Tag Archives: Bob Brown

Barnaby Eats Greens

14 Apr

The new leader of the Greens wants to increase focus on capturing a rural constituency:

Senator Milne has told a press conference that it’s time rural and regional Australia and the Greens really work together.

“We need environmental outcomes to sustain our economic outcomes, to actually support the kind of socieity and community we want,” she said.

[Well done, ABC sub-editors. Julia’s “Education Revolution” working more wonders, I see.]

“I intend to go out to rural and regional Australia to have this discussion, because rural and regional Australia has a critical role to play.”

She says that’s particularly in the context of food security and renewable energy.

“And I’m going out there as a country person to say to other country people that it’s time the Greens and country and rural and regional Australia really work together.”

Barnaby has some thoughts on that:

Leader of the Nationals Party in the Senate Barnaby Joyce, has described outgoing Greens leader Bob Brown as “an extremely capable politician”, who he greatly respects for his “political capacity”.

“He’s a very astute politician and I have a great respect for his political capacity even though on the vast majority of issues we were at polar opposites.

“Bob for me is like the logic of having water restrictions in Kununurra (Western Australia); it looked great on paper but it’s completely and utterly ridiculous in practice.”

Senator Joyce says he welcomes the new Greens leader Christine Milne’s pledge to work closely with rural Australia, but suggests she has a long way to go.

“I look forward to meeting Christine Milne and she can start by moving her office out to the country where mine is,

“Mine’s 550 kilometres away from the coast, Christine how far is yours?… I think it might be in Hobart.”

And more thoughts from Barnaby, this time in the Australian:

Senator Milne’s rural push provoked a sharp reaction from the Nationals, with Senate leader Barnaby Joyce labelling her an opportunist.

Senator Joyce said that while the Greens’ concern for the rapid development of the coal-seam gas industry was reflected in some rural communities, most other Greens policies were anti-bush.

“The Greens have a problem with coal-seam gas, as does the Coalition,” Senator Joyce said. “But the Greens also have problems with rodeos, irrigation, live cattle exports, and they want a 50 per cent top tax rate and death duties. They would have us living as hunter-gatherers scrambling for survival on the forest floor.

“I would welcome her (Senator Milne) in some of my communities. Any town hall, any time you want. My tactic would be to simply tell people what her policies are. People know in the back of their minds that the Greens’ policies are dangerous.”

Veteran Queensland Nationals senator Ron Boswell went further, warning that the disappearance of Senator Brown would make room for “the far Left” to push forward within the Greens. “Without Brown, the far Left and extremists will steamroll over the others and become the new reigning force within the Greens,” he said.

Interestingly, even some within the Labor party recognise the dangers of the Greens, and, who is their core constituency:

Privately, several senior Labor sources told The Weekend Australian they would closely watch for changes in the Greens under Senator Milne. “I worry about the tone of this obsessive attack on mining companies,” said one senior Labor MP, asking not to be named. “I know it goes down well in the coffee shops, but the resources sector is underpinning the Australian economy.”

The MP said Senator Brown held similar views, but was canny enough to know “when to stop and when to cut a deal”.

Victorian Labor MP Maria Vamvakinou predicted the Greens would struggle to maintain their discipline and would have to articulate the party’s policies in a more practical way. “With him gone they’ll attract a whole lot more scrutiny,” Ms Vamvakinou said. “I imagine people will now be more vigilant about what the party is about because he has gone.”

Interesting times indeed.

Barnaby is right.

Brown Out

13 Apr

Fellow Earthians … he is gone.

Well, going, in June:

BOB Brown has resigned as leader of the Australian Greens and will quit the Senate, with his former deputy Christine Milne to replace him at the helm of Australia’s third party.

Senator Brown, 67, will leave the Senate in June. The party will now seek a successor to fill his seat.

We will consider what might be the true reason/s why, later.

For the moment, a little bit of Bob Marley in commemoration:

Oh, oh, oh, oh
Its Mr Brown Mr Brown is a clown who rides to town in a coffin.

