scope, and a reduced ability to influence a range of national discussions in the Parliament. Of Wilkie’s six Second Reading speeches, half were simply to utter a sentence in support of amendments by others.
In contrast, the scope of Bandt’s 42 Second Reading contributions is very broad – the topics covered his Greens party portfolio areas, and also debates around climate change, social security, schools assistance, telecommunications, migration, higher education, cybercrime, and family assistance.
In some of the major Parliamentary debates where many MPs spoke, Wilkie chose not to speak at all.
For example, 140 MPs spoke about the historic Clean Energy Bill, yet Wilkie made no speech to express the views of his constituency about any of Australia’s new climate change policy. In a green-leaning seat like Denison, this would be extremely disappointing to his electorate.
The content of Constituency and Member’s Statements makes it clear that Bandt consults widely in his electorate to address issues such as withdrawal of funding for adult education and neighbourhood houses, the needs of migrant groups for recognition and support, the local impact of high voltage transformers, and employment issues.
Wilkie on the other hand appears less concerned with issues in his own electorate, but rather refers to more general Tasmaniawide issues such as health care or the pulp mill; and
conspicuously uses his Federal platform to criticize the State government.
The quantitative and qualitative data suggest that an electorate may be better served by a hard-working MP who is part of an active democratic party, than by an Independent (no matter how hard-working) with no parliamentary team or party structure as support.
Resourcing of individual MPs is not at issue – all have the same number of staff. However, a Greens MP has access to party room discussions and the ability to share the expert knowledge and wide experience of another nine Greens parliamentarians.
This is by no means a comprehensive analysis – other Independents compared to other party representatives in other jurisdictions may reveal a different story. However, these data do suggest that an Independent representative may be significantly less able to cover not only the electorate’s specific concerns, but also a wide range of issues at the national level. Both measures should be regarded as important indicators of democratic health.
This in turn suggests that voters, our democracy and our chance of creating reform for a more sustainable Australia, will be better served by electing a Green than an Independent where the choice is available.
Those who romanticise the role of Independents are in danger of endorsing an ‘anti-party’ political system which would have no policies apart from trying to get a candidate elected, and favouring issues with simplistic popular appeal.
Political parties are easy to blame for a range of ills, but they actually perform the essential democratic function of creating the connection between politics and society. They pick up demands from society, evaluate the issues, and shape them into policy alternatives through a process of extensive discussion by party members and their representatives. This ensures there are different choices in the political ‘marketplace’ – an essential characteristic of democracy.
Of course, Independents also make an important contribution to the marketplace of political ideas, but are less able to provide democratic input to their work and create robust policy alternatives. In the next Parliament, where it is likely that Independents will no longer hold the balance of power, they could easily be excluded from legislative power and decision-making.
Green-minded voters want their MPs to implement progressive and ecologically sustainable policies, and counter-balance the group-think of the major parties. Their choice is clear. Expanding the Greens team in our Federal Parliament will deliver more than an assortment of isolated Independents ever could.
Louise Crossley was a founding member of the Tasmanian and Australian Greens; the first Convenor of the former and the second Convenor of the latter. She ran for the Senate in Tasmania in 1998, and coordinated the Global Greens Charter in 2001.
First published today, in Green magazine
Show Comments
Comments (41)
Even the Greens don’t like ‘Independents’
Dioxin, Louise. Respond to that issue please, and if it eludes you ask Cassie O’Connor to explain.
An expanded green team delivering more of Cassie’s cynical “of course he would say that” garbage instead of looking at a potential public health nightmare is the stuff of nightmares.
If that is effective representation I will pass.
Utter tripe! How many speeches have Dick Adams and Sid Sidebottom made since 2010? What about Geoff Lyons the ‘ghost MP’ from Bass? Nobody even knows who he is.
Louise it does not bode well for any members of the Greens Party to engage in whittling away with your comments to the the cost of the people’s champion, your energies would be better expended whittling away and upon the poor representations given on behalf of the State’s citizens, by those conspiratorial connivers belongum to the 2 major lackadaisical polit-prattle parties.
I lack the time right now to respond comprehensively to this attempted justification of party politics, but aside from the dioxin issue Louise makes one claim that begs a response:
“Political parties are easy to blame for a range of ills, but they actually perform the essential democratic function of creating the connection between politics and society. They pick up demands from society, evaluate the issues, and shape them into policy alternatives through a process of extensive discussion by party members and their representatives. This ensures there are different choices in the political ‘marketplace’ – an essential characteristic of democracy.”
