Hot topics: australia, sport, government-and-politics, nsw, law-crime-and-justice, qld, united-states, business-economics-and-finance, crime, community-and-society

Greens, Labor seal deal

By online political correspondent Emma Rodgers

Updated September 1, 2010 11:35:00

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has agreed to a swag of demands from the Greens as part of a formal deal to join forces as Labor tries to secure a parliamentary majority.

The agreement includes the dumping of the highly unpopular 'Citizens Assembly' which Ms Gillard announced as one of the planks of her election campaign climate change policy.

However, the Greens did not get Labor to commit to a price on carbon or any move towards legalising gay marriage, with Greens leader Bob Brown saying the deal is still a "work in progress".

Labor has also stuck to its original stance that it would not offer the Greens a ministry.

Ms Gillard and Senator Brown have signed the deal, which ensures newly elected Lower House Greens MP Adam Bandt will support the formation of a minority Labor government.

The concessions secured by the Greens include:

  • the formation of a climate change committee
  • a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan
  • a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians
  • restrictions on political donations
  • legislation on truth in political advertising
  • the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Committee
  • a parliamentary integrity commissioner
  • improved processes for release of documents in Parliament
  • a leaders debates Commission
  • a move towards full three-year parliamentary terms
  • two-and-a-half hours of allocated debate for private members' bills
  • access for Greens to various Treasury documents

If Ms Gillard stays on as prime minister she would also meet with Senator Brown and Mr Bandt once a week during sitting weeks.

Senator Brown says the Greens, who also hold the balance of power in the Senate, are committed to stable, open and good governance.

"We take that responsibility with a great deal of gratitude to the people of Australia," he said.

"We will be discussing, if Julia Gillard is the next Prime Minister, a wide range of other issues in the months and years to come.

"Here is a very good example of us saying, 'we accept what the people of Australia say and we're moving to get them a good outcome from [a minority government]'."

But Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has accused Ms Gillard of breaking an election promise by dumping the Citizens Assembly.

"It was always a dud policy, but it was hers, and now it's been junked at the direction of the Greens," he said.

"[For Labor] there is no election committment that is so important and so certain that it won't be junked in the quest to hold onto power."

Senator Brown defended the formation of climate change committee in the absence of a price on carbon and said all sides of politics as well as various experts would be invited to join it.

The deal with the Greens means Labor is now three seats short of the 76-seat majority it needs to form government.

The Coalition is also on 73 seats if Western Australian Nationals MP Tony Crook is included.

The three incumbent crossbench MPs and newly elected independent MP Andrew Wilkie are yet to make up their minds on who to support as negotiations continue this week.

Senator Brown says he informed Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of the deal last night.

"He told me that he would attack any agreement we signed up on. I said, that's his right, we have made a decision here," he said.

If Mr Abbott forms government Senator Brown says he will meet with him to discuss how things would operate in the Senate.

Tags: government-and-politics, elections, federal-government, labor-party, greens, brown-bob, gillard-julia, federal-elections, australia

First posted September 1, 2010 09:36:00

Comments (253)

Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.

  • ABC (Moderator):

    01 Sep 2010 10:20:15am

    Are you happy with the concessions secured by the Greens?

    Agree (3) Alert moderator

    • the yank:

      01 Sep 2010 10:24:10am

      Happy? Well maybe, but how could the Greens ever have gone to the Liberals?
      They would not have had any credence with their supporters if they had.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Brian:

        01 Sep 2010 10:51:44am

        True, but they still could have refused to support a minority government by either party making it even more difficult if not impossible for labour to form government.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • the yank:

          01 Sep 2010 11:48:01am

          For sure, without their support Labor had little chance. It will still be difficult for Labor with Katter obviously a Liberal supporter, Wilkie who looks likely Labor but..., and now the other two amigos.
          It will be an interesting three years if any party can actually form government in the first place.

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Tim Hoff:

        01 Sep 2010 11:11:09am

        I'm happy that the ALP has finally shown its hand in getting married to the Greens. Pity they didn't do it before the election because they would have got caned.

