Talk:Australian Greens

Archives
Archive One

Graph

Perhaps this article could be improved with a graph showing the greens number of (primary) votes over time? any one got one? --Hypo Mix (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty redundant in my opinion considering the mini table in the 2010 onward section. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Found one anyway if consensus changes http://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/u543/Growth-of-Greens-vote_0.png --Hypo Mix (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

State MPs

If someone can go over the list i've added that would be good. Timeshift (talk) 03:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ACT Results

Now would be a good time to update with the ACT election results, once they are finalised next week. 130.56.32.2 (talk) 05:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That can/is being done on Australian Capital Territory general election, 2008. Nothing further needs adding on this page. Timeshift (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

updated info or parliamentarians

suggest that we consider adding various titles, for example Dr Bob Brown - leader of the Greens in the Federal Senate, Shane Rattenbury, speaker of ACT Legislative assembly, Merideth Hunter, Leader of ACT greens etc 121.79.19.4 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why the clutter is needed, their full name/abbreviations and positions should be in the lead of their articles. Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it as clutter. It would still be one line per person. 121.79.19.4 (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Greens in Local Government.

The Greens have recently won some big advances in Sydney's local council. (They have unseated Labor from Marrickville for example). Should this recent trend have its own section in the article? 203.214.28.145 (talk) 07:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Covered under "local government" at Greens New South Wales Sambauers (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Social Progressivism seems wrong

None of the state parties have this label added to their infoboxes and it seems wholly out of place when the article it links to talks mostly about political parties of different international affiliation to the Australian Greens. The only reason I'm not deleting it straight away is because it has been there so long. Thoughts? Sambauers (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Surprised this one has survived this long - social progressivism is a social theory based in secular humanism, not a political position. I'm tempted to change it to progressivism. Orderinchaos 09:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Left Wing" was deleted

A link to "Left Wing" was deleted from their info-box, because the Party itself does not describe itself as "left wing". However, I don't think the party is a WP:RS for this kind of call: it seems pretty clear that most of their policies are left wing, so I think it should be retained, although it probably does need a reference. cojoco (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

"Left wing" by itself is pretty meaningless. Yes, the policies of the party broadly configure a position that is left of centre, but the words "left wing" actually say very little. Social liberalism or progressivism is probably a better description. Orderinchaos 09:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

One Nation

I have reverted the edit which links a quote from Bob Brown relating to the 1998 Queensland Election and one from Joe Hockey referring to everyone preferencing the Liberals last in a by-election in 2008. The linkage creates the impression that Brown was being hypocritical in 1998, or that the particular circumstances of the 1998-2001 rise of the One Nation Party would implicitly prevail indefinitely. Find a more WP:NPOV way to say why this is relevant to an article on the Greens generally, or specifically to the relationship with conservative parties. Chrismaltby (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Brown is not actually quoted in the text as appeared nor is the date 1998 mentioned, so I'm not sure your charge that an impression is created that "Brown was being hypocritical in 1998" holds up (but certainly Hockey has publicly implied lack of moral consistency by the Greens by referring to the By-Election example - notably on the Q&A Programme recently - which in itself seems relevant to the topic given other references to accusations against the Greens which are listed in the article already etc). I provided a link to Brown's 1998 comments as evidence of the Greens stated historical position, although any number of other sources could do this. There are several reasons to include the more recent reference as well: firstly it references a contemporary critique of the Greens from a senior Conservative (Joe Hockey) and thus is relevant to a section entitled "relationship with conservative parties"; secondly it records the contemporary Greens Party preferencing priority in relation to One Nation and the Liberals (it is among the most recent contemporary evidence of the relations between One Nation and the Greens) In either case it is on topic. But there might be room for dicsussing changed electoral circumstances. I will consider alternatives (or welcome your own suggestion).Observoz (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Several issues with the quote you proposed. First, it misses an important distinction between voter behaviour and party doctrine. Second, it picks up numeric results from one electorate (for distinct candidates) to characterise a whole nation (federal parties). Third, it ignores tactical voting by drawing simplistic conclusions, based on preferential votes which were not applied, for one of the least significant candidates at the election, receiving 0.68% of primary votes [1]. Fourth, it doesn't present the facts. Elekhh (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Observoz, you make my point - by juxtaposing a 1998 media release from Bob Brown with a 2009 comment from Hockey (and where Hockey's main purpose was defending a decline in voter support for his own party) as if they were contemporaneous, you create a misleading (ie WP:NPOV) appearance of hypocrisy in relation to Greens preferences for conservative parties. And besides the enormous changes to the political landscape in the last 11 years, as Elekhh points out, it also ignores tactical considerations and the actions of individual voters. Chrismaltby (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Observoz would do well to read WP:SYN. And also really think about the WP:POV contributions they make which can at times be quite heavily anti-left and pro-right. Timeshift (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Tammy Jennings