Given the extremely low proportion of the population actively engaged in the parties the claim of “creating the connection” between politics and society is at best ambitious, and if polling on societies opinion of politicains is any guide, just plain silly.
Political parties are, in truth, very content to only hear from society at elections when they spoon feed the obligatory “policies” which they immediately massage to suit the horse trade de jour. They present the electorate with “either or” choices which are often rooted in ignorance of the real needs of the electorate or delivered up by a self serving bureucracy as “worlds best practice”.
The truth is that with every passing day the failure of party politics is writ ever larger. The pressing problems of the world have been generated under a paradigm of party dominance, and attempting the spruiking of the greens as the answer is to take society for bigger fools than we are.
The independent representative I have in mind comes to the role, not with a dogma dressed up as policies, or riding instructions from the party secretary’s mates/donors, but an open mind and a desire to represent the needs of the electorate being served. That individual will divine the will of the electorate on each issue, explain that will to their peers in parliament and with research and the filter of their lived experience deliver a vote that seeks to deliver what is, in their mind, the best outcome for the common good.
To understand this process a read of Ruth Forest’s contributions in Hansard is helpful. She is not perfect but as far I have seen she is a bloody good start.
I know that is different to how the party system operates, but I contend that we are using a spade as a slasher, and have been for so long we have forgotten that it works better as a spade, and if we want to grow a garden we need to do more than just knock down the weeds.
The system of government we have has greater more potential for positive attributes like engagement, diversity, intelligence, honesty, truth, compassion and justice. We need to use it in a way that allows those attributes to be expressed. Continued selection of individuals who are prepared through either ignorance or expedience to conflict the interests of their electorate and the common good with the demands of their party is not the way to give those attributes their rightful expression. Any honest appraisal of the last century of “democracy” and its current state should put paid to the myth that it is. Current performances in federal parliament at question time definitely does. The dioxin issue certainly does.
It was my experience while living in Tasmania that the Greens could be just as poisonous and vindictive as any of the other political parties.It would appear that nothing has changed.
#5 Ruth Forest does seem an excellent and thoughtful contributor to the reviewing of legislation in the Upper House.
25/35 ‘Ruth Forests’ in the Lower House?
What a lot of gobbledegook Louise.
Funds secured for Tasmania by Wilkie: heaps
Funds secured for Tasmania by Bandt: ...
Wonderful example of how close to the lib/lab coalition the greens have become, egocentrically deluded, blind to reality and willing to resort to deceit to push their primitive agenda and gain power at any cost.
It’s not how many forms of babble or empty rhetoric you indulge I, it’s the outcomes for the future which count and the green future outcomes will only provide the same disasters the lb/lab are currently pushing towards.
Independents are referendum style government where the people are in control is the only way for a sane sensible and viable outcome for the future. Political parties are the primitive past designed for the empty headed elite to suppress the people.
The Greens are confusing activity with results. The clear feedback that I’m receiving from constituents is they feel I’m working hard and focusing on the important issues.
I’m happy to stand by my record, including my contribution to a broad range of important reforms and the almost $800m in funding I’ve secured for Tasmania. Frankly, another speech in parliament does not really compare to securing two thirds of a billion dollars for public health care in the state or helping build a new waterfront precinct in Hobart.
I welcome the political contest for Denison although I caution the Greens that the public interest is not served by their continuing personal attacks. Moreover it’s about time the Labor Party in particular paid some attention to the electorate after neglecting it for 23 years as a safe seat.
For those people that don’t agree with Louise’s summary of Wilkies performance as a federal member, please argue the points she raises. I would like to hear what Wilkies supporters/detractors believe he has achieved for his electorate since his election. Also what does Andrew offer in terms of policy that differs to Greens Policy and has he delivered on it? What policy have the federal Greens delivered on which pertain to Tassie? All politicians need to be held to scrutiny not just party members. At least Louise is giving an honest appraisal from her own research and is admitting she is a Greens member. Just bagging her efforts without arguing her reasoning does nothing to stimulate real debate. Lets see some facts behind the arguments no cherry picking! And keep it to federal politics not state as this was the main basis of Louise’s post. Perhaps someone else might venture an article examining the individual performance (as Louise has) of state independents in the upper house at some stage?
