Linda Burney, NSW’s first indigenous female parliamentarian, has launched a salvo at the Greens over preferences in her seat of Bankstown (from a press release yesterday):
I am very concerned that the Greens Party refused to express a preference between a Right Wing Liberal Party and myself.
What they are saying by doing so is that a progressive indigenous female candidate is no different from a Right Wing Liberal candidate. This resulted in my receiving well under half of the preferences when the Greens Party candidate was excluded (2,058 out of 4,721), in the counting of the 2003 Election.
My experience in the Parliament has shown me that nothing could be further from the truth. It is an experience that the Greens Party in Parliament should also share. There is a very big difference.
It is my belief that the Greens Party in the inner west have been careful not to take any action that might stop them from getting preferences from Right Wing Liberals.
They have been silenced by a desire to get preferences from the NSW Liberals in inner city seats, so recently taken over by David Clarke and the extreme right.
The Greens and their preference deals have been the subject of discussion in relation to the Victorian election as well the implications in a federal election.
The NSW Greens have polled well in inner-city Sydney so running a split ticket does make political sense. But it is a betrayal of the Greens progressive credentials by not explicitly sending their preferences to Burney? A hard call as Bankstown is a safe seat for Labor (a swing of about 26% is needed to unseat Burney). If it was a marginal seat for Labor it would be a very interesting situation.
Update: The NSW Greens have announced that they will be recommending state election preferences to Labor ahead of the Coalition in 24 marginal seats including Canterbury (not that I would consider Canterbury as being marginal).
Very stupid by the Greens. How long before the NSW ALP rolls out the John Howard Green triangles?
Takes a bit of the shine off the Greens’ “progressive” image if they’ll suck-up to the Libs.
And I thought they were against the sorts of crony-capitalist deals that have buggered the environment.
The seat is actually Canterbury, Shaun.
Given that Burney has such a big majority, she’s just playing politics – which is fine (she is in politics, after all.)
It’s not just the Greens and their preference deals which should be (or are) in the spotlight – after all, the Victorian ALP could be said to have handed Howard his senate majority with their preferencing in the last federal election.
Kelvin Thomson is stupid Chris not the NSW Greens – when the ALP understand that they cannot ever expect preferences from the Greens after electing Field to the Senate in Victoria. Its a slime and its every dog for themself.
“Very stupid by the Greens. How long before the NSW ALP rolls out the John Howard Green triangles?”
Such nonsense. The Greens are attacked by lib, lab ,dem and fundy. That bash is now part of any election tradition. And as predictable as it is tedious.
The Greens Party in NSW has once again shown itself to consist of nothing but political opportunists. Most of them have no real belief in ‘green’ politics any more, just hurting the chances of progressive Labor candidates, which only shifts the ALP futher to the right.
The ALP needs good progressive candidates and members in these inner city seats so that left wing views and issues are given a chance in caucus. The Greens, despite their stated aims, are doing progressive politics more harm than good.
It stupid in the sense of why give Sussex Street an opening? I would have thought the Greens would have learn’t from Victoria in that regard.
Adam, don’t forget ww1 and ww2. Indications are that the Greens started both. Also bad potty training for toddlers.
Yep, their power extends to turning mild mannered Labor candidates into right wing bigots. Gosh, those greenies should be stopped. And pushing drugs and the drought…
Just out of interest, what was on HER preference card?
The ALP regularly preferences (ACTUALLY preferences, not runs a split ticket) right-wing parties like Fundies First, but they think they’re entitled to Greens preferences as of right.
Come off it.
Perhaps Linda Burney should have kept herself informed of her party’s negotiations with the Greens on preferences. That would have saved her from making a fool of herself.
Greens press release from yesterday.
The Greens today announced that they would be recommending state election preferences to Labor ahead of the Coalition in 24 marginal seats.
Greens MP and Lead Upper House candidate Lee Rhiannon said: “The Labor government has been very disappointing, but a Debnam Coalition government would be a living nightmare.
“A large number of Greens local groups have agreed to recommend preferences to Labor ahead of the Coalition. The Greens acknowledge that Labor is better on issues like workers’ rights, protecting national parks and a little better on climate change.
“In some other seats, the Greens will be taking advantage of the optional preferential voting system to recommend voters not direct preferences to either major party.
“Labor will be preferencing the Greens in the NSW Upper House on their how to vote cards.
“This gives NSW a good chance of avoiding a Coalition government while maintaining a strong Upper House that will hold the government to account.
“We have also agreed with Labor to establish a preferencing framework for the Federal election in NSW to both defeat the Howard government and rescue the Senate from Coalition control.
“We will work towards Greens recommending preferences to Labor in key federal marginal seats and Labor directing preferences to the Greens in the Senate.
“Many Greens members are very angry with the Carr/Iemma government for its failure to genuinely address climate change, its appalling changes to the planning legislation and its failure to adequately fund public education.
