29 October 2008

Two green ministers, sitting on the wall?

| johnboy
Join the conversation
68

As predicted by your’s truly the Canberra Times is reporting that the Liberals have found it in their hearts to offer two ministries to the Greens in exchange for the keys to the kingdom.

The Greens seem to be holding out for ministerial levels of resources (read that as well paid jobs for supporters and party members who are in turn required to tithe their income back to the Party) without the need to do the unpopular things that ministers from time to time must do (read that as closing schools):

    “Earlier in the day, Ms Hunter said the issue of ministries would not be the primary issue in negotiations.

    There seems to be this big focus on ministries, where I think the discussion we would be having is more about the role of the Greens in the Assembly and down to the tin-tack issues of resourcing”

Join the conversation

68
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Gungahlin Al2:34 pm 31 Oct 08

Perhaps they’ve been a teensy bit busy? Meredith was supposed to be on Ross Solly’s political panel this morning too, but begged off after having been at it until 12.30am.
I reported a 404 error when trying to subscribe to the ACT media releases and it hasn’t been fixed yet. Leaves you only with the option of getting the whole country’s releases.

While on the topic of Greens, why doesn’t their website seem to carry Caroline Le Couteur as a banner member?

Damn these teeny tubes. Sorry!

Sheesh – Tough crowd.

Okay, they could maintain a majority in Cabinet with 3 Greens. Keep Caroline as either speaker or to go on all the committees.

Anyhow sorting through the speaker being elected before the CM is a simple logic problem; which I will leave as an exercise for the class to solve.

I don’t see why having a Green CM is more of a problem than having them change alliegance whenever they like.

Sheesh – Tough crowd.

Okay, they could maintain a majority in Cabinet with 3 Greens. Keep Caroline as either speaker or to go tn all the committees.

Anyhow sorting through the speaker being elected before the CM is a simple logic problem; which I will leave as an exercise for the class to solve.

I don’t see why having a Green CM is more of a problem than having them change alliegance whenever they like.

(Well, far from the only problem…)

The only problem with poptop’s plan is that the Speaker is elected before the Chief Minister.

So you mean, go with the Zugzwang plan? 😛

Gungahlin Al1:01 pm 31 Oct 08

Deadline for tonight’s media is rapidly approaching. Given Meredith Hunter promised an announcement by the end of the week, does this mean we should be hearing something within the next 2 hours?

Re: poptop’s idea – that would be interesting to try out!

As the poll was declared on the 29th, not much longer to wait.

I still reckon the Greens should put up Meredith for Chief Minister and see which of the major parties crumble first. They can have 4 of the 5 ministerial positions, the other one and Speaker can go to their partner party.

That would be an interesting test of cabinet solidarity!

The Greens are never going to join the Libs, but you can’t blame the Libs for having a bit of fun.

They have nothing to lose, and every time they up the ante it puts more pressure on Labor. I reckon the Liberals should offer the Greens two ministries AND the choice of selecting the Chief Minister. It might give the Greens an idea…

.

Numerically speaking, I think that with Labor holding (Please note my spelling Thumper!) 7 seats to the Lib’s 6, the Green’s should go with the majority vote. I’m tired of this taking 2 weeks.

All the Lib’s have going for them is that Pratt has gone and Steve Doszpot is in. I’ve known Steve since I was a a kid and ever though we stand on opposite sides politically, he is one of the best and most ethical blokes you will ever meet. If only Smythe went I’d be happy.

It was probably “not at all” – nothing would scare a green more than having to do something and be accountable for the consequences. Which is why they will not enter into a coalition.