Asking for Mr Brown.
I wanna know who is Mr Brown?
Is Mr Brown controlled by remote?

And Bob Said, Let Us Make Man In Our Image

6 Apr

Behold, the future.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Illustration: Cathy Wilcox | Source: SMH

Final frontier of climate policy – remake humans

A radical proposal to modify physique and behaviour in response to climate change has been greeted with outrage, writes Catherine Armitage.

If it is so hard to change the climate to suit humans, why not alter humans to suit the changing climate, philosophers from Oxford and New York universities are asking.

They suggest humans could be modified to be smaller, dislike eating meat, have fewer children and be more willing to co-operate with social goals.

Behavioural changes might not be enough to prevent climate change even if they were widely adopted, and international agreements for measures such as emissions trading are proving elusive, say Matthew Liao of New York University and Anders Sandberg and Rebecca Roache of Oxford University.

So human engineering deserves serious consideration in the debate about how to solve climate change, they write in a coming paper for the academic journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.

The paper has sparked a storm in the blogosphere. The environmentalist Bill McKibben tweeted that the authors had proposed ”the worst climate-change solutions of all time”. They have also been denounced as Nazis and ecofascists.

The authors emphasise they are not advocating human engineering be adopted, only that it be considered. They also envisage it as a voluntary activity possibly supported by incentives such as tax breaks or sponsored healthcare, not something coerced or mandatory.

Dr Sandberg, of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, said the paper had inadvertently ”managed to press two hot buttons” – climate change and ”messing with human nature”. He predicted the paper would mutate into a story that scientists were working on re-engineering people to be green and it would be adopted as ”yet another piece of evidence of the Big Conspiracy”.

Nice timing for publication of this story – being Good Friday, and all.

Bob Brown Calls On “Fellow Earthians” To Embrace “Global Parliament”

26 Mar

No commentary required.

As you will see.

From the Greens official website (my emphasis added):

Bob Brown delivers the 3rd annual Green Oration

23 Mar | General

The full text of Bob’s speech is below:

Fellow Earthians,

Never before has the Universe unfolded such a flower as our collective human intelligence, so far as we know.

Nor has such a one-and-only brilliance in the Universe stood at the brink of extinction, so far as we know.

We people of the Earth exist because our potential was there in the Big Bang, 13.7 billion years ago, as the Universe exploded into being.

So far, it seems like we are the lone thinkers in this vast, expanding Universe.

However, recent astronomy tells us that there are trillions of other planets circling Sunlike stars in the immensity of the Universe, millions of them friendly to life. So why has no one from elsewhere in the Cosmos contacted us?

Surely some people-like animals have evolved elsewhere. Surely we are not, in this crowded reality of countless other similar planets, the only thinking beings to have turned up. Most unlikely! So why isn’t life out there contacting us? Why aren’t the intergalactic phones ringing?

Here is one sobering possibility for our isolation: maybe life has often evolved to intelligence on other planets with biospheres and every time that intelligence, when it became able to alter its environment, did so with catastrophic consequences. Maybe we have had many predecessors in the Cosmos but all have brought about their own downfall.

That’s why they are not communicating with Earth. They have extincted themselves. They have come and gone. And now it’s our turn.

Whatever has happened in other worlds, here we are on Earth altering this bountiful biosphere, which has nurtured us from newt to Newton.

Unlike the hapless dinosaurs, which went to utter destruction when a rocky asteroid plunged into Earth sixty-five million years ago, this accelerating catastrophe is of our own making.

So, just as we are causing that destruction, we could be fostering its reversal. Indeed, nothing will save us from ourselves but ourselves.

We need a strategy. We need action based on the reality that this is our own responsibility – everyone’s responsibility.

So democracy – ensuring that everyone is involved in deciding Earth’s future – is the key to success.

For comprehensive Earth action, an all-of-the-Earth representative democracy is required. That is, a global parliament.