Crossley does the Greens no credit with this kind of statistical nonsense. The Greens should realise that Wilkie, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, in the life of the present parliament, without the resources of organised political parties behind him, have done proportionately far more for the good of Australia than any party MP nationwide. The Greens would be well advised to do everything they can to keep these men in the federal parliament by giving him their preferences at the next election — and then concentrate elsewhere on getting rid of the political deadwood that is, ad nauseam, tossed up by forever untrustworthy Libs and largely incompetent Labs. — Bob Hawkins
Hmm, an unsavoury case of attacking the messenger and the facts she is relaying. Unfortunately for Mr Wilkie, the facts are clear. Rather than being a self-obsessed media tart, more concerned with burnishing his ego primarily by throwing money - much of which the state actually has to stump up - Mr Bandt puts in the hard yards in parliament on behalf of his constituents. A true parliamentarian. Wikie’s spin about confusing results with activity shows that Wilkie is confusing spending other people’s money with hard work. At least with the greens, you know where they stand, with a clear policy setting and strong values. if it wasn’t for the federal powersharing parl, Wilkie would be toast… perhaps he is already.
I find this attack on Andrew Wilkie, and all Independents, deeply disappointing – and I say that as a paid up Green of many years (and many dollars) standing. On an issue by issue basis, Wilkie and the Greens are in substantial agreement. Engaging in public denigration of someone who is basically on your side, and who the public rightly hold in high esteem, only harms the Greens’ cause. The important thing for the public is getting the sort of results that are in the public interest and here as far as Tasmania is concerned Wilkie has indeed delivered the goods. Adam Bandt is a fine politician, as are most Greens, but he bats for Victoria and it is singularly inappropriate to bring him into the Tasmanian context in order to attempt to damage Wilkie. Here in Denison we have an excellent Greens candidate and we have the experienced and effective Wilkie. They are natural allies in fighting for environmental sustainability and against corporate greed and against the agenda of both major parties. They therefore should be preferencing each other: we are lucky in Tasmania that the Hare Clark system strategically used (as it wasn’t in the State elections) can make this mutually advantageous.
What has muddied the waters here is the party system itself. The Greens originally started off with the idea of independent thinking as the Independent Greens. Some like Kim Booth fully understand this and still behave accordingly and he is admired all the more for that. It would be a terrible shame if the Greens become caucused like both major parties now are.
Are the Greens that bored with politics that they are playing the man not the ball? I realize that parliament is a talk fest and maybe AW has been economical in dealing with his participation and prefers to work for his electorate instead of mouthing off and knowing every word he says is incapable of changing any members opinion. The party system demands all members to make their decision days before in a party room, before they heard the debate. Which makes the debates and parliament redundant.
Getting rabid about Andrew Wilkie while ignoring the other four ALP reps members and the complete senate membership is of course playing on two different football fields. As Sun Tzu has said ‘if you can’t win change the battlefield’. But Crossley you need to do it in such a way no one is aware of it, try subtlety, it may get you a better result.
If the Greens really want to win Denison you need to put up a viable candidate, who is interested in the electorate not primarily in party politics. We had a do-nothing former member, why didn’t you compare AW’s record to 23 years of Duncan Kerr.
Yet here we are heading into an election sometime next year and I bet the name recognition of your candidate is close to zero. I certainly know you have selected a candidate but I cannot recall her name, I do know she is a party employee and is probably safe but how does that help the electorate.
Crossley you need to compare apples to apples and not engage in this manipulative tripe and as you can see from the comments above, its only the hard core Green party employees engaging in this tripe and spite. The Greens can be more successful than you are but that will now take a cultural renewal. The politics of spite are going to backfire badly, just as they will on the Lib/Labs who play it constantly. Take advantage of your positives not the negatives. If you continue to attack the man not the ball, (as di Natale also did last week) you will lose members, faith, the high moral ground and cause a good party to become irrelevant and similar to the Lab/Libs.
Oh come on people.. It’s hardly a personal attack, just a well researched opinion piece about perceptions of Independent v Party Politicians.. Given what’s thrown around in Parliament I am astounded that Mr Wilkie would be so upset by this article.
Perhaps his ‘personal’ claims are a tactic to have it associated with the nasty, vitriolic smears that have come to dominate political discourse, thus distracting from the facts outlined by Louise. It seems to be working as no one appears particularly interested in discussing the substance of the article.
I hope both the Greens and Mr Wilkie can refrain from a race to the bottom as a result of the slanging match that appears to be gaining momentum. If it goes any further I will certainly not be voting for either.