He probably said “we govern not at all” 🙂

(And I know I’m about to be corrected by Johnboy, given his earlier sourjourn to the coast…)

lol. yep PM, when the minders start “strategising” the message, you oughta know you are about to be led down the garden path, around the back fence, up the middle of the clothes line area … and there ain’t no guarantee of a bbq at the end. 😉

thetruth, i suspect the greens see themselves as offering a real alternative, unlike (say) the nationals. so yes, they would be nutso to go into coalition with anyone. bob brown has previously been heard to say “we govern alone or not at all”, although i can’t remember where i was when i heard him say it …

The greens would be nuts to go into coalition with any (although I would like them to choose labor so that they can destroy each other)

Oh no! Strategy in politics! We’re doomed!

i hesitate to counter the argument as i am only a newbie here, but astro’s idealism deserves a salute. i wish i could go along with you, i really do, but i can’t.

the problem, to my mind, is that i’ve not seen any evidence to suggest zed is all that moderate. the argument that he has put since the election, that the liberals’ result wasn’t a similar punish to that of labor, doesn’t wash with me. a swing away from your party, when the environment was hostile to your opposition, is not a win but a message you need to work on yourselves. yet zed would have us think otherwise, judging by his public comments.

shades of howard’s way, astro? that’s what bothers me, anyway. i scent strategy at work, and it can’t be a strategy that is meant to serve the people of the territory if it involves misleading them.

btw, someone asked if the tasmanian liberals are just as whacky as the act liberals. yes. they can hide them more easily down in tassie. they have a whole area all to themselves, where they even have their own regional daily. this is the same area that also gives us christine milne, if you had ever wondered why she gets so charged up.

Astro makes a good case +1

The last time the Greens held the crossbench, with the highly-respected Kerrie Tucker, Labor did what it wanted anyway. For example: http://www.envcomm.act.gov.au/soe/2003actreport/responses03#2003.10

Gungahlin Al said :

A good case mounted astro.

Who knows? A productive working relationship with the the Greens could also lead to a moderation of some of the young Liberals’ more fundamental stances?

That’s exactly it… Aside from what we saw during the election campaign a lot of what has been mounted against Zed Seselja is purely speculation based on his religion and his party affiliation… He may suprise a lot of people and prove to be capable of being more moderate than people give him credit for, especially with a tidy Green influence there to keep things in check.

Gungahlin Al7:01 am 30 Oct 08

A good case mounted astro.

Who knows? A productive working relationship with the the Greens could also lead to a moderation of some of the young Liberals’ more fundamental stances?

astrosapien said :

The other main good thing that I think would come from Greens merging with the Liberals is that hopefully it will prevent people from shoe-horning the Greens as proxy-Labor votes. If the Greens demonstrate their ability to be able to work with both sides of government maybe the party faithful on both sides will pay more attention to the policies of individual candidates rather than just assuming that a vote for person “a” will necessarily go to party “z”. That sort of narrow-minded view towards voting and preferences seriously undermines the foundations on which the individuals base their entire campaigns and I think that is very unfair.

I think this is the Greens problem (and why I think they are mad to try Government in coalition)… If they join labor then it confirms everyones prejudice that the greens are in fact the dispossesed left wing of the ALP. If they join Liberal then they run the risk of losing their voters that actually believed that the greens are the dispossesed left wing of the Labor Party. If they lend their support for forming Government, they could justify supporting the ALP on the basis that the ALP are the largest party in the assembly,but reserve the right to oppose if the ALP does something they don’t like.

If they are in coalition, they sink or swim with the government. I think the Greens just need to accept that despite the fact that they had a strong showing, they are still only 4 seats and therefore on the cross-benches.

bd84: Yes, there is a limit. Currently, “the number of Ministers is not to exceed 5” (Australian Capital Territory (Self Government) Act 1988 (cwth), s41.

Personally speaking, I hope that the Greens go with Liberal… Between Coe, Seselja, Rattenbury and the other Greens, there is a lot of young fresh blood in the assembly which may see new ideas and fresh perspectives, something that I feel the Labor party is missing… They can talk all they want about greater accountability and better consultation, yet they’ve given no indication that they’re capable of it.

