Family First vs The Greens: Greens 1, Family First 0
This report, in The Hun on-line, was a little overshadowed yesterday by the announcement of Blue Red Ted Baillieu’s promise of FREE public transport for children and students. The report won’t make a significant difference to Family First’s chances of taking the balance of power in Victoria’s Legislative Council because, as Senator Steve Fielding told the Federal Parliament apropos the Government’s changes to media ownership laws:
…Debates in parliament about who owns what in the media simply do not feature in the day-to-day lives of the Australians we represent. More and more families are not reading newspapers and cannot afford them. Television, especially free-to-air television, is the primary source of information and entertainment. [emphasis added]
So unless Family First’s publicity stunt, pushing their demand that Courts be given the power to sentence druggies to at least three months of residential rehab, made it to the free-to-air news broadcasts, it’s unlikely that the Australians they represent will have heard about it. Instead, the only people who know about Family First’s anti-Green policy on drugs are the people who read newspapers, either on-line or in the rainforest editions. And they’re the sort of smart-arses who are much more likely to vote Green than Family First.
I decided, when I read that Family First wanted Courts to have the power to sentence offenders to 3 months of mandatory rehabilitation, to check the existing situation. Via the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council web-site, I was able to get hold of a copy of Victoria’s Sentencing Act 1991. Sections 18Q and 18R ought to be of interest to Family First:
18Q. Combined custody and treatment order
(1) If a person is convicted by a court of an offence and the court—
(a) is satisfied that drunkenness or drug addiction contributed to the commission of the offence; and
(b) is considering sentencing him or her to a term of imprisonment of not more than 12 months; and
(c) has received a pre-sentence report—
the court, if satisfied that it is desirable to do so in the circumstances, may impose a sentence of imprisonment of not more than 12 months and order that not less than 6 months of that sentence be served in custody and the balance be served in the community on the conditions attached to the order…18R. Core conditions
(1) Core conditions of a combined custody and treatment order are that the offender—
(a) must not during the period of the order commit, whether in or outside Victoria, another offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment;
(ab) while serving the sentence in custody must undergo treatment for alcohol or drug addiction as directed by a prescribed person or a member of a prescribed class of persons…
In other words, Victoria’s courts already have powers in excess of those Family First is demanding. In fact, Family First’s proposal would actually curtail that power, rather than extending it.
Family First’s push on this issue is completely consistent with their position on Lifting Standards in Politics:
FAMILY FIRST wants to restore the public’s faith in politics and politicians and raise the standards in Parliament and public life by sticking to our values…
… and it’s easier to stick to your values if you ignore a few annoying and distracting facts. So let’s give a big cheer to Family First for sticking to their values-based game plan and scoring the first goal in the Family First vs Greens contest – but let’s have no quibbling just because the ball is sitting in the back of Family First’s own net.
Why let a bit of research get in the way of blind and hysterical dog whistling?
The question is why alp parliamentarians in once safe inner city seats such as union hack Fiona Richardosn in Northcote, ex hack Richard Wynne in Richmond and Mr Socialist Left nobody Carlo carli in Brunswick all are desperately trying to woo family First candidates into running. The ALP wil most likely again preference Family First above the Greens – what does that say?
That they have more electoral appeal than the Greens?
That the ALP would rather see the balance of power in the hands of populist Conservatives with no coherent policies than a lefty party with policies that are sometimes more progressive than the ALP’s?
Given the choice, who would any government rather see holding the balance of power – a mob whose one Federal representative has shown himself to be easily manipulated or a party that’s actually organised enough to have a few policies of their own?
That they know Family First are for sale, while Greens preferences will flow consistently to Labor no matter what is printed on the how-to-vote?
rest assured Luke there wil be a few alp hacks looking for work on Nov 26 after they loose their patrons. and Liam your assumption is extremely ignorant of the Greens in Victoria, especially in the important south east metro areas. In th elast election in some SE seats preference flows from Greens favoured the libs…the greens are replete with doctors wives.
I agree with Gummo’s explanation about the manipulability of FF, unlike the Greens.
There is an explanation that is more ominous for Labor. State-wide in Victoria the Greens are polling at about 13%. This support is concentrated in inner suburban electorates cited by Ansteybranchopolous.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Greens could pick up one of the Legislative Assembly seats. It is thus in the interests of Labor candidates in these seats to attempt to marginalise as much as possible the Greens. Their jobs depend on it.
Ansteybranchopoulos is, as usual, indulging in bile and rumour over considered inquiry.
Woudl he like to offer some evidence that Pike, Wynne and Carli are courting Family First?
No, didn’t think so. Its so much easier to smear.
For evidence can I suggest you hang outside Richard Wynne’s office in Smith St Collingwood – see if you see a dorky waspish middle aged man enter(as I did last Thursday) – much like Fielding. Fielding did the deal to preference Family First, with Jacinta Collins and Eric Locke, under instructions by Conroy before the last federal election – but of course the proof will be in the pudding when final candidate declarations are called next week and preference deals are announced in mid November. Lets just see if the alp again flings principles to the wind in its quest for power???
ansteybranchopopous,
I think we’re better off without The Truth that’s told between you. me and the doorpost thanks. So, hanging around Smith St Collingwood, in your self-appointed watch on Wynne’s office you saw a dorky, waspish, middle aged man enter. Unless you were making time with a Canon fitted with a 600mm telephoto all you’ve got is innuendo. No more, please, you’re skirting defo territory.
Stop mocking family first for the media legislation.
As I commented at the time, this legislation was definitely in the interests of families. Two families: the Murdochs and the Packers. So of course Steven Fielding had to support it!
Who’s mocking family first for the media legislation?
I’m mocking them for staging a useless publicity stunt (by Fielding’s own account if it didn’t get on TV it was time wasted because the people they regard as their constituency won’t have seen it) to promote a policy informed more by “values” than by knowledge of the the actual situation.
Anyway, I’ll mock Family First for any damn thing I happen to find ridiculous about them. And so there!