In his Gettysburg address of 1859, Abraham Lincoln proclaimed: ‘We here highly resolve… that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.’

153 years later, let us here in Hobart, and around the world, highly resolve that through global democracy we shall save the Earth from perishing.

For those who oppose global democracy the challenge is clear: how else would you manage human affairs in this new century of global community, global communications and shared global destiny?

Recently, when I got back to bed at Liffey after ruminating under the stars for hours on this question, Paul enquired, ‘did you see a comet?’ ‘Yes’, I replied, ‘and it is called ‘Global Democracy’.

A molten rock from space destroyed most life on the planet those sixty-five million years ago. Let us have the comet of global democracy save life on Earth this time.

Nine years ago, after the invasion of Iraq which President George W. Bush ordered to promote democracy over tyranny, I proposed to the Australian Senate a means of expanding democracy without invasion. Let Australia take the lead in peacefully establishing a global parliament. I explained that this ultimate democracy would decide international issues. I had in mind nuclear proliferation, international financial transactions and the plight of our one billion fellow people living in abject poverty.

In 2003 our other Greens Senator, Kerry Nettle, seconded the motion but we failed to attract a single other vote in the seventy-six seat chamber. The four other parties – the Liberals, the Nationals, Labor and the Democrats – voted ‘no!’. As he crossed the floor to join the ‘noes’, another senator called to me: ‘Bob, don’t you know how many Chinese there are?’.

Well, yes I did. Surely that is the point. There are just 23 million Australians amongst seven billion equal Earthians. Unless and until we accord every other citizen of the planet, friend or foe, and regardless of race, gender, ideology or other characteristic, equal regard we, like them, can have no assured future.

2500 years ago the Athenians, and 180 years ago the British, gave the vote to all men of means. After Gettysburg, the United States made the vote available to all men, regardless of means. One man, one vote.

But what about women, Louisa Lawson asked in 1889: “Pray, why should one half of the world govern the other half?”

So, in New Zealand, in 1893, followed by South Australia in 1895, and the new Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, universal suffrage – the equal vote for women as well as men – was achieved.

In this second decade of the Twenty First Century, most people on Earth get to vote in their own countries. Corruption and rigging remain common place but the world believes in democracy. As Winston Churchill observed in 1947,

‘Many forms of government have been tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.’

Yet, in Australia and other peaceful places which have long enjoyed domestic democracy, establishing a global democracythe ultimate goal of any real democrat – is not on the public agenda.

Exxon, Coca-Cola, BHP Billiton and News Corporation have much more say in organising the global agenda than the planet’s five billion mature-age voters without a ballot box.

Plutocracy, rule by the wealthy, is democracy’s most insidious rival. It is served by plutolatry, the worship of wealth, which has become the world’s prevailing religion. But on a finite planet, the rule of the rich must inevitably rely on guns rather than the ballot box, though, I hasten to add, wealth does not deny a good heart. All of us here are amongst the world’s wealthiest people, but I think none of us worship wealth to the exclusion of democracy.

We instinctively know that democracy is the only vehicle for creating a fair, global society in which freedom will abound, but the extremes of gluttony and poverty will not. Mahatma Ghandi observed, the world has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed.

So what’s it to be: democracy or guns? I pluck for democracy.

The concept of world democracy goes back centuries, but since 2007, there has been a new movement towards an elected, representative assembly at the United Nations, in parallel with the unelected, appointed, General Assembly. This elected assembly would have none of the General Assembly’s powers but would be an important step along the way to a future, popularly elected and agreeably empowered global assembly.

Two Greens motions in the Australian Senate to support this campaign for a global people’s assembly have been voted down. However similar motions won support in the European Parliament, and in India 40 MPs, including a number of ministers, have backed the proposal. I will move for the world’s 100 Greens parties to back it too, at the third Global Greens conference in Senegal next week. It fits perfectly with the Global Greens Charter, adopted in Canberra in 2001.