With Zed being so relatively new to politics it might also be an indication that they are more prepared to meet half way with the Greens in creating new legislation. They have already shown a capacity to negotiate more than people give them credit for with offering the two Ministry positions, and this could well be an example of the compromise and negotiation that we could come to expect from a Greens/Libs coalition. Sure, the offer of the two Ministry positions might just be a desperate grab to get the top job, but it doesn’t change the fact that the offer has been made. By any stretch, it’s certainly more than Stanhope has offered considering he never considered this to be negotiations in the first place.

All this talk about the Greens selling out if they ally themselves with the Liberals is purely paranoid speculation. If you are going to hold that true as a potential possibility, then it also stands to reason that it could go the other way and the Liberals may be more influenced by the Greens’ policy approach. There is nothing to say that it has to be a one way only Liberal road. Sure, the Liberals traditionally tend to have very conservative right-wing religious approaches and/or tendencies, but times they are a changing and in this new day and age I think it would be unfair on all involved to assume particular outcomes of people who have been in their positions for such little time…

Stanhope made the same assumption about the Greens that many others on here have made about the Greens being a “Labor lite” voting option, and I think that is a serious discredit to what the Greens are attempting to achieve as a party.

The other main good thing that I think would come from Greens merging with the Liberals is that hopefully it will prevent people from shoe-horning the Greens as proxy-Labor votes. If the Greens demonstrate their ability to be able to work with both sides of government maybe the party faithful on both sides will pay more attention to the policies of individual candidates rather than just assuming that a vote for person “a” will necessarily go to party “z”. That sort of narrow-minded view towards voting and preferences seriously undermines the foundations on which the individuals base their entire campaigns and I think that is very unfair.

So I would urge everyone to keep an open mind on the situation. Just because something has been one way in the past is not a mandate for it to be that way in the future, and for all we know the path that hasn’t been tread before could bear some unforeseen fruit…

johnboy said :

Four post nutbag. Give it a rest.

FYI Chris Bourke for Labor has indigenous heritage IIRC.

On the other hand I didn’t run, maybe like me they had better things to do with their lives?

Thats encouraging re Chris Bourke.

Where’s the misplaced apostrophe nazi today? : ]

caf said :

With two ministries out of five, they’d be a significant voice in Cabinet – able to make Government policy with the support of just one Liberal minister. So who would the Liberal members of Cabinet be? Sesselja, Dunne and Smyth?

There’s no requirement for there to be only 5 ministeries, they can make all members a minister if they see fit. There is the possibility that as part of cabinet they would not take part in all decision making, similar to having independent ministers in the past (i.e. Michael Moore as Health Minister). As for the people saying the Greens would be “selling out for a ministry” what a load of BS as is Stanhopeless saying that the Liberals are trying to “buy the Greens”, I’m guessing he’s a bit worried again as they are obviously not able to offer the same sort of deal nor have the same policy credentials for their own policical gain.

Whatever the outcome the I would expect whoever the Greens support that the agreement will contain a clause whereby they can vote on their own party policy lines when they see fit and won’t be obliged to vote with the Government.

Four post nutbag. Give it a rest.

FYI Chris Bourke for Labor has indigenous heritage IIRC.

On the other hand I didn’t run, maybe like me they had better things to do with their lives?

sorry not just senate, but all canidates

Just to add more fuel to my efforts for gender equality in the ACT greens. This was the Green senate ticket in the most recent federal election:

“The ACT Greens Candidates for the 2007 Federal Election are

Kerrie Tucker – Lead Senate candidate Elena Kirschbaum – 2nd Senate candidate Amanda Bresnan – for the seat of Canberra Meredith Hunter – for the seat of Fraser

They are all women with a high profile across Canberra and a demonstrated commitment to social justice and community development.”

Maybe us green men should form “Shane’s List Australia: When men support men, men win”

On a serious note (not that gender equality is not) – why aren’t there more indigenous members of the assembly? Were any of the canidates in the last election indigeous? It kind of looks like we will welcome anyone on their behalf, but just not let them govern.

In fact was there anyone who was born overseas? Anyone with a disability?

Over all our diversity mix is pretty much a mono-culture.