Any chance of a free pic anyone? Timeshift (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Tammy Jennings

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings. Timeshift (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Parliamentary election history

Year	Vote %	MPs
1993	1.86%	0
1996	1.74%	0
1998	2.14%	0
2001	4.96%	0
2004	7.19%	0
2007	7.79%	0

Alex Douglas (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Two issues there, the Greens and other minor parties are Senate parties, their Senate vote should be stated as a Senate vote and presented as a Senate vote. Second, the Australian Greens weren't the Australian Greens until the 1996 election. 1993 shouldn't be there. Timeshift (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

article structure

Why is there a section on the responsibilities of each federal parliamentarian? Why are there lists of every green member elected or 'notable'? It seems very odd when compared to the alp, liberal party or even the democrats pages.. not sure what needs to change, it just feels weird when reading it. 182.239.159.208 (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of elected Greens members is normal for minor party pages (including the Democrats), but the rest I have to agree. Frickeg (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree it should be prose not lists. --Elekhh (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Who, members or noteables? Members should be in a list, noteables no. Timeshift (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the members should stay in a list, but everything else - senators' responsibilities, notable members, etc. - should be prose. Frickeg (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the top of the article, I managed to get away with five Senators, their roles and images, but I think doing the same with nine Senators is a bridge too far. Timeshift (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Portfolio responsibilities should be removed and put in individual WP:BLPs, or in a separate article, like First Gillard Ministry. The section could be cut-paste. --Surturz (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you should have properly proposed here what you immediately did, which was to remove the material and create Current Australian Greens Alternate Ministry and seek consensus here. Alternate Ministries, particularly of minor parties are very different from a proper ministry in government. So, let us look for consensus. I suggest that your edits be reverted. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Alternate ministry? LOL! I agree with Bduke. My reasonings are pretty much summed up here. It's the really long post at the bottom of that particular talk section. Timeshift (talk) 22:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

"Recent policy positions" section within the article...

The heading and some of the content screams of WP:RECENT. I much preferred the previous section, the new section mixes policies with what seems to be some people's agendas... I can't help but feel a pointy soapboxy-ness about it when reading it... thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that some of the text needs improvement and clarification. Some of it is just too vague (and, yeah Soapboxy). Saying the Greens "support" refugees, for example. Given that all major Parties support a refugee component in Australian immigration, I think this article should state what differentiates the Greens in relation to refugees ie do they advocate increasing the number of refugees, increasing funding for refugees, expanding the definition of refugees etc etc. Are they only referring to Asylum Seekers, or what? The text is not clear. Same goes for lines such as "prepare for peak oil" and "promote renewable energies". It's just too broad. Clearing it up will take elbow grease though. Observoz (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Policies change. We don't have what we have on this article, on the major party articles. Timeshift (talk) 11:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Liberal policy of putting the Greens last

Anythoughts how we should discuss it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8digits (talk • contribs) 07:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, through discussion and not through edit wars. At a minimum, the way it is worded is not in accordance with wikipedia guidelines. As your edit is a change from the status quo and it is disputed, you are required to form consensus on here rather than engage in an edit war. Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I can see why we would want it in the election articles, but does it need to be in this one?  -- Lear's Fool _mobile 08:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a "wait and see" approach. It's not vital to include this information now and it all seems a little speculative. Post election, mentioning preferencing might fit with a general commentary on the election result, when impact might be clearer.Observoz (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me.  -- Lear's Fool 14:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the Libs preferencing should be mentioned in this article at all. Probably should be mentioned in the election article, possibly mentioned in the Libs article but it has no relevance here. The only notable mentions IMO are if The Greens get a seat on the back of Liberal (or ALP) preferences. --Surturz (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Calibre and quality of recent edits