“Although a number of Greens groups have decided to preference Labor it is not surprising that others will not preference either of the major parties considering their common position on many damaging policies. The major parties have regularly voted together on legislation that weakens legal rights, makes it easier for developers and promotes public private partnerships.
“However, our preference recommendations acknowledge that a Debnam government would see 20 thousand public sector jobs slashed, marine parks wrecked and the state opened up to WorkChoices,” Ms Rhiannon said.
See list of seats below where it has been decided that the Greens will be recommending preferences to Labor ahead of the Coalition.
Greens Preference Recommendations10 March 2007
The Greens have never preferenced the Coalition ahead of Labor in NSW.
In each of the following seat the Greens will be recommending preferences to the Labor candidate ahead of Coalition.
Balmain, Baulkham Hills, Camden, Canterbury, Charlestown, Coogee, Drummoyne, Epping, Heathcote, Hornsby, Kiama, Kogarah, Lane Cove, Londonderry, Macquarie Fields, Maitland, Marrickville, Menai, Miranda, Mulgoa, Oatley, Parramatta, Penrith, Riverstone, Rockdale, Ryde, South Coast, Strathfield, Toongabbie, Wollondilly
Thanks Geoff, I got carried away in my alliteration. It is almost as if the silly bunt, Mr Smokes too much was blogging for LP.
Ed, thanks for the info. When I wrote the piece this morning I couldn’t find any references to the NSW Greens preferences. I’ve modified the OP to include a link to the Greens press release.
That depends Ed. The deadline for registering How-To-Votes was closing and I know that press release came out a few days ago. Deadlines can force negotiations to turn into agreements pretty quickly.
Also is it just me or does anyone else find it funny that the Greens are recommending that people preference Frank Sartor in Rockdale? Especially when they talk about how Labor has made it easier for developers in their media statement.
As noted in the update the Greens press release references 24 marginal seats including Canterbury. With a swing of 27.4% needed to unseat Burney I’d say The Greens definition of marginal is a little elastic.
This is the sort of dishonesty that I’ve come to expect from Labor. I’m still seething from Peter Garrett’s appearance in Victoria spreading lies about non-existint preference deals.
She did get “well under half” of Greens preferences in 2003, but the other, Liberal, candidate got well under one eighth. That would make a “progressive indigenous female candidate” four times greater than a Liberal candidate, not “no different“.
Alex: In Victoria the Greens didnt preference Labor in marginal seats in exchange for Liberal preferences in Melbourne and other inner-city seats. When asked why the preferenced Labor in safe seats, but not in the marginals (like Monbulk for example) they claimed that the branches in those seats independently chose who to preference. Slight coincidence that this only happened in the marginals, whereas the safe Labor seats all had Greens preference…
The reality is, the Greens are held to a higher standard in terms of preferences by their own pontificating and regular cries of outrage at the machinations of the major parties. They cant turn around and play politics themselves without expecting some sort of outcry.
Well, the Libs are screeching about Green prefs going to labour in 80% plus of their marginals (what did they expect?), so its all guff.
Next.
Larry, it had occurred to me to wonder how many of the preferences had exhausted, since NSW as well as Qld has optional preferential. That makes the preference dynamic fundamentally different from that in Victorian and Federal elections.
The Greens preferencing Labor in Strathfield is a joke. Labor has ruined Strathfield and State Government is forcing massive overdevelopment and a filthy intermodal terminal at Enfield. Virginia Judge’s Labor mates (John Abi-Saab and Anne Bechara) are facing jail for corruption and they ran and financed her last campaign. What do the Greens stand for??????????
Strange that, except for the earlier discussion on coal, there’s hardly any comment on the NSW elections aside from the third-rate issue of preferences.
A fair bit of this discussion is probably mischief making, some probably by Labor supporters and some by Liberals, in the hope of scaring a few votes away from the Greens.
Until we get proportional representation in the lower house in Australian elections, as in Germany and some other European countries, we’re stuck with the preferential system, which is a long way better than first past the post.
Direction of preferences is an entirely mechanical issue, usually involving holding the nose and selecting a second, third, etc choice. It involves just that, and no compromise of policies.
As an active Green, I favour a second preference to Labor because Labor is a lesser evil than the Liberals. That doesn’t mean it’s not an evil, just a lesser evil.
So much for preferences. Ho hum. For anyone seriously interested in politics, the Greens’ policies are here.
Some of the comments here I reckon are telling of a misunderstanding of what the Greens actually are.
>
Many people in the ALP believe, when it’s convenient, in the honour of the left-right divide. There’s a clear line and the good guys are on this side. They expect, as their right, therefore that ‘progressive’ parties such as the Greens should direct preferences to them during election time. We’re all on the same side. Curiously they forget about this when directing preferences away from the Greens to Family First, the DLP etc. They forget this when vigorously campaigning against them in marginal seats.