Shane / steve – think I was half thinking of ice skating gold ……

Well still, it would have been an important breakthrough for the ACT Greens to have had their first male leader…..

I just don’t feel men are welcome in the greens

Shane did get the most winnable seat…

I notice that Labor federally have a affirmitive action policy that seeks to have 35% of winnable seats being contested by women. Do the Green’s also need an affirmitive action target to be better representative of the community? Only had 28% of their canidates were male, whereas both the labour party and Liberal party had 41% female – not high enough either but certainly more representative of the broader community.

In addition, Steve Rattenbury was by far the most successful Green on polling day, but he hit the green glass ceiling when it came to leadership positions. We green males need good role models that can show that you can be green and still aspire to leadership.

robbi64 said :

Oh, ns, Tony and Bob, that’s a dirty image. i can’t get it out of my head now. 🙂

The Greens never did do proper coalition with either party in Tasmania, PM. They sort of did de facto arrangements, but there was never a double bed.

The Politics in Tassie is a bit unique. Labor is probably more conservative than the Liberals on a lot of issues. Labor is controlled by the logging interests of the CFMEU, so on environmental issues Labor is not the obvious choice for Greens support as is the case in other states. Remember how Latham lost out in the 2004 election for being too anti-logging/pro-environmental losing 3 seats in Tasmania.

In Canberra, Labor is very conservative, and the Liberals are indescribable; so maybe a Greens/Liberal semi-coalition is not as strange as one might think on first inspection.

You and your bloody crazy fundos…

Seriously, on policy matters that aren’t conscience issues for them anyway eg abortion, can you please tell me what makes Zed & co so bloody far to the right? I don’t want to open a can of worms here, but the Greens have stated that they prefer Liberal environmental policy – the only obvious idealogical difference at the ACT level (putting aside the issue of cost of various wishlists) might be drug laws.

Oh, ns, Tony and Bob, that’s a dirty image. i can’t get it out of my head now. 🙂

The Greens never did do proper coalition with either party in Tasmania, PM. They sort of did de facto arrangements, but there was never a double bed.

LG said :

verbalkint said :

They simply can’t caucus with the libs, it would trash their vote everywhere, the National Greens surely wouldn’t allow this to happen.

I don’t see why not. The Greens formed a minority government with the Liberals in Tasmania a few years back.

I don’t know what those Liberals in Tasmania were like, but the main reason I think people are skeptical is because the Liberals running the show in the ACT are just so bloody far to the right (crazy fundos). I could have seen the Greens making this work with Liberals that were more moderate, but I just don’t understand how they could make it work with Zed & co.

It’s like Bob Brown getting into bed with Tony Abbott.

(Although it would be fun to watch while it lasted – I’d give it 12-18 months 🙂

Jazz said :

I’m curious as to why people feel the greens would be ‘selling out’ to get a ministry in a libs (or even labor for that matter) coalition. Surely from that position in the cabinet they’d be better able to push the green agenda?

I agree – interesting issue. I don’t think they’d be “selling out”. It’s being pragmatic. In fact, rather than selling out, it would be displaying a level of maturity in that they’d have to take responsibility, not just throwing grenades from the sidelines.

Here’s an alternative view – what about all those election promises the Greens made that are opposite to those of Labor (eg schools, data centre, FOI, open governmenet, organic waste bins, Molonglo/Nth Weston, and more)? How are they balanced against those that match Labor?

Has anyone done that analysis, or should the Greens just go with Labor because they are Labor with a different colour, or don’t we expect the Greens to keep any of their election promises either?

I’m curious as to why people feel the greens would be ‘selling out’ to get a ministry in a libs (or even labor for that matter) coalition. Surely from that position in the cabinet they’d be better able to push the green agenda?

What about giving the Greens the Chair and a majority on all committees, and the speakers position. You would not have the wakky cabinet system where the Greens are not required to actually support the decisions they make, but they could still have a strong influence on what happened.