#7 correct to ‘Forrest’
Denison MHR Wilkie’s “The Greens are confusing activity with results” (Comment 11) is spot on, and a pertinent corollary would be ‘Labor is confusing promises with performance’. Or, ‘symbolistic tokenism with actual achievement’.
As in politicians’ “Sorry” pronunciamentos - John Taylor got them right in his ‘Epigrammes’, 360 years ago way back in 1651:
“Words are but wind that do from men proceed^;
None but Chamelions on bare Air can feed;
Great men large hopeful promises may utter;
But words did never Fish or Parsnips butter”.
Or, for a more modern version: “Words, words, words, I’m so sick of words. Is that all you blighters can do?”
Sadly, Ms Doolittle, that IS all those “blighters can do”.
What else can be expected from MPs whose typically biggest “achievement” was producing po-mo drivel for a pseudo-academic uni course, and then manipulating their ascent up the Party ladder, often by pretending to look after the interests of union members?
^ from more than one orifice, dare we add?
So Louise Crossley, as you will see you have flashed a foolish red flag in the face of the Andrew Wilkie supporters and appreciators, perhaps you might like to rewrite your piece here that contrasts rather dis-favourably your Adam Bandt against the people’s champion?
How can I have a Green Andrew Wilkie for Denison?
Afraid I must agree with other respondents. This is poor reasoning and argueing, at a time when Green and Independents should be working together.
Its too easy to get tangled up in the whole Independents vs Party politics arguement, and for what? There are obviously pros and cons of each as many have pointed out. The point is all representatives should be judged on their individual performance and merit. Frankly I have no problem with a Labour minister following the party line if they have demonstrated evidence of questioning or trying to change that party line, rather than being an obsequious drone. It is up to each electorate to decide how much and how well their representatives have tackled their interests.In many ways the problems we face in this state are less to do with the elected members but the people who elected them, the interest they take in the issues, and their ability to decipher current events and work out who the real powers and manipulating agents really are. Sadly in all these cases I think that ability is very limited ( I am reminded of literacy figures and John Hawkins’ ‘braindead’ comments)
I think its a little too early for The Greens to be making enemies, they don’t know who they may have to go to bed with to retain their position of playing with the big boys.
I am writing to support Louise Crossley and her useful contribution for voters to consider. Her research clearly demonstrates, in a dispassionate and factual way, that if you are interested in major reform at the national level, it’s a better investment to add to the Green team in the House of Representatives rather than vote for an Independent. The figures speak for themselves - and if you know Louise, she’s hardly on the attack.
The Greens team in the Federal Parliament is an amazing group of MPs delivering many results - amending legislation to take the hard edges off Liberal and Labor policies, reflecting their constituents’ concerns by contributing to national debates occurring in the parliament, proposing motions to acknowledge the importance of issues, proposing their own ideas for new laws through private members bills. This work is substantial and reformist - in two years, ten Greens MPs have overseen reform on climate change and pollution abatement, billions of dollars for clean energy, the introduction of new dental cover in our medical system, just to name a few. This work is worthy of recognition, and it requires a team effort to achieve this kind of change.
This national reform work is also of great benefit to Tasmanians - for example the carbon reform led to a cut in the tax free threshold for low income Australians of which there are many are in Denison. Similarly with the new dental care provisions - national reform with local benefits.
Adam Bandt and the Senators also do the things that Mr Wilkie and all hard-working MPs focus on - championing local causes, attending events, servicing constituents, and lobbying for local funds. Mr Wilkie’s leverage has been favored by the Parliamentary numbers, but the hung Parliament is a temporary situation that may not persist after the next election.
However, it seems Louise has touched a raw nerve with some people who regard her article as a personal attack, or wish to spin it that way. That’s regrettable. If you spend time talking to people, you’ll know that Louise is trying to answer a question in the minds of many progressive, environmentally-minded voters around Australia, and particularly in Denison. When faced with a choice between candidates of similar policies, who best to vote for? Her analysis shows that a Parliamentary team magnifies the scale of work that can be undertaken, more than a single Independent is physically able to. Her research also suggests that the Greens team have a broader and more ambitious agenda, driven by a strong commitment to tackling the challenges of the future.
For those interested in my background and my work as a candidate feel free to look at my bio http://tas.greens.org.au/people/anna-reynolds and join my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/AnnaReynoldsGreens
#17 I’ll vote for the first pollie to bring back old school sav making at the footy.
Are you guys serious?
The so called research is based on a few observations .
Were the observations adjusted in any way to adjust for any biases, other differences that may affect the outcomes, before the long bow was drawn?
