Dear Christopher,
I noticed your most recent reply reply on Tas Times*, which I’d like to respond to.
Your issue seems to be about power-sharing governments. You don’t seem to have noticed that the Greens are Greening up Government.
After the election, no one party had a majority and, as you know, there were, as there are now, 10 Labor MPs, 10 Liberal MPs and 5 Greens MPs.
After the election, the Greens could have remained in our comfort zone, in Opposition.
The Libs refused point-blank to negotiate, leaving the door open for the Greens and Labor to form Government.
This was an opportunity to get Green hands on some of the levers of Government, and start creating Green outcomes. This why all five Greens MPs in the Party Room unanimously agreed to negotiate to form a power-sharing Government.
You suggested in one of your previous emails that the Greens had a moral duty to oppose the Aprin deal.
We do.
And we also oppose it on economic, practical and common-sense grounds.
But with so many unsound, flawed and environmentally unsustainable decisions having been made in recent years. the Greens believe we had a moral opportunity to start putting our money where are mouths were – and make decisions – rather than just contesting the decisions of others while in Opposition.
Traditionally, the Greens have stepped up to the plate in tough economic times to put the state back on a financial even keel, after profligate majority governments have left the state in a financially parlous condition – for example, with Michael Field and Tony Rundle governments.
The same is true for this Government. The Greens are prepared, yet again, to make the tough but right decisions to put Tasmania on a strong and sustainable financial footing for the future.
There have been a raft of Greens policy wins and outcomes in the past year and more thanks to being in this power-sharing Government.
A Murdoch owned paper may not always report them, but here’s a few:
http://mps.tas.greens.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Apr21_Greens-in-Cabinet-a-Year-On_N-McKim_ATTACH.pdf
The fact is the Greens have enjoyed more Greens policy wins and outcomes in the past year than we did in the last seven years in Opposition.
This is precisely the reason all five Greens MPs sought to become part of this power-sharing Government – to begin Greening up Government.
Some might prefer for us to have remained loud, proud – but effectively powerless – in Opposition. But the Greens unashamedly sought power to do the right thing.
It is simply untrue that our two Greens Ministers in Government should accept all and every decision made by the six other Labor ministers.
The whole premise of this power-sharing Government is that no policy positions were agreed when it was formed. This means the Greens’ policies aren’t compromised by being in Government.
That’s like saying we should abide by the decisions of a Parliament, even if they are wrong, just because we belong to it.
The Greens will never compromise our core beliefs – this is exactly why we’ve continued to provide a whole number of solutions to what we believe are flawed Labor decisions, for example, just a few include us opposing public money going to AFL, support for gay marriage, opposing the Brighton bypass, tabling the Pulp Mill Repeal Bill, tabling an amendment to prevent pay rises for all MPs which was voted down by Labor and the Libs – among many other significant policy differences.
You are also right that there are few things better than independence and integrity. But if we now had a Greens majority Government – and bring that on! – how any Government works is through negotiation and give-and-take. When making decisions which always effect someone, it is better to practical than precious.
And any Government has to take tough and potentially unpopular decisions, which may impact on votes at the next election. Anyone who knows anything about environmental politics knows it’s not about being popular, you are there because you know that we can’t go on living as we have been. Environmental politics is based on principle not populism.
But, we believe that as the majority of mainstream non-Green voters can see us in Government, making tough but right decisions, as they can see we are acting responsibly and as patriotic Tasmanians delivering environmentally-centred but diverse policies that benefit most of us, then our vote will hopefully grow.
You are right again to say that “sometimes, it is better to be on the sidelines, shouting loudly, instead of being in the game getting covered in the same mud as the other players”.
But sometimes it isn’t.
That time is now.
The Greens decided to act, to become part of a Government so that we could start Greening it up. That is precisely what we are doing. It may be harder than Opposition, but we believe we are doing the right thing for the right reasons.
We’re happy to get muddy if we can get some Green goals as a result – and we are.
Keep your eyes on the prize.
Cheers, Tom
*Written in response to a response from Christopher Purcell. The original article, Dear Nick. Booth’s no-confidence threat. The responses to ‘Dear Nick’: HERE
What Christopher said to Tom:
Dear Tom,
Contrary to your assertion that I have a problem with power sharing governments, I actually support them wholeheartedly. In fact if you look at many of my other postings you will see that I constantly espouse the need for more independents & parties to be involved in politics. My belief has always been, ‘the more the better’, when it comes to choosing politicians. Therefore, I certainly support The Greens power sharing with the Labor Party because it dilutes the absolute power of the single party; which is especially needed in this State.
Also, I’m not disputing the wins that The Greens have had in parliament over the last year; they are evident.
What I have been opposed to is the initial quietness & seemingly lack of a ‘loud’ oppositional stance from The Greens over the Aprin loan issue. Thankfully this has changed in the past few days with both the State & Federal Greens speaking out firmly & putting incisive questions about the murky deal to the Labor Party.
However, it is still my belief that the possible loan of taxpayers’ money to Aprin is such an important issue that The Greens should be prepared to sacrifice power sharing with Labor, if Labor approves the loan; the final straw. I realise that this may seem a drastic & precious stance to take but if a ‘line in the sand’ is not drawn, where then will it be drawn?
How much more waste of taxpayers’ money, shonky deals to mates & contempt for parliament & the people are we to see before ‘something’ happens?
Labor (and any other government) has to be shown that they cannot treat the people & parliament with so much disrespect & get away with it. The Greens, in my opinion, not only have the chance to do that in this instance but in fact have an obligation to do so as they have always been the ethical backbone of Tasmania’s & Australia’s politics.
The Greens would lose the ability to have any input into the current government but it would send a definite signal to the Labor & Liberal Parties that the reprehensible behaviour they are displaying will not be tolerated, by The Greens, if those two parties want their support. It would also show to the majority of mainstream non-Green voters that the Greens do take seriously the responsibility of governing. However, I do realise that this is unlikely to happen, & that I must accept this, if I wish to continue supporting The Greens.
I also understand that The Greens have worked, & intend to work hard, to put Tasmania’s finances ‘on a strong and sustainable financial footing for the future’. I’m sure that part of that work will involve putting forward legislation that reduces the obscene salaries & ‘perks’ currently paid to members of parliament as well as legislation outlawing the slush funds that Labor currently use to sustain themselves & their preferred businesses & hobbies.
As you say, environmental politics is based on principle but populism is not necessarily a negative thing. In fact, true populism recognises the needs of the people & works for them.
I will keep my eyes on the prize but will also remember that the end does not always justify the means.
Regards,
Christopher