PS. Demanding levels of staffing in return for political support – what’s the number of the Australian Crime Commission again? I suppose this reflects a view that a statement on Tibetan independence by the legislative assembly is so important that apparently corrupt behavior by the Greens to make this happen is justified!

Thanks Jimbcool. I was being tongue in cheek (but thanks for the history lesson re the acronym “ACT”).

I don’t believe we need a town council, and I wasn’t wishing for a different model. I’ve simply been enjoying the fact that some posters are dead against the Greens supporting the Libs yet a couple of them have in the past downgraded the role of the LA to a council which, if true, would make the Greens supporting the Liberals a non-issue.

There is no reason why the Greens cannot support the Liberals, just as there is no reason the Greens cannot support Labor. The Greens and Liberals in cahoots might make those parties more publicly acceptable generally if they can make it work.

PM said :

As quite a number of posters on this site have stated that we only need a council and the Westminister tradition is inappropriate for the ACT

And other posters have pointed out the ACT is 10 times the size of typical Sydney councils in terms of area and population, not to mention economic output. Even as a country we would rank 171st in terms of population size.

PM: We need more than a town council because the ACT is more than a town – the “T” in ACT stands for “Territory” which means we have more than municipal functions to deal with: health, education, civil & criminal justice, disability, housing etc.We’ve got what we’ve got, and wishing for a different kind of legislative model doesn’t advance the current discussion.

You should watch Rats in the Ranks, which should disabuse you of any notion that councils work better.

As quite a number of posters on this site have stated that we only need a council and the Westminister tradition is inappropriate for the ACT, I’m looking forward to the possibility that the Greens and Liberals will put asided their ideological armour and work for the betterment of the ACT in a mature fashion.

Also, if the Greens want more resources without accepting the extra responsibility (ie a ministry or two), that might be just as much of a risk as “selling out” in that they might do very well.

Sorry, I should have made it more clear that I was talking in general terms. I tend to agree with you that in this case, Labor has a strong hand.

If the Greens make Zed the Chief Minister, it will be obvious to the whole electorate they have sold out for a ministry. And their vote will reflect that at the next election.

Not if they do a good job however…..4 years is a long time.

I’m no supporter of any party….but I do think that we clearly have sent the message to Labor that they didn’t cut the mustard – and if whoever runs the place for the next 4 years does a good job then we are more likely to vote them back in.

verbalkint said :

They simply can’t caucus with the libs, it would trash their vote everywhere, the National Greens surely wouldn’t allow this to happen.

I don’t see why not. The Greens formed a minority government with the Liberals in Tasmania a few years back.

Caf, Stanhope does have the aces.
If there is a Green/Lib coalition, the Green vote will slide because they’ll be foorced to compromise on their principles and will lose support as a result. The Libs will have to wear the electoral blame for some of the Green’s more outlandish policies.
Who would pick up the electoral support from this?

The Greens went into coalition with the Libs in Tasmania, which is the Greens’ national heartland. So it’s definitely a possibility, if a remote one.

jimbocool: Stanhope’s brinkmanship works a lot better when he’s got the aces – my assessment of his poker game these days is that he doesn’t know when to fold a losing hand.

verbalkint said :

They simply can’t caucus with the libs, it would trash their vote everywhere, the National Greens surely wouldn’t allow this to happen.

But maybe they think they can train the libs? Like my wife of over 10 years still thinks she can train me to put my dishes in the sink and pick up my own socks.

At the end of the day, if the greens get the speakers role, a few chairs on some important committees in exchange for guaranteeing supply and confidence in Labor then everyone is a winner.

Greens get som extra resources (from the speakers roll) and allowances (for chairing commmittees) and they get to stay outside the tent, which is where they will continue to win votes.

They simply can’t caucus with the libs, it would trash their vote everywhere, the National Greens surely wouldn’t allow this to happen.

Similarly, if they take a ministry, they need to make tough decisions which will also harm their vote at the next election.

As far as titles go, does anyone else see Meredith Hunter’s new one as a masterclass piece of code switching?