Ho hum. I think recent edits on this page would do well with some highlighted scrutiny. Timeshift (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(Evil?) Socialists

Twice now user Observoz has added material about Greens members having previously been "socialists". His source is The Australian, which has been accused recently by Bob Brown of conducting a vendetta against the Greens. While the claim is probably true, it seems very selective, and ignores the possibility that (other?) members were associated with other political entities. Too often, these kinds points are made with the intention of getting people to think that there is currently a connection between the Greens and those evil socialists. I don't like the fact only those nasty commos (often meant o be associated with socialists by their detractors) are being mentioned here. What is the point? Is it a deliberate POV addition, with the intention of subtly condemning the party? Is the claim notable enough to be included, without including other past political alliances? HiLo48 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. Observoz can't even get his facts right: Adam Bandt (whose name he can't spell) was part of Left Alliance (which was an NUS faction, not a political party), and wasn't actually socialist (though included some socialists). More generally it's also an assertion not backed up by evidence; with the notable exception of Rhiannon, the vast majority of the party came from either Labor or Democrat roots, with a fair few ex-Liberals as well. Rebecca (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Per my post above this one. Observoz's edits continue to be of concern to me. Timeshift (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Rebecca. I certainly seemed a POV addition to me. That the facts were wrong too says something about the thinking behind the change. More political sloganeering than reality. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to inclusion of the word "socialism". It's not POV (or "evil" as HiLO48 mockingly suggests). it's a common political/economic philosophy and it has been (or is followed) by some Greens. What is the big deal here? We include stuff about Greens switching to Labor and opposing the LIberals and protesting against One Nation. Why on earth can't we deal with some Greens work for socialist movements? This is simply part of the picture of some Greens and Green voters - to some readers this aspect will appeal, to some it will not - but to all it will add knowledge and that is our purpose here.Observoz (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the word "socialist" is that it is frequently used to score political points in a negative way. When you made your additions in isolation it suggested to me that that was your intention. If you had included a description of ALL other political connections previously held by ALL current Greens members, be that Labor, Liberal, Democrat, etc, that allegation could not have been made. HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing question Hilo, but again I don't think you are making a strong argument - you can't read my new addition in isolation, but only as part of a long discussion on Green connections and disputes with ALP, Libs, Unions, One Nation, Family First etc. That said, Rebecca's corrections about spelling and the precise status of the Left Alliance are ok.However, Hilo says my edit was "probably true" but that he reverted because he doesn't "like socialists being mentioned" because some people might think that there is "currently a connection". This seems a dubious basis for reversion based on a feeling that readers will infer negativity from mere mention of the word "socialism". In fact, readers will infer either negativity or positivity based on their own point of view of socialism - meanwhile, all we have to do in our article is reflect the facts. Rhiannon herself said of the Greens in her maiden speech to Parliament that "many of us have a great deal in common with the Labor ideals as set out in the Labor Party’s constitution, such as the call for "redistribution of political and economic power", "the development of public enterprises based upon... forms of social ownership"" This is an open position by a current Greens senator. Now it may be that there are different schools of thought within the Greens - and that is relevant and can be dealt with. But a policy of censoring the word "socialist" from this wikipedia article because Hilo "doesn't like it" - is not vaild. Nevertheless, I will work on a text that accounts for Rebecca's corrections and Hilo's concerns. Let me have a think...Observoz (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not that you said someone had been a member of the Socialist Party, but that you said it in isolation. Many Greens have been members of other parties in the past. To just highlight one of them distorts the balance of the article. I would have no problem with you mentioning ALL the past party memberships, but I do have a problem with you mentioning just one, especially one that I think we would all agree has potentially negative connotations. Compare this with the absence of sensitivity in saying that someone was a past member of the Democrats. List them all, and all will be well. HiLo48 (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Then the "problem" is false. I didn't say anything in isolation. I added to an extensive list of party associations - including information on Greens who switched from Labor. So let's move on. I agree some reference to Democrats will benefit article. I recall a time in fact when there was talk of a merger.Observoz (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Position/Ideology

