Garrett

Peter Garrett, now even easier to wheel out!

Blah blah Peter Garrett, blah blah pragmatic, blah blah BULLSHIT!

Here’s the 5-0:

When Peter Garrett claims he will support the Labor party’s decisions, even if conflicts with his views, it’s not because he wants to, it’s because he HAS to.

"It's not a case of will I or won't I compromise. I'll be faithful to the principles that I think are important, but within the context of being a member of the Labor party."

"I'll argue very strongly for the things that I believe in. I won't stop arguing for them - win or lose - but necessarily and properly I'll be a team player for Labor because we want to defeat Howard at this next election."

Mr Garrett again stated he did not think Australia should be expanding its uranium industry, regardless of plans by Mr Rudd to lift restrictions on uranium mines.

Mr Garrett said there would be a "vigorous debate" in the ALP over uranium mining.

Yes, there will be vigorous debate over uranium mining. You will lose, and you know you will lose. You will also support more uranium mines because you have to.

From Labor’s National Platform and Constitution 2004, Part C:

1. Policy at the national, State and Territory level shall be determined by the national, State and Territory conferences respectively. Such decisions shall be binding on every member and every section of the Party, or of the relevant State or Territory Branch.

In no clause does it guarantee any right to a conscience vote. You get your say with caucus, then you’re bound to the party line.

Under Human Rights, it states: “(Labor supports) the fundamental political and civil rights of everyone to freedom of conscience, expression and association…” – but this doesn’t seem to apply to members of parliament.

Compare this, as I always do (painfully so it seems), to the Greens:

41.1 The actions and activities of all Members of The Greens in public office will be consistent with the Charter of The Greens.

41.2 An elected Member of Parliament will also adhere to the policies of The Greens:

41.2.1 except that where, in the opinion of the elected member, their duty to the constituents is in conflict with The Greens' national policy then elected Members may vote according to their duty to their constituents;

41.2.2 and where, the views of elected Members are in conflict with The Greens' policy, then the elected Member may vote according to their conscience.

Elected Greens must comply with the charter – basically a one-page list of common-sense, ecology, peace, social justice and democracy. But their right to vote against policy is enshrined in the constitution.

Greens have to abide by a single page, Labor by every single policy. Garrett can do as he pleases, as long as it doesn’t contradict policy.

But I had a theory today, possibly wishful thinking, but here’s my guess at Peter’s plan:

1. Get into ALP on celebrity status.
2. Do whatever needs to be done to gain the trust of the powers in the caucus.
3. Get a front bench (preferably environmental) position.
4. Champion Labor to defeat the Howard scourge. (He’s at this point now.)
5. When in power, and from the front bench, stand up against caucus, and fight for the environment – not supporting his initiatives would embarrass the party substantially, so he has a lot of leg room.
6. Worst case scenario - get ejected from the party, in which case, join Greens (Liberals will be out, so it’s ‘safe’ to do so anyways.)

Ultimately, the environment wins, and Labor gets a swift kick in the right arse cheek. It’s probably far-fetched, but it makes much more sense than what’s happening at the moment. But, sadly, it probably just has something to do with his religious beliefs and how he's told to feel about abortion.

Oh, and one of the main reasons Peter Garrett being wheeled out against the Greens was so upsetting was the fact the seat meant practically nothing to Labor - they have an 11 seat majority in the lower house, 56 of the 88 seats (Liberals 22, Nationals 9). But if the Greens won the seat, it would have allowed them a foothold, allowed them to introduce legislation in the Assembly, it would have been historical.