(She still has to do something with it, though)

Jeremy Hanson would be great for a Minister – a very senior and capable military commander – but very new to the Assembly. My guess is that your guesses are right.

caf – Vicki Dunne a minister??? Noooooooooooooooooo! That would really be the end of the Greens if they allowed that to happen.

you took my lines, aurelius. dam. am i ever going to get a word in? 😉

well said.

swaggie – I made an error, it’s actually Parliamentary Convenor Hunter – obviously to avoid any confusion with any other Greens convenors out there 🙂 Just be thankful that they don’t have ‘co-convenors’.

Aurelius – it’s a tricky position the Greens find themselves in, Stanhope is a dab hand at brinkmanship so you’d think the Greens will blink first. I also think the Libs have over-egged the pudding with the offer of two ministries.

With two ministries out of five, they’d be a significant voice in Cabinet – able to make Government policy with the support of just one Liberal minister. So who would the Liberal members of Cabinet be? Sesselja, Dunne and Smyth?

You’re calling a ministry in the ACT legislative assembly a prize? I thought it was a punishment

It’s good to see that Stanhope and Gallagher aren’t pandering to this stuff.
I heard a few nights ago from an MLA that Labor are not offering the Green MLAs ministries, and just saying “This is our agenda for this term, support us, or send us into Opposition”.
Especially since any coalition between the Greens and Zed’s christian fundy party will never last a summer.
The Lib vote went down at the recent election. They have less seats than Stanhope and friends. If the Greens make Zed the Chief Minister, it will be obvious to the whole electorate they have sold out for a ministry. And their vote will reflect that at the next election.

Two Ministries would mean that Shane Ratenbury gets one heck of a consellation prize for not being leader.

“Convenor” Hunter FFS – Don’t encourage this crap. If it smells like a leader, looks like a leader, behaves like a leader….. They’ve got 4 MLA’s and they’re already losing touch with reality. Is there some device fitted to the Assembly Building that makes otherwise normal people transcend day to day reality and common sense when they get near the place? As for the Libs they’ll probably tithe to the Greens as well for a chance of power, why sell their souls now when they can build for the next few years and when, with a creditable performance, they should wipe the floor with this lab/green coalition we face.

Doesn’t matter which party you are in, one way or another you’re expected to tithe…

As I commented the other day, one of the things the Greens are after is more resources (that is staff) so that they can better cover all the portfolio areas. In the past they had one MLA with 3 staff to cover everything. On current allowances they will have 4 MLAs and 12 staff. If I were a major party leader, I’d be resisting giving them any more unless they took a ministry.

Imagine, if you will, that Convenor Hunter becomes Minister for Environment – immediately she will be paid $78,854 more than her colleagues and will have upwards of 5 staff plus DLOs. Don’t bet the green-eyed monster won’t come out and start driving some serious wedges into the team.

damn it . operators

Jack Dorf said :

(read that as well paid jobs for supporters and party members who are in turn required to tithe their income back to the Party)

Evidence please?

I believe it is the MO for most Green operaors in the country. Maybe not all income, but enough to be able keep the socialists at bay.

Analogy for the politically blind, and I won’t refer to a pervious post.

If it were normal affairs, the Liberals could have waited a long time to make deals with anybody they like, but they have only until the week after Declaration of Results, so they are being forced by time constraints.

The Greens got the votes, they have the seats, their popularity appears to be rising, they are internally united, and they have agreement on leadership.
Greens are everything the Liberals are not.

For any deals between the Greens and the Liberals, the Greens are in a fundamentally stronger position.
The Greens are like the sexiest females in the entire territory, but there is another suitor that she can listen to.
All of this current deal-soliciting behaviour is a sign that the Liberals are desperate to make babies, or they have to wait until next mating season, when they may be even less able to impress the females.

If they can’t seal the deal with the Greens soon, expect dirty tricks.

(read that as well paid jobs for supporters and party members who are in turn required to tithe their income back to the Party)

Evidence please?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.