        There will be a major exodus of grass root ALP support going to a re-emerged DLP in my opinion.

        This also virtually guarantees the Coalition the support of the 3 Amigos.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Spider Monet:

        01 Sep 2010 11:12:46am

        I think that it's time the Greens had their "vision" costed by Treasury.

        I love a good chuckle .....

        Agree (2) Alert moderator

    • Andrew:

      01 Sep 2010 10:25:26am

      Sounds like the Greens are caving to Labor to me.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Spider Monet:

        01 Sep 2010 11:10:22am

        This is the END of the Labor Party.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • Chase:

          01 Sep 2010 12:00:08pm

          God I hope not. It'd mean the conservatives have won.

          Agree (3) Alert moderator

    • Phil:

      01 Sep 2010 10:25:47am

      Yes, it shows that the Greens and Labor are capable of negotiating with each other, which is the sign of a positive Senate.

      Agree (2) Alert moderator

      • the yank:

        01 Sep 2010 10:53:28am

        When you look at the points they've agreed I can't see why anyone, no matter which party they support, could disagree.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • rob1966:

          01 Sep 2010 11:35:09am

          Agreed. Most of those "conditions" were floated by the Coalition last week as issues to be addressed under the new parliament - so not exactly anything new or particularly exciting.

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • Gruff:

          01 Sep 2010 11:38:31am

          Oh, come on Yank. Securing a back flip on the Citizen's assembly could not have been obtained from the Libs!

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • Jay Kay:

          01 Sep 2010 11:54:27am

          The funny thing is that you're right - everyone should agree on them.. So why on Earth haven't they already been done?

          I'm so glad we've got a hung parliament, as it's producing some very important and obvious improvements.

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Peter:

        01 Sep 2010 11:12:23am

        Fairly sure this deal is just for the one lower house member, the greens in the senate are not bound by the deal.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • bj:

        01 Sep 2010 11:32:03am

        You have a short memory.

        During the last parliament, the Greens and Labor showed that they were incapable of negotiating with each other.

        The country will pay dearly for a Greens-Labor coalition.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jess:

      01 Sep 2010 10:26:23am

      Mostly, I don't think they could have wrangled much more out of Labor considering they'd already said they would support a Gillard Government.

      And they have to keep everything Katter-friendly. What a tightrope!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Andrew:

        01 Sep 2010 10:55:37am

        The Greens know that if we go to a vote again then they will be ripped apart.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

        • Tim:

          01 Sep 2010 11:35:20am

          The polls don't suggest that, and I think the Greens would do just fine if there was another election. It is a sign of political maturity that they can commit to a stable minority government without forcing a radical agenda on to Labor.

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • Andrew:

          01 Sep 2010 12:01:57pm

          I think it is pretty obvious.

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • Mike:

          01 Sep 2010 11:39:13am

          Why would they be ripped apart? The Greens vote was 5% in 2001, 7% in 2004, 9% in 2007 and a bit over 11% in 2010. That seems pretty consistent growth.

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • Stranded:

          01 Sep 2010 11:39:28am

          Please make that happen ... even if the ABC's new political darlings are destroyed !

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • Holger:

          01 Sep 2010 11:46:05am

          I think that's just what you wish.

          First of all, even at new elections, only the house of reps would be up for grabs, the 16 green senators will last (unless there's a double dissolution).

          Adam Bandt might fall out if the coalition preferences him after Labor, true, but that wouldn't be 'ripped to shreds'.

          Finally, the Greens had the best swing of all, people have shown 3 years ago and now again that they want action on climate change. I don't see that changing in the coming months.

          If there are new elections coming up, people might change their vote according to how the politicians have handled themselves with the prospect of a hung parliament. I don't think the Greens have alienated many of their voters (yet).