It’s statistical nonsense.
I hope the writer isn’t ever asked to determine the jack mackerel quota.
#24 daaaarn tootin! Now that there is one bona fide vote winner. Something must be done. Think of the children! We are at the crossroads. I foresee a future parliament standing to issue an official apology to the next generation of football goers because canteens around the country have lost their way. Shame!
To me it looks like somebody in the Greens has decided their polls have slipped too far down and it’s time to claw their way back up at somebody else’s expense. I’d call that poor strategy in interpersonal behaviour and poor form in politics. All you will do is incite enemies you don’t need.
I asked Anna Reynolds about a week ago on face book to state publicly to all of us that use facebook for gambling reform advocacy what she would do with regard to gambling reform if elected and she didn’t even respond. Anna Reynolds, What would you do if elected to bring change in this area to Tasmanians? Not talking about what has been proposed federally but what YOU think Tasmanians need as a solution? Anna Reynolds, is the Tasmanian Government addicted to the money it is making out of the misery of many? I guess she was waiting to see what happened in parliament so as to form an answer.
Andrew seems like a pretty reasonable bloke for someone who went through ADFA at the height of the bastardisation era and spent much of his life as a spook.
That said the key point is he has only exerted some influence because we have had a hung parliament.
There will not be a hung parliament after the next election. Any influence Andrew has will evaporate overnight.
On the other hand after the next election the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate.
So if you are interested in politics to do things it is pretty obvious which way you should vote.
#26 To me the answer is clear.
Sack that Scott Wade, TSL cuts ties with the AFL, return footy to biffo rules and the tuck shop to the local ladies auxiliary.
I’m skeptical the Greens will get behind this because they are unfortunately over run with vegans who dont understand how important the role of maintaining ole school footy savs is to a happy, healthy & functional society.
Is there a sav eating green politician out there??? An independent?? Wilkie???
#30 Has hit the nail square on the cranium. I have done the research and correlated statistical data demonstrating Scott Wade’s increasingly dictatorial reign over AFL Tas has led to a steady decline in Sav quality throughout Southern Tasmania. As the Board has been stacked with his cronies, canteen standards have fallen leading a marked increase in bursting, poor slicing and flimsy bread. The nail in the coffin being at AFL Tas HQ North Hobart Oval, where the once legendary ‘peppered’ Savs have become virtually inedible in recent times.
Re. Greens on Savs, informal research has revealed that a former Senator is very familiar with the problem having been served poorly cooked Savs upon arrival at Risdon Prison in 1983. One wonders if he has spoken with Corrections Minister McKim to raise standards in the prison system.
Perhaps that is where the upper echelons of the canteen staff have found themselves working and we are the innocent victims. Can an Independent politician be trusted to right this wrong or will the Party Machine work to fix the crisis; perhaps inadvertently of its own making?
#31 Brilliant analysis Simon. You have crystallised the situation facing Tasmanians visa vee Lips & Arseholes.
So. Who will put up there hand?
Wilkie? Or the Greens dood?
Who will put Footy Ground Sav Reform back on the agenda? Do not underestimate the amount of votes hinging on this issue.
Remember yooz politicians, the way to a mans heart is through his stomach.
Vote 1 - Old School Savs.
Not sure why some are miffed with the comparison of parliamentary performance of AW (my local member) and AB. Haven’t met either and I am a Green. Anyone standing for election will stand on their record therefore it is valid for Lousie Crossley to compare AW’s participation to AB. We don’t all have the same expectation of our local reps, but I for one do want mine to be a champion, an advocate for refugees, climate change policy, for sustainable transport to name a couple of issues. In the news tonight AB asked a policy question of PM re impact of cuts to payments for single parents. In the midst of slander and accusation on the floor and absenteeism of many MPs, AB was a stand out. We need our politicians to take seriously their role in parliament, to propose, amend and oppose bills and motions. Generations of Australians are being disillusioned and disengaged with the political processes because politicians are failing to act like leaders.
Now I note AW has posted a comment stating he is delivering the $s to Denison and that is more important than “speeches” in parliament. Politicians should endeavor to do both. I would actually question whether all the spending decisions by the Aust Govt in Tasmania is the work of AW as his newsletter and Facebook page seems to suggest. We all know how governments spend in swinging seats.
I am sure there will be lots more lively debate of issues, and candidates leading up to the next elections - sometimes we forget how fortunate we are to live in a democracy.