We Earthians can develop rosier prospects. We have been to the Moon. We have landed eyes and ears on Mars. We are discovering planets hundreds of light years close which are ripe for life. We are on a journey to endless wonder in the Cosmos and to realising our own remarkable potential.

To give this vision security, we must get our own planet in order.

The political debate of the Twentieth century was polarised between capitalism and communism. It was about control of the economy in the narrow sense of material goods and money. A free market versus state control.

Bitter experience tells us that the best outcome is neither, but some of both. The role of democracy in the nation state has been to calibrate that balance.

In this Twenty First Century the political debate is moving to a new arena. It is about whether we expend Earth’s natural capital as our population grows to ten billion people in the decades ahead with average consumption also growing.

We have to manage the terrifying facts that Earth’s citizenry is already using one hundred and twenty percent of the planet’s productivity capacity – its renewable living resources; that the last decade was the hottest in the last 1300 years (if not the last 9000 years); that we are extincting our fellow species faster than ever before in human history; and that to accommodate ten billion people at American, European or Australasian rates of consumption we will need two more planets to exploit within a few decades.

It may be that the Earth’s biosphere cannot tolerate ten billion of us big consuming mammals later this century. Or it may be that, given adroit and agreeable global management, it can. It’s up to us.

Once more the answer lies between the poles: between the narrow interests of the mega-rich and a surrender to the nihilist idea that the planet would be better off without us.

It will be global democracy’s challenge to find the equator between those poles, and it is that equator which the Greens are best placed to reach.

One great difference between the old politics and Green politics, is the overarching question which predicates all our political decisions: ‘will people one hundred years from now thank us?’

In thinking one hundred years ahead, we set our community’s course for one hundred thousand years: that humanity will not perish at its own hand but will look back upon its Twenty First Century ancestry with gratitude.

And when the future smiles, we can smile too.

That query ‘will people a hundred years from now thank us?’ should be inscribed across the door of Earth’s parliament.

So let us resolve

that there should be established

for the prevalence and happiness of humankind

a representative assembly

a global parliament

for the people of the Earth

based on the principle of

one person one vote one value;

and to enable this outcome

that it should be a bicameral parliament

with its house of review

having equal representation

elected from every nation.

An Earth parliament for all. But what would be its commission? Here are four goals:





To begin with economy, because that word means managing our household. The parliament would employ prudent resource management to put an end to waste and to better share Earth’s plenitude. For example, it might cut the trillion dollars annual spending on armaments. A cut of just ten percent, would free up the money to guarantee every child on the planet clean water and enough food, as well as a school to attend to develop her or his best potential. World opinion would back such a move, though, I suppose Boeing, NATO, the People’s Liberation Army, and the Saudi Arabian royal family might not.

The second goal is equality. This begins with equality of opportunity – as in every child being assured that school, where lessons are in her or his own first language, and a health clinic to attend. Equality would ensure, through the fair regulation of free enterprise, each citizen’s wellbeing, including the right to work, to innovate, to enjoy creativity and to understand and experience and contribute to defending the beauty of Earth’s biosphere.

Which brings me to the third goal: ecology. Ecological wellbeing must understrap all outcomes, so as to actively protect the planet’s biodiversity and living ecosystems. ‘In wildness’, wrote Thoreau ‘is the preservation of the world.’ Wild nature is our cradle and the most vital source for our spiritual and physical wellbeing yet it is the world’s most rapidly disappearing resource. And so I pay tribute to Miranda Gibson, 60 metres high on her tall tree platform tonight as the rain and snow falls across central Tasmania. In Miranda’s spirit is the saving of the world.

And lastly, eternity. Eternity is for as long as we could be. It means beyond our own experience. It also means ‘forever’, if there is no inevitable end to life. Let’s take the idea of eternity and make it our own business.

I have never met a person in whom I did not see myself reflected. Some grew old and died, and I am now part of their ongoing presence on Earth.