          Holger

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Chase:

        01 Sep 2010 12:01:55pm

        Well if they can get Wilkie, Oakeshot and Windsor they won't have too.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • pouvoir:

      01 Sep 2010 10:26:31am

      Absolutely and it's very much in keeping with the demands of the independents, which is clever politics by the Greens. A Labor minority government is now looking more likely.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Mr Burns:

        01 Sep 2010 10:57:00am

        Why is a Labor minority government more likely? The Green plus Wilkie is only 75 subtract the speaker is 74. Liberal plus Liberal leaning independents is 76 (and they said they would keep the current Labor speaker).

        What this deal does is guarantee that Labor and the Greens in the senate will block or mangle any legislation put forwards by a Liberal minority government.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Kocsonya:

        01 Sep 2010 11:04:49am

        "A Labor minority government is now looking more likely."

        In light of Katter's recent comments, I think it is unlikely that he would side with Labor. Wilkie was not satisfied with Labor's offer either.

        The Green vote only puts Labor onto equal footing with the Coalition, 73:73. The 'government in waiting' comment from Abbott does actually have merit.

        Either side needs at least 3 of the 4 independents on their side and I can't see any compelling arguments for them to go with Labor. They are conservatives. If they can negotiate some sweet deal for their electorate from Abbott (and he would give or at least promise them anything to get into power), they would thus guarantee their re-election - mission accomplished.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • nutjob:

        01 Sep 2010 11:08:02am

        Remember that one of the considerations that the independents stated was stable government and the ability to work with the senate. With this agreement Labor owns the senate. Even if the conservatives get in they'll have to answer to a progressive senate. I can't see that working and neither will the independents.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • AlanM:

      01 Sep 2010 10:27:43am

      I would have liked a push towards more conscious votes on non-partisan issues. Surprised that there isn't a mention of a conscious vote on same sex marriage.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • John:

        01 Sep 2010 11:12:30am

        You want conscious votes AlanM ? I hadn't realised this was a problem. I know that some members have reportedly not been in good shape after long lunches in the past, but it's hard to say the required "aye" if actually unconscious.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Dean:

        01 Sep 2010 11:32:58am

        These measures a foot in the door

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Walter:

      01 Sep 2010 10:27:59am

      Were these concessions even necessary? The Greens would never in a million years back the Liberals. Bandt even said it before the election! Labor are kidding themselves if they think continually giving ground to the party eating away at their supporter base is a good thing.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • ECD:

        01 Sep 2010 10:52:17am

        This deal means that an ALP government will have a much better time working with the Greens when they gain the balance of power in the Senate.

        Claiming that the Greens would've supported them anyway is true for the one Green in the HoR, but the Greens in the Senate opposed the ETS, so their support for the ALP isn't guaranteed.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • StaggerLee66:

        01 Sep 2010 11:07:58am

        C;mon Walter :) Look to the future...... it's writ large for us all to see today........and after a few teething problems......our children will see Labor/Green Coalition versus Liberal/National Coalition.

        Looks like a win to me :)

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Kieran:

        01 Sep 2010 11:09:52am

        i don't think any of these demands will et away at labors base at all. they are progressive actions that make parliament more open, democratic and fair. furthermore they also open up real action on climate change. this was a reason why many didnt vote labor. I dont see how this is negative for labor or the greens.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • EssJay:

        01 Sep 2010 11:31:02am

        The "swing" to the Greens was largely in part due to Labor voters who could not bring themselves to vote Liberal, and Liberal voters who could not bring themselves to vote Labor.

        It will be interesting to see if the Greens go by the wayside just like the Democrats did. The Democrats became way too cocky and arrogant and ended up destroying themselves.

        So too did the Greens become arrogant and cocky following the 2007 election, and the signs are that they are becoming increasingly so since August 21. Bob, Christine and Sarah have all been gloating about their increased support, but none have acknowledged that a sizeable portion of that support was a "parked" vote.

        Failure to recognise that fact may make them just too complacent.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Jonno:

        01 Sep 2010 11:38:58am

        Wasn't it Sun Tzu that said, Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer...

