Blogging the Victorian election:

Doing the preference shuffle dance:

• Nationals putting Greens dead last.
• Labor considered giving preferences to Family First, then decided on Greens.
• Labor and Liberals consider a preference deal to harm Greens/Nats (possibly just a Labor leak to scare Greens, and spark tensions between Liberal/National.
• Nationals threaten to retaliate if Liberals deal with Labor to harm their chances, both refuse to form a coalition.
• Liberals consider a preference deal with Greens (despite issuing warnings about them).
• Greens willing to negotiate preferences with all parties, except Family First.
• Greens preferences mean diddly, their voters tend to vote below the line.

There was an awesome article in The Age by Jo Chandler (The Green agenda) that raised some good points:
The Greens are not likely to win power, only the balance of power (2-3 in upper house, 0-1 in lower), they need the endorsement of the major parties to deliver on policies. (ie: The scare campaigns are bullshit.) They first want to restructure the parliamentary committee system, and revise standing orders.

It's in this unsexy business of parliamentary process that the Greens hope to lock in and magnify their influence by requiring more scrutiny, transparency, accountability and debate of bills, accounts and estimates, and by mechanisms that might nudge their own bills forward for debate.

Those creepy Green-freaks want more transparency and accountability in government, outrageous!

Mr Barber fancies the New Zealand process in which private bills are brought into the chamber by being drawn from a hat. He concedes that idea may not wash, but what about a ban on Dorothy Dixers? In the new-look house of review, if he can sell that to an antsy opposition, maybe that might fly.

For insight on how the Greens might exercise the balance of power, commentators - and the party itself - suggest looking south to the movement's ancestral home, Tasmania, where the Greens have twice been crucial in forming minority governments - with Labor in 1989, and the Liberals in 1996 - and where, according to Dr Economou, "they weren't the maniacs or extremists they are often painted, especially by some of their extremist adversaries like Family First".

Judge them by their actions, not by opponents that call them scary and crazy? What a novel idea! Labor and Liberals didn't like dealing with the Greens and "pursued electoral reform to eliminate the possibility of sharing power with them in the future." Also, "Green parties have been in coalition governments in Germany, Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, and recently Latvia."

A close observer of the Tasmanian experience, Dr Richard Herr of the University of Tasmania, argues that both were periods of answerable, accountable governance, where Greens influence required innovation from parties to broker deals.

The key criticisms of the Greens - that they are too flaky and fiscally irresponsible to wield power - were not borne out in Tasmania, he argues. Green power did not put the state's economy at risk.

While Brian Costar wonders whether the mainstreaming of environmental issues might, perversely, undermine Greens support - voters may be assured the major parties are now addressing environment issues - Dr Economou is tipping the reverse.

"One of the ways they have been pilloried in the past by commentators is to say, 'Look, they are wackos on heroin, on whatever else, and the environment.' And over recent times, thanks to the panic response (on climate) by major political players, suddenly that side of the Greens' argument is not so wacko."

A more sophisticated electorate is unlikely to swallow the scare tactics used against the Greens in the past, Dr Economou says, though it has not stopped Family First attacking the Greens' heroin trials policy as free drugs for addicts. "What they are talking about, with trials of heroin injecting rooms, is drug policy that has been on the table since the 1960s.

"The idea (behind it) is that treating drug use as a criminal problem rather than a social problem only fills the jails and corrupts police. In Victoria, there might be some resonance to that view. People who loathe the Greens for one reason or another seize on these things and blow them out of all proportion."

A move on heroin trials, given historic support by both parties, may manifest in a Greens private bill sooner rather than later, as the party looks to initiate reform in areas where one or another party has signalled sympathies.

Recognition for gay unions may be another - it's at the top of Mr Barber's wish list. Water initiatives top Sue Pennicuik's policy priorities.

But in bartering and negotiating change on such issues, which will rely on winning major party support, what's non-negotiable for the Greens? "Our policies. We would choose the least worst, but wouldn't sell out," says Mr Barber. "It's amazing what you can get done in a place like Parliament if you don't care who takes the credit. Our biggest successes will be when they nick our policies and go with them."

I also read that four members from the stacked ALP Traralgon branch have resigned, including Derek Amos. He's the founder of the A-Team, the secret corporate/union group that paid members to stack an ALP branch and state environment committee, and spy on green groups.

The Greens have refused to guarantee preferences to ALP in key seats at one point, this then resulted in a senior ALP source claiming the Greens are supporting Howard's IR laws by dealing with Liberals (despite Labor's consideration of deals with the Liberals), which resulted in the Green spokesman pointing out Labor has not done a single thing to protect the half a million Victorian workers still affected by the shift from state to federal awards, who are left vulnerable to the IR laws. (Introduced by previous Liberal government, ALP ignores the issue, Greens promise to return state awards).

The Greens also intend to decriminalize abortion in Victoria (as in WA/ACT).