Others have a youthful vitality which I have lost and will soon give up altogether. These youngsters will in turn keep my candle, and yours, if you are aged like me, alight in the Cosmos. In this stream of life, where birth and death are our common lot, the replenishment of humankind lights up our own existences. May it go on and on and on…

The pursuit of eternity is no longer the prerogative of the gods: it is the business of us all, here and now.

Drawing on the best of our character, Earth’s community of people is on the threshold of a brilliant new career in togetherness. But we, all together, have to open the door to that future using the powerful key of global democracy.

I think we are intelligent enough to get there. My faith is in the collective nous and caring of humanity, and in our innate optimism. Even in its grimmest history, the optimism of humanity has been its greatest power. We must defy pessimism, as well as the idea that there is any one of us who cannot turn a successful hand to improving Earth’s future prospects.

I am an optimist. I’m also an opsimath: I learn as I get older. And, I have never been happier in my life. Hurtling to death, I am alive and loving being Green.

I look forward in my remaining years to helping spread a contagion of confidence that, together, we people of Earth will secure a great future. We can and will retrieve Earth’s biosphere. We will steady ourselves – this unfolding flower of intelligence in the Universe – for the long, shared, wondrous journey into the enticing centuries ahead.

Let us determine to bring ourselves together, settle our differences, and shape and realise our common dream for this joyride into the future. In that pursuit, let us create a global democracy and parliament under the grand idea of one planet, one person, one vote, one value.

We must, we can, we will.

Er ….

Over to you, fellow “Earthian”.

Greens Leader Browns His Trousers Over Blocked Shot, Cops Bollocking

12 Nov

On Wednesday, the day after the railroading of the carbon derivatives scam legislation through the Senate, Greens leader Bob Brown copped a right bollocking.

Why? Because, dear reader, he had requested a suspension of standing orders to bring a notice of motion concerning Parliamentary Behaviour.

Poor widdle Bobby Wobby* was not a happy chappy.

Let’s see why (from Hansard, emphasis added):

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:01): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 549, which relates to conduct following the final vote on the clean energy bills, be taken as a formal motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

An opposition senator: Yes, there is.

Let’s skip the subsequent formalities, and jump forward to the heart of the matter. Here’s Senator Bobby Wobby again:

Yesterday, when the final vote was taken on the legislation, you will know, Mr Deputy President, that the press gallery had more than 40 members— something I have not seen since the passage of the goods and services tax more than a decade ago. It was a major and historic moment for the Greens, and there were quite a number of cameras in the press gallery. Senator Heffernan got from his chair and walked down and stood in front of the contingent of Greens to obscure the cameras making a record of that event as we shook hands and generally were happy that the passage of that legislation had taken place. I am not particularly miffed about whether or not we get coverage obscured, but it was a churlish and childish thing for Senator Heffernan to do. He frequently invades other people’s press conferences, other people’s moments, book launches and so on. It was rude, if not to the Greens, to the photographers in the gallery, to the cameras here and to the watching and listening public, because it obscured their right to see the events taking place in this chamber…

Hmmmm… obscured the cameras, eh?

Greens Senators congratulate each other after the Government's Clean Energy (carbon tax) Bills were passed through the Senate today. Picture: Ray Strange

Greens leader Bob Brown hugs his deputy Christine Milne after the tax passed through Senate today. Photo: Andrew Meares

For your light entertainment today, we bring you a selection of highlights from the subsequent mauling that Senator Brown received, starting with Senator Abetz:

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (16:08): The man who has led demonstrations with big banners to block people out of sight and the man who has led demonstrations making a lot of noise to drown out other voices is the man who, in Pecksniffian manner, comes into this place complaining that somebody stood in the way of a camera. I know that this senator allegedly had an interest in the art of photography but I never knew that his interest in the art of photography only related to photographs of himself. What a vain, petulant speech we have just heard. We were told that this was a matter of national significance. Was the government’s view blocked? No. Was the view of the President, the most important person in this chamber, blocked? No. Even that of a humble leader of the opposition? No. And that of the National Party? No. Senator Xenophon’s? No. Senator Madigan’s? No. So what was this important group in the Senate that was being blocked? Not the government, not the opposition, not some Independents—oh, it was the Greens! I would suggest to Senator Brown that he be very careful with that glass of water in front of him, because if he stares in it when the light is shining in it he might see a narcissistic type reflection—and this is what this is all about. This is a window into the vanity of the Leader of the Australian Greens. This is a window into the petulance of the Australian Greens…

… I always thought Senator Heffernan was as skinny as a beanstalk. Now you are trying to say that he is bigger than a Mack truck. How on earth could a senator standing there block out the crossbenchers and the Greens all at the same time? It is a physical impossibility. Senator Brown was not concerned about the crossbenchers; he was concerned about himself, as is always the case…

… Is the senator actually trying to tell us and the Australian people that this is a matter of such great import that it needs the suspension of standing orders in this place as we need to discuss the fact that Senator Brown could not get his photograph taken because somebody who is about as slim as anybody else in this chamber, Senator Heffernan, happened to walk over to the Australian Greens to discuss the vote? This is petulance writ large and this is vanity writ large. But do you know what it also is writ large? The Australian Greens and, in particular, Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Brown. I have been around this joint for about 17 years and I have never seen or heard such a vain or petulant motion being put forward by any backbench senator, let alone somebody who claims to be the leader of an Australian political party. Mr Deputy President, I suggest that we dispense with this nonsense of Senator Brown’s and get on with the important business of the Senate.


However, it was Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi who really stood tall.

Linguistically. Logically. And literally:

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (16:18): It is an extraordinary thing when the worst fears of the Australian people are confirmed by the vainglorious and narcissistic motion that we have before us. It is offensive to the Australian people that this parliament seems to have nothing better to do than debate the pious and sanctimonious words put forward by Senator Bob Brown and Senator Milne because they missed a photo opportunity. In the last 31⁄2 or four minutes, we have heard all about upholding the standing orders, from the party of hypocrisy—the party that will not acknowledge the magnificence of the chair in this chamber when they enter and leave, the party that will not acknowledge people’s formal titles in Senate inquiries and hearings, the party that will not acknowledge standing orders. For the benefit of this chamber, let me put this to you:

A resolution of the Senate allows the media to photograph any senator in the chamber provided that they have the call.

Might I remind Senator Bob Brown that yesterday he did not have the call. He stood up and was champing at the bit, trying to grandstand by cuddling with his cabal over there, who have sent this country down a path from which there will be no return while they remain in power. But let me remind them that it is in breach of standing orders.

Senator Bob Brown has come up with this confected outrage and some contrived complaint against Senator Heffernan, who because of his generosity and magnanimous heart was simply going across there to acknowledge that we had been defeated in a challenge. But, in the rudeness, the shrillness and the smugness of the Greens party, they refused to acknowledge Senator Heffernan. I saw him. I watched him. He turned around and looked at the chamber; he looked to the chair and he acknowledged the chair humbly. I can only imagine what he said to himself: ‘Why won’t they talk to me? I’m just trying to be generous.’

One sniffs the scent of BS wafting in with that last bit. Still, what is it they say about arguing with idiots … they drag your down to their level, then beat you with experience?

But what has happened as a result? We have this hypocritical, vainglorious and narcissistic motion come into the chamber. It is only right that the Australian people would be questioning why this is happening. If there has been regrettable activity in this chamber, might I say much of it rests with the Greens party.

If you want to know about bad behaviour in and out of this place, we need look no further than Senator Bob Brown himself. This is the man who feigned bankruptcy or impending bankruptcy to collect money from the public for legal bills, around $300,000—

Senator Bob Brown: Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I take objection to ‘feigned bankruptcy’. It is untrue and unparliamentary, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Senator Abetz: Mr Deputy President, on the point of order: Senator Bob Brown might reflect that, when it was put to him that he was not actually going to go bankrupt, he amended the Greens website using words to the effect that he might not necessarily have technically gone bankrupt. So he did amend his language after those matters were drawn to his attention.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Bernardi, it would assist if you withdrew that last remark.

