Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

What the member for Kingsford Smith, Peter Garrett, did was to deceive the voters of Victoria by an onslaught which included letterboxing a personally written letter to all the voters of Melbourne, and indeed Northcote, implying that the Greens had made a favourable deal with the Liberal Party, particularly in relation to preferences, against the interests of the Labor Party and that inter alia the Greens were letting down the environment. Indeed, he called it a Liberal-Green alliance.

The outcome of the election shows that Labor will have a big majority. In some 25 of the seats it has won which have gone to preferences, that majority will come in on Greens or other preferences. In other words, Labor has received a huge boost from Greens preferences in Victoria. The Greens in no seat preferenced the Liberals. Peter was very careful about not stating that directly, but his letter to the voters, which was so deceptive, said that the Greens were helping the Victorian Liberal Party. It talked about the Liberal-Green alliance and about the fact that there was a Greens preference deal which was assisting the Liberals. In fact, the Greens preference arrangements were mightily assisting Labor, and he knew it.

The point was to stop the Greens from winning in the seat of Melbourne, which was marginal, and I think he was successful. Effectively, he has stopped a passionate Green voice for the environment in the lower house of Victoria as against a Labor voice, which is another proponent of Labor policy for logging the water catchments of Victoria, for failing to tackle climate change, for boosting the burning of coal and for putting a tollway through Royal Park—a whole range of policies which the environmental groups made clear in their assessment of policies when going to the election when they gave the Greens nine out of nine but the ALP only 4½ out of nine. The point is that Peter went in to bat against the environment and the environmental advocates.

The question is: what is going to happen now? How is this powerful personality going to affect politics? I refer to Laurie Oakes’s column in the current Bulletin magazine. Mr Oakes said:

Victoria also provided a lesson for Beazley, exposing the stupidity of his refusal to revamp his shadow cabinet. On election day, the Greens underperformed—

due, I might add, to Mr Garrett’s appearance, amongst other things—

but in the final week of the campaign they—

that is, the Greens—

had Labor running scared. Polling suggested they would defeat Health Minister Bronwyn Pike and stood a chance of winning three other inner-city seats. Labor’s response was to rush Peter Garrett into the campaign. Personalised letters from Garrett were also mailed to voters in the threatened electorates. The Green challenge was seen off. What further proof does Beazley need that Garrett should be on the frontbench in a role that properly uses his profile and talent?

I have no quibble with Laurie Oakes’s assessment of the profile, nor of Peter’s talent, but the question is: talent for what? Talent for ending uranium mining in this country? No, he has changed his policy on that. Talent for preventing nuclear ships coming into the ports of Sydney, Melbourne, Hobart, Perth, Brisbane and other cities of Australia? No, he has changed his mind on that. Talent for ending the spy agency facility at Pine Gap, which, amongst other things, mightily upset our neighbours? No, he sang about that once but he has now changed his mind on it. Talent for protecting Australia’s old growth forests and beleaguered wildlife? No. As I explained, he has gone quiet on that. Talent for preventing tollways and instead getting behind Greens policies on public transport—fast, efficient, clean—and helping to turn around climate change? No, he supports tollways, including now the east-west link being in a private-public partnership, perhaps in the wake of this election, through Victoria’s Royal Park. Peter has said that—