Is there a problem with terming the Greens as left-wing? I concede that the left-right dichotomy is a rather arbitrary sort of classification but both the ALP and Libs are labelled 'centre-left' and 'centre-right' on their respective pages (and unreferenced). The Greens policy platform would in this context logically fall to the left/centre-left, even if they don't explicitly self-identify as such.

A reference to the Greens and their voting base as left-wing: "Can the Australian Greens Replace the Australian Democrats as a 'Third Party' in the Senate?" David Charnock. Australian Journal of Political Science. Canberra: Jun 2009. Vol. 44, Iss. 2; p. 245-258 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simjom02 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Adding A Policy

I decided to include the policy about the Greens wanting to abolish the 30% healthcare rebate, as I think this is an important policy which could cause some controversy, if the public widely knew about it. I have included a link to their official website, so it perfectly balanced. Also I may have made the mistake of labeling it as a minor edit, I am not sure whether it is or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaoooj (talk • contribs) 11:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope that by "could cause some controversy" you don't mean "I don't like it". That would be a POV change. ;-) I've tidied the wording a little. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Greens clearly left-wing

I recently added the Greens political position as 'left-wing'. HiLo48 objectced to this, calling it 'simplisitc' and implying it was a 'biased' change. I don't think anyone would be in denial they are a left-wing party. I notice the following articles on Australian political parties contain a 'political position': Katter's Australian Party (right wing), Family First Party (right-wing), National Party of Australia (centre-right), Liberal Party of Australia (centre-right]], Australian Labor Party (centre-left), Australian Protectionist Party (far-right) and more. The Greens are proudly left wing, and I'd be happy to provide sources to verify that the general view is that the Greens are left-wing. I think this is more an issue of people being precious and seeing things through the prism of their own obvious bias.Politicalworkingdog (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources would help a lot. I have a very strong personal bias against simplistic, one or two word entries like this for what are really quite complex positions. HiLo48 (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

List of reliable sources:

1. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/greens-face-backlash-over-prison-action/story-fn59niix-1226010299834

2. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alp-must-steer-clear-of-greens-says-swan/story-fn59niix-1225959765306

3. http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/47292 This is an interesting one. Published in the clearly left Gren Left Weekly.

4. http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/Whats_the_difference_between_left_and_right_wing.aspx

5. http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/sys_gov.html Here is the Dept. Foreign Affairs and Trade calling the Greens left-wing.

Please review these sources. Politicalworkingdog (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd have serious doubts about anything in The Australian being a reliable comment on The Greens. The two bodies seem to hate one another. But let's go through the sources....

1. Two unions are described as left wing, not The Greens, so no value there.

2. It's a Labor politician expressing his opinion. Not an independent source, and he is clearly intending the term to be deprecatory.

3. It's about bringing the left wing of the party "into line". That suggests that the mainstream position is not left wing. And all parties have "wings" that lean more left than others, even the Liberal Party.

4. An interesting, self-declared "opinion piece" essay, by an unknown author in a blog type environment (Wikipedia doesn't like blogs as sources). The first response says "the left right distinction is no longer relevant". That hardly helps.

5. The one genuinely reliable source there, and frankly, I'm stunned! I really didn't expect a government website to use such labels. I guess if the government uses the term, Wikipedia can too.

But I still don't like it. That comment from point 4. above says it all. "The left right distinction is no longer relevant." Left wing used to mean things about public ownership of the means of production. Does it now mean support for trees and gay marriage? To right wingers, or conservatives (does that definition work?), left seems to mean "the things we don't like". Millions of words have been written over these definitions. The Greens are not Communists. One or two words in an Infobox don't cut it for me. HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it matters what you think. Clearly, various sources state the obvious, including a reliable .gov website. I think it should be changed. I don't see you complaining on other pages. Politicalworkingdog (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Since it appears that you has been blocked indefinitely, I do not think it matters what you think! --Bduke (Discussion) 23:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've explained why I don't like it, acknowledged that the government website is a (surprisingly) good one, and explained why the others aren't. I don't have unlimited time here to comment on everything, and it was the change at this article that drew my attention to the matter. I suggest you restrict your comments to what is actually said, rather than implying inappropriate behaviour on my part. I would be interested in whether you think my comments on the other four sources were useful. I did put some thought into them. I would also be interested in what you think left means. HiLo48 (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hilo about simplistic labeling in infoboxes, although I do not think it is that big a deal. However to describe the Greens as simply "left wing" is not correct and that government document does not say that. It says they are a "left-wing and environmentalist party". So I'll accept "left-wing and environmentalist" but not just "left-wing". They are certainly not "left-wing" in the sense that the Socialist Alliance and several other parties are. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also not crazy about the "left-wing" characterisation, less because of an absence of coverage in reliable sources, and more because it's so imprecise as to not really be appropriate for an encyclopedia. That the Greens meet some commonly understood, nebulous notion of "left-wing" seems (to me anyway) undeniable, but this is also true of the Socialist Alliance, Labor Left, and even the Australian Democrats, which have widely varying views on a number of issues. As such, so long as we use the more precise and descriptive categorisation "Green politics", "left-wing" seems to me to be unnecessary and somewhat redundant.  -- Lear's Fool 03:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

One Nation preferences content dispute

Nettle was elected in 2001 on the back of minor party preferences, in particular One Nation. Preferences do not necessarily indicate endorsement of one party to another, they simply flow as their ticket indicates. Where it mattered in her election, she got crucial preferences from One Nation. The fact that they preferences the Democrats with the Greens above the major parties is irrelevant. Their ticket flows as their ticket flows. I'm not sure why there is resistance to the content? Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a secret ballot. How can you possibly know how preferences went? HiLo48 (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because the Electoral Commission publishes the preference flows? See here (via Psephos). The One Nation candidate is excluded on the 64th count and over 85% of his preferences went to the Greens over the Democrats. Also, the number of people who voted above the line is given, so if people voted for One Nation above the line (as most of them did), we know exactly where their preferences went - to the Greens. Frickeg (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes it clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason for the sensitivity is that there were a string of attacks from the Democrats that there had been some sort of preference deal between the Greens and One Nation. Yes, the ON Group voting ticket had Greens ahead of Democrats and (as I recall) the ALP and Liberals too. But that was at the end of their list. Over 95% of voters number a box above the line, and their preferences follow the ticket of the party they selected. At the time the ON candidate was excluded there were just Greens and Democrat candidates left. This would be hearsay but I heard from people involved in the 2001 campaign that the reason One Nation put the Greens ahead of the others they liked least was that someone in the Greens party office was polite to them about putting them last when they rang to talk about preference issues, unlike the others they called. I think the wording is still a little simplistic, but maybe that can't be helped given the relative importance of the issue (slight) and the underlying complexity of senate preferences and associated deal making/accidents. Chrismaltby (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got a source in which Andrew Bartlett says that ON put the Greens ahead of the Democrats because the Greens shared their opposition to the GST. I think you're probably right about simplifying the issue, which is unfortunate but can perhaps we dealt with in greater detail at the 2001 election page. Frickeg (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Marjuana Legalisation

In 'Political Ideology': 'Law reform: regulated use of cannabis for medical purposes.'

Checking the Greens' website, notably their policies: 'The Australian Greens do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.' (http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/drugs-substance-abuse-and-addiction)

Am I missing something else in this section, or on their website, or is this an outdated policy?

HandyAndy1.36 (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

First Greens party

The article claims the United Tasmanian Group is the oldest Greens party. The Global Greens site[2] seems to say it shares the honour with the NZ Values Party whose article makes the claim that it was the first. I figured it might be safest to call them both one of the first Greens parties. Perhaps this has been discussed before so I thought I should raise it here for discussion. --Brandonfarris (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)