        This was inevitable yet somehow dumb. As "The yank" said, the Greens could never support a Liberal Govt. So why Labour felt they needed to cave in to them is beyond me. This is just Theatre, its a part of the Psych game in politics.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

        • James:

          01 Sep 2010 11:47:57am

          Perhaps this should not be seen as a 'caving', but more of a 'saving face'. Labor have probably realised their Citizen's Assembly idea was terrible in terms of public opinion, but they couldn't back out since they would have suffered the inevitable media lashing of 'backflipping'.

          This agreement allows them to change their mind under the guise that they 'had to' for the Greens to support them.

          Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Chase:

      01 Sep 2010 10:28:07am

      I am.

      Though there are certainly few Environmental concessions made from a supposed 'one issue party'.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • David Irving (no relation):

        01 Sep 2010 12:03:42pm

        We aren't a one-issue party.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Steve:

      01 Sep 2010 10:29:25am

      They seem to be remarkably restrained.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Mark:

      01 Sep 2010 10:29:37am

      Let's face facts here - the Greens were only ever going to side with Labor and I very much doubt Julia has conceded anything to the Greens that she hadn't already conceded to the Independents.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • g:

        01 Sep 2010 10:58:25am

        Green or independent, what does it matter when the interests of the bush & the environment are at stake?

        Take for example the stock routes that also support bird life, there is no reason why farming and the environment cannot exists together since mining arguably has a greater impact on rural activities in the context of quality of life.

        Agree (1) Alert moderator

      • Sam:

        01 Sep 2010 11:08:05am

        Leaders' debate commission?

        Reform of voting in the Senate?

        I don't think the independents would've been pushing for those.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • StaggerLee66:

      01 Sep 2010 10:29:43am

      Whether one be Labor, Coalition, Green - there is no argument with these points.

      All long overdue.

      Well done.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • lisadp:

      01 Sep 2010 10:32:18am

      Would've been great to see some electoral reform in there too, but I suppose that can wait.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Dugong:

        01 Sep 2010 11:09:31am

        Fixed three year terms and 2.5 hours of debate for Private Members.

        Not unreasonable.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • iryany:

        01 Sep 2010 11:21:00am

        2.5 hours for Private mebers bills, restrictions on political donations
        , legislation on truth in political advertising, the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Committee, a leaders debates commission and a full three year term are all politcal reforms. I doubt these chnages wilol affect how things work much at all, but a small step in the obvious direction nonetheless.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • mark:

      01 Sep 2010 10:32:26am

      It's a good start. Whether or not Labor form Government, it is a much needed step closer to consensus rather than adversarial governance.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Photon:

      01 Sep 2010 10:32:42am

      " Are you happy with the concessions secured by the Greens? "

      Yes it sounds quite sensible to me.

      No doubt there will be rabid right-wingers screaming the usual clichs, but well do our best to ignore them.

      Agree (2) Alert moderator

      • Mark:

        01 Sep 2010 11:50:27am

        As opposed to the rabid Labor/Greens supporters...who are singing about what a great deal this is for cooperative democracy when, in reality, a deal between Labor and the Greens was always a foregone conclusion.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • M:

      01 Sep 2010 10:33:03am

      I'd like to see more detail, but at least most of the points on the list sound reasonable at this stage, e.g. they're supportive of open, accountable government. Contrast that to the shameless pork-barrelling being attempted by Wilkie and the aptly named Crook in their "negotiations".

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Hank Moody:

      01 Sep 2010 10:33:40am

      They seem reasonable and will probably produce better political outcomes in the future.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Hubert:

      01 Sep 2010 10:35:53am

      I'm happy to see the Climate Change Committee dropped, what a foolish idea that was.