Senator BERNARDI: I will withdraw that Senator Bob Brown was feigning bankruptcy, but he did—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Unconditionally, Senator Bernardi.

Senator BERNARDI: I withdraw unconditionally. But it did not stop Senator Brown, being the ecomillionaire, from collecting nearly $1 million in order to pay about $300,000 worth of legal bills. Anyone with any integrity who was not so consumed with hubris and ego would have said, ‘No, I’ve got my charity from the public; they can keep their money for themselves.’ This is a shameful stunt by a man who thinks the rules should apply differently to him than to anybody else.

This is a man who condemns political donations to any political party yet whose own party takes $1.6 million donations. I ask myself, and I am sure the Australian people will ask themselves, ‘Why was it that a line of questioning in this chamber by the Greens was directly related to the business interests of the person who made that donation?’ It is a proper and right question for this chamber to consider. It is a proper and right question for the Australian people to consider, Senator Brown. Might I also say that the question you are putting to the Australian people today in this chamber is simply inappropriate and improper. There is a dignity that should be maintained in this place. We should not sink to the lowest common denominator and debase it to the level that Senator Brown and the Greens wish to take it to. If we are maintaining the standing orders, if we are serious about maintaining the traditions and the other things that make the Senate such a special place in which to work, we cannot debase it by putting motions like this, by not acknowledging the chair and by showing flagrant contempt for standing orders whenever it suits. That is exactly what this does. We should not be surprised by it, because we have experienced it again and again from the Greens party.

Senator Brown and the Greens cannot handle any scrutiny—they have a glass jaw. That is why, when their policy position is examined, when there is any critical questioning of their own conduct and behaviour, their response is: ‘This is the hate media; this is persecution. The Greens are different. We’re separate. We’re isolated from the world.’

Senator Abetz: They are different.

Senator BERNARDI: Indeed they are different, they are separate and they are isolated from the world. Unfortunately, they have their hands on the tiller of government, and that is a shame for this country. (Time expired)

And after some more speeches from both sides…

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bob Brown to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

Question negatived.

And thusly, dear reader, the Australian Senate, 76 politician strong (plus Senate staff, assorted lackeys et al) .. financed by the Aussie taxpayer .. piss farted about for a full 30 minutes from 16:01 to 16:31 on Wednesday the nineth day of November in the year of our Lord 2011.

All thanks to Bob Brown’s self-righteous narcissism.

And his oh so genteel, just-don’t-scratch-the-surface, glass-jawed vindictiveness.

(Remind you of anyone?)

Just the sort of personality type we want running the country.

* An apropos moniker for the petulant Bob Brown, I suggest. The Wobbegong is a camouflaged, bottom-dwelling shark, whose feeding habits classify it an ambush predator.

Bobby Wobby.

You heard it here first.

Barnaby: “I Thought One-World Government Was A Conspiracy Theory, Then I Heard The De Facto Deputy PM On Radio National”

11 Jul

Media Release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 11 July 2011:

I thought one-world government was a conspiracy theory, then I heard the de facto deputy PM on Radio National

Well, welcome to the world of a new broad based consumption tax to sit on top of the other green state based taxes and swindles, and of course the GST.

Welcome to the capacity of the government to jack the tax take via your power point, as they please, to pay back their gross debt of $194.4 billion.

Welcome to the fact that the Prime Minister said this is the deal before even a draft of the legislation has made it to the Parliament, another insult to your democratic rights.

Welcome to the Brown-Gillard-Windsor alliance saying this will save the Great Barrier Reef and stop droughts, a pitch that would put the dodgiest second hand car dealer to shame.