I always have a sav at the footy. Huonville’s are pretty good and had an excellent sav at Dodges Ferry too. The lady behind the counter tut-tutted and turned away when I put mustard on but that’s fair enough.
Was a bit worried when we visited Kempton to play the Central Hawks and the sav was split but the white bread was very fresh. Too fresh really but the service was fantastic. You know, handed me my change, the sav and turned to continue her conversation with her mate all in the one movement. Almost ballet.
On that basis you’d reckon the government was travelling pretty well. But would Lara even eat a saveloy? Will and Nick might but they would need to be convinced of the photo opportunity and they would all need a focus group to try them first.
So much of this is just personally directed at Louise based on personal feelings. She is trying to encourage discourse, sure, she’s a Green, but that is no reason to personally insult her.
If you have something to say, respond to her points with facts.
For example. Pointing out that Adam Bandt has not secured funds for Tasmania is a moot point. He holds a seat in Melbourne. That is not the point of the article.
Why add to the dirty slinging match of Tasmanian politics with more of the same? How does that help your state?
Whichever side you’re on, try doing some research instead of just adding to the personal conjecture.
#34 Shane your comment cuts to the heart of the sav crisis.
As Simon has pointed out - North Hobart footy oval’s TSL/AFL city slicker sav has gone to the dogs (pardon the pun). The same is being said of other TSL/AFL savs like KGV’s. I dont think Bellerive even serves savs anymore and has replaced them with poncie wraps & nori rolls.
Yet bush footy gets it. They get the Sav. You can still get a great sav in the bush (oh behave!).
The disparity between the country & city sav could be seen as emblematic of the gulf that exists between bush culture & cityslicker culture which has been blamed for the demise of farms and rural community.
The Greens are often accused of being city slicking latter sipping snobs who are out of touch with the bush. Therein lies the challenge for the Greens. Get out to the country footy Nick & Cassy. Get a REAL SAV or two into ya’s, get a taste of the bush and show the people that yooz are rool.
(35 - T) Oh hello, where have you been? Louise, indeed the Greens have had a ‘thing’ against Andrew Wilkie and any independent or any other potentially rising political party since (at least) the last state election. Their focus has been more on ensuring there is no other competition rather than dealing with the libs/labs. I know this because I’ve been in the party room when it’s been talked about. They, some of Greens and media staffers have personally insulted me, because I didn’t toe the line … where were you then??
Once upon a time political parties would welcome the positives and successes achieved through Australia’s parliament, yet today it seems to be the cause for slander and insult by those who have not managed to achieve that same level of popular party result themselves.
Politics as now seen to be practiced in Australia appears closer related to trained killer dogs fighting in pits, that this can be confirmed, if one takes the time to observe the current antics of Julia Bishop, Christopher Pyne and Tony Abbott in their day to day dealings?
Then here in Tasmania we see the Abetz like hatreds and tirades that tend to copy the day to day norm, not just in the Federal arena but now seems to be the choice between our 2 major State political parties, which is of course nothing short of creating peurile and contrived diversions to the business of the day to cause failures in due process being sought by the incumbent State leadership(s) party.
That we now frequently see the promised desire by hopefully new or re-elected ministers to pursue their electoral promises, (be they given by individual elected ministers or by the party that they do represent) are now seemingly consigned to the history books?
Quite obviously these sorts of pit fighting and disparaging abuse sessions are a major tactic of the non-policy possessing Federal and State Liberal minister attack dogs.
The compulsory election system in Australia is in danger of collapse if the 2 major parties are in indeed the 2 most rotten apples that the Australian people are necessitated by law to cast their formal vote.
Informal or Donkey votes will become the order of the day, whereby those individual people who were considered to be the best served by our electoral voting system are now busily engaged in creating their own demise?
Hatreds and abusive behaviour must never become the tool of choice by any of Australia’s political parties.
A dark cloud of shame must remain suspended over the Abbott camp wherever they may gather to argue and foment over their woefully chosen new targets.
Sounds to me that #33 Catherine B has recognized she can quite calmly vote for Andrew Wilkie without disturbing her approach to refugees, climate change policy and transport policy. So whats the problem?
I wonder why the Greens are bothering to stand a candidate who as usual has little to Buckleys chance of winning. Its just going to be an unpleasant experience for everyone as they send their first preferences to the ALP. Do you want, another ALP do-nothing in Denison?
Pilko rules! The saveloy subtext underscores all that is wrong - and right with this state. Pure poetry. (I’ve had some great savs in the bush in my time, too.)
#40 Oh behave!!