>
Hypocracy aside, the Greens are a different political party with roots in a different aspect of politics that is distinguishable from the class/economic differences that characterise the Labor/Liberal split. At the moment the Greens are a young party and the disparate collection of individuals who make it up I don’t believe have yet expressed their full purpose in policy terms. As they grow they will do so and the policy set they serve up will be clearly distinguishable from the ALP and the Libs.
>
If Labor wants to bitch about it fine. But they should realise that they are not entitled to preferences and preferential treatment from a party with whom they compete sometimes visciously. They should also face the fact that despite the ‘nice lefties’ from the inner-city (oh brother) ALP governments still routinely let voters down when it comes to ecological issues and even when it just boils down to respecting the wishes of the constituency. If the ALP spent more time thinking about the right thing and less of the mechanics of vote-collecting, numbers getting and how to roll the opposition, they wouldn’t be experiencing this bleed to the Greens.
Well said Adrien, though I disagree about policy. Greens actually have policy that is clearly and carefully stated.
A stark contrast to Liberal and Labor. The Pepsi and Coke of Australian politics… more bubbles and real thing.
Well, that’s offensive. You don’t like her because she doesn’t behave the way you think Aborigines should? Or is it that she has the hide to be good looking too?
She’s only been standing up for indigenous rights, the arts and environment for, ooh, let’s see, 30 years. She’s let nobody down.
I’m glad she is, after all, getting Greens preferences.
Not a fan of the Greens, but this is elementary political logic, and a perfectly reasonable position for any political party to take.
It is a problem because those who legitimately support matters associated with Aboriginal concerns are constantly finding they,aborigines,are letting themselves down,and still insist on some sort of forced acceptance that they are different.
[Comment deleted, URL in commenter ID that could not possibly belong to commentor deleted - Moderator]
This sort of stance is only to be expected in the political climate of today. If Labor wants universal Green preferences, they’ll have to stop screwing them over and handing seats that would have gone Green to Family First or the DLP. It is the height of hypocrisy to screw the Greens over in the interests of political pragmatism and then expect them to continue to give all their preferences regardless.
I want to correct something that Mick said (10 March 2007 at 2:59 pm).
Strange definition of “marginal” that includes no seat with less than a 4.8% margin. To suggest that Monbulk, with an 8.3% margin, was anything other than safe beggars belief.
The simple fact about Liberals directing preferences to the Greens in inner city seats (that the Liberals will never win) is that it makes Labor work harder to retain them, which takes away from Labor’s campaign to win other marginals. The Liberals are much closer to Labor than the Greens (as the upper house preferencing shows). Nevertheless, it’s still in their interests to direct preferences our way over Labor to distract Labor. In the end, Bronwyn Pike got up with Family First directly preferencing her, and leaks from the Liberal preference cards. Given that, I’m not sure how we’re suddenly all the bad guys for trying to win seats on preferences from people we don’t agree with. It’s good enough for Bronwyn (and good luck to her).
Hi you wonky folks, my nsw election coverage is here:
election nsw 2007
As an ex Green, elected local council 95-99, some said (yes on the Liberal side) I had the numbers for next mayor of Waverley, member of that party 93-2000, in a post Green Party vocational existence on ecology and community media:
No one mentioned these points:
1. The Greens are constitutionally bound to promote amongst their reform platform of 4 principles the one about “grassroots democracy”. Even allowing for pursuasive MP ‘leaders’ etc this is critical in a very practical sense re How To Votes. It’s NOT HQ, Parliamentary wing, or even State Delegates Council that decides (a) what the script will be on the HTV (b) who pays for them. This is all down to the local group if only for budget reasons. Thus cynics miscalculate to say “funny how” this area trade off with that area. That’s Big Party thinking inapplicable to Green constitutional framework. I’m sure you all know too the level of sympathy to a rival candidate is multifactorial – are they a bastard/bitch locally, monstered by their leadership policy, strong willed like Barnaby or wimp like … oh you know most backbenchers. What local and broader issues are cooking etc. It’s real game of tattslotto collating up all the local Green group outcomes and Lee Rhiannon MLC Greens is simply reporting an aggregation of local parallel decisions with her spin. It might be chaos but it’s also democratic.
2. The Greens are meant to be ideally based on a fundamental political value being sustainability of the environment (hence the colour, not pink, red, purple or whatever). The corresponding profound political values of the ALP are fair recognition for labour done via solidarity projects, and for Liberal party the core value of individual freedom to develop ones full potential unfettered by govt or collectives. These are all great truths and need to be mediated with eachother, and of course their champions beg borrow and steal from the other: Not least dangerous sea rise threat from climate change on 7.30 these last two nights, I reported months ago:
Global Warming
Lastly, with all due respect for Linda Burney’s deceased husband Rick Farley who I know more about, I think its bordering on reverse racism to think a black female can’t be right wing, or a lousy candidate. That’s just emotional duress. Fortunately she is neither and deserves the preferences in my humble view but she can’t deny being in the ALP doesn’t involve huge compromises in terms of social and environmental justice. I would much prefer hearing what she has achieved this last 4 years than superficial symbolism.
(Hope the links work)