Welcome to the world where a member of the new government alliance, Bob Brown, has stated about the carbon price this morning on ABC radio that:

… it’s not locked in for 15 years to no change, this has got upward flexibility. It means that through the processes, including a Climate Change Authority here, we will be able to keep pace with the rest of the world as inevitably more mature and reasoned action is taken against the enormous threat of climate change in the years ahead.

Let’s all just retire from the Parliament as your rights follow your $3 billion of carbon credits, collected via a power point in your home just above the skirting board, to some other corner of the globe. Instead, a new Canberra bureaucracy, or Authority, will decide what the carbon tax should be in the future.

They didn’t need to go to an election to introduce it and now they don’t think they need to go to the Parliament to increase it.

More information– Matthew Canavan 0458 709433

If you’ve not read it yet, then perhaps you’d like to read My Idea to change the world.


By undermining the power of the global bankers … the parasites who screwed us with their GFC, and are behind the huge push for global “air” trading –

“The People’s NWO:  Every Man His Own Central Banker”

Smelling A Rat

10 Jul


I wonder how many others have observed what I observed.

Within 5-18 hours of the last of the 3 “Independents” formally backing the Labor-Green Alliance’s “carbon pricing” plan on Friday, we have seen the government-funded chief propaganda arm, “their ABC”, and other mainstream news services, air several stories just like this:

And this:

Australian children are being terrified by climate change lessons

Primary school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring “death, injury and destruction” to the world unless they take action.

On the eve of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s carbon tax package announcement, psychologists and scientists said the lessons were alarmist, created unneeded anxiety among school children and endangered their mental health.

Climate change as a “Doomsday scenario” is being taught in classrooms across Australia.

Resource material produced by the Gillard government for primary school teachers and students states climate change will cause “devastating disasters”.

Australian National University’s Centre for the Public Awareness of Science director Dr Sue Stocklmayer said climate change had been portrayed as “Doomsday scenarios with no way out”.

Dr Stocklmayer said she was not a climate-change sceptic but worried that “too much time was spent presenting scary scenarios, especially to young people”.

“(Children) feel incredibly despondent and helpless in the face of all this negative information,” she said. “To put all of this before our children … is one of the most appalling things we can do to (them).

Now, for those with a mind of their own, who have researched and discovered the truth of the Great Bankster-Driven Global Warming Hoax for themselves, these despicable facts have been known for a long, long time.

But leave all that aside for a moment.

Because my big question is this.

Why now?

Why only now, do these stories receive an airing?

Why only now, right at a time when the electorate has been driven to a peak of confusion, distrust, anxiety, and barely-contained rage, as a result of the news that this economy-planking “tax” being imposed on the people against their will is now a done deal?

I smell a rat.

I smell the hand of Ordo Ab Chao in this.

Order out of Chaos.

Airing stories such as this – which could and should have been aired years ago – at this moment in time can only serve one purpose.

To raise community distrust, anxiety, and anger even higher still.

Think about it.

If you wanted to bring about World Government – as our real PM Bob Brown has now openly stated as Greens policy – then first you need to whip up a total distrust of all existing politicians.

And, all existing political systems.

Otherwise, without total distrust, loss of faith … and a healthy dose of chaos … the peoples of earth will never willingly accept World Government.

All the more reason for you to take a chill pill today, and turn your back on Juliar’s muppet show.

Greens Protection Racket

15 May

The din of corruption grows louder and louder.

Tim Blair explains:

Conflicted Greens admit voting against themselves in order to keep their governmental host pod alive:

Senator Brown is believed to have told Ms Gillard the Greens have been voting down mischievous Coalition legislation and motions, for example, even on issues the Greens support.

‘’We have had to oppose some of our own measures that appear as Coalition bills in order to protect the government,’’ a source said.

Completing that line: “In order to protect the government from voters.” Or, as Bob Brown puts it:

The Senator said: “Tony Abbott, there will be no election. This country will go to a full term with this government. We the Greens are committed to stability.”


%d bloggers like this: