The Greens and Democrats - the untold story

Senator Allison took on Tony Abbott, the pentacostals and the anti-abortion lobby and with cross party help from Senators Moore, Nash and Treoth, got the RU486 bill through. And the media recently called Senator Allison a librarian - seems like a fairly tough librarian to me.

Let’s talk about Cheryl Kernot. I used to work for Kernot and she was a hard task master. The affair with Gareth Evans was big news. Yet as leader of the Democrats she was instrumental in introducing compulsory superannuation for women. Small news - unless you're a working woman today. We forget those details.

Will Senator Stott Despoja will be known simply as an attractive young woman who wore Doc Martins in parliament? The media really has to lift its game. It's this kind of unbalanced and ridiculous reporting that trivialises the major contributions that Stott Despoja, Allison and others have made to Australian parliamentary democracy.

The Canberra press gallery relies heavily on conflict stories and that's understandable. That's what editors want. Yet far as I know only The Age's Tim Colebatch is looking at factors such as our burgeoning current account deficits and George Meglogenis in The Australian is writing some of the best social and political analysis produced by that paper. Thank God for ABC radio and the Australian Associated Press too.

So today political reporting is not history or about writing stories with balance (where's Graham Perkin - former editor of The Age and a stickler for balanced reporting and accuracy - when you need him?) it's about conflict. And back in 2001 and 2002 there was plenty of conflict in the Democrats. It made good copy.

So should this. The Greens absolutely loath the fact that Australia is now a low taxing, low tariff economy. The Keating-Hawke reforms of the mid 1980s, of floating the dollar and letting foreign investment in, are anathema to the Greens.

I like the Greens grass roots approach. I like the local and vocal slogans. Yet what worries me is that when the Greens say they want to “rescue the Senate” does it follow that they will block economically responsible legislation and hold a gun to the government's head and say, “This is the way it's going to be ...” 

Bob Brown needs to come out and state categorically that his party will not block the supply bills, even if it means not getting 100 per cent of their way on Tasmania's forests. I'd like to hear the Greens say the word “compromise” just once. I'm an old fashioned liberal democrat. I remember 1975.

Here's another issue worth pondering. Ninety per cent of the Greens’ success has been founded on the intelligence and charisma of Bob Brown. But any one who has walked the corridors of power in Canberra knows that Bob is tired. He has been carrying the can for the Greens for more than 20 years. Who could blame him if he retired next year and wanted to spend time on his farm in Tasmania?

What is the Greens Party without Bob Brown at the helm? There's a news story. A Brown-less Greens. And why isn't the Greens key strategist and party progenitor, Ben Oquist, a Senator by now? If you've read his writings you'll know that here is a sharp mind at work. One that could fathom complex budget matters rather than just say “I'll vote against it”.

The Greens have 12 media officers and the Democrats have three. That's one reason why the Greens get more media “bang for their buck”. The Greens also have approximately $6 million is campaign donations while the Democrats have less that $300,000. So we can expect to see some pretty expensive (and frequent) TV commercials by the Greens during the election.

The Greens did something silly in Victoria recently. They overthrew Senate candidate David Risstrom for Dr Richard Di Natale to run against Senator Allison. Why? Natale is a nice chap but Risstrom had done all the hard leg work and Senator Allison now has a good chance of holding the seat. Her rural and female vote is strong.