      I'm a little concerned that a leaders' debates commission is perhaps reactionary and unecessary but other than that they look OK to me. I had a chuckle at the proposals on truth in advertising and restrictions on political donations. I welcome both but suspect they either won't ever see the light of day or will be gotten around in some manner.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Darrell :

      01 Sep 2010 10:35:57am

      The concessions secured by the Greens include:

      the formation of a climate change committee

      Dont we have one ? if not there is no harm in this. It will be a good place to discuss Abbotts renewable energy policy



      a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan
      Please i would love to hear the Greens solution to this issue ? I would also love to see where they hide if we do withdrawal and something happens in the following years ?


      a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians
      Overdue. But like the Apology ..words dont fix the issues.


      restrictions on political donations
      We already have this, but no harm in making it smaller. greenpeace wont be able to fork over the massive check to the Greens anymore.


      legislation on truth in political advertising
      cant hurt, but the Greens will want to have a good look at them selves and their ads.


      the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Committee
      Sure

      a leaders' debates commission
      Sure, but the greens have to get more than only 12 per cent of the vote to be considered a major party.


      a move towards full three-year parliamentary terms
      Someone worried about losing there job ?


      two-and-a-half hours of allocated debate for private members' bills
      Allocated times for this ...... 7pm to midnight. No one will watch no one will be there. But why not.


      access for Greens to various Treasury documents
      Do any of the other minor parties get access ?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Budovski:

        01 Sep 2010 11:03:31am

        "I would also love to see where they hide if we do withdrawal and something happens in the following years ? "

        Can't be any worse than losing a soldier a week without any clear long term plan. More than likely their plan will make more sense than the completely pathetic "anything you say uncle sam" approach we have had so far.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Bob Chang:

        01 Sep 2010 11:14:38am

        "restrictions on political donations
        We already have this, but no harm in making it smaller. greenpeace wont be able to fork over the massive check to the Greens anymore."

        I've never heard of Greenpeace handing over a massive check to the Greens. Have you got evidence for this?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Spider Monet:

        01 Sep 2010 11:15:32am

        I agree with your points and make the general statements that the Greens will deliever the worst aspects of Labor and if you think that the Labor Party is a party of "reviews and reports" .... you aint seen nothing yet !

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Dugong:

        01 Sep 2010 11:19:57am

        Re: the leaders debates commission

        Didn't the campaign just show that the population prefers a "town-hall" or "Q & A" type discussion to the debates anyway?

        It seems an unecessary expense, unless they also set the rules for those discussions - and the only one I can think of is deciding who from the public is invited to ensure no bias.

        Is it necessary?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • socrates:

        01 Sep 2010 11:27:36am

        Well put - at last some mature, sensible analysis. Would do credit to Antony Green.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Aldous K:

        01 Sep 2010 11:28:29am

        Why ask if other minor parties will get access to those documents?

        Which other minor parties have representation in Parliament?

        The Nationals?

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Budovski:

      01 Sep 2010 10:36:42am

      Good bunch of concessions, good to see they were not electorate specific but rather genuine reforms of process. Hopefully the independents are looking for these kinds of concessions rather than hospital upgrades in their electorate etc.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • g:

        01 Sep 2010 11:03:47am

        Sometimes dealing with specific problems require solutions defined outside the usual process such as funding arrangements for public health and should not be seen as "pork barreling" or electorate specific.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Tim:

      01 Sep 2010 10:39:57am

      Yep, they sound great!! none of it will come to pass tho if the Labor does not form government.... so realy its not really a concession unless they get in

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Andy:

      01 Sep 2010 10:41:39am

      Yes, all sensible ideas.

      In fact some are quite similar to what the independents wanted themselves. Which I imagine means Abbott would have to match most of these to win them over.

      So either way, good news.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Scepro:

      01 Sep 2010 10:41:51am

      It seems that a vote for the Greens really is a vote for Labor. Everybody knew it so it comes as no shock. The concessions are nonsense, mere window dressing, that fail to address no sunstantive issue whatsoever.
      The concervative "independants" should now get off the fence they are pretending to sit on, because it is giving all of Australia a sore bum. Get on with it!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • fehowarth:

        01 Sep 2010 11:15:19am

        I do not quite see what is wrong with the Greens supporting Labor. What does any Green voter have in common with the Coalition.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • PassTheButter:

      01 Sep 2010 10:41:57am

      Would have been nice to get a bit more on the climate change front, but I can understand why that would be difficult. So yeah, overall it looks like a pretty good list.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • whatever:

      01 Sep 2010 10:43:10am

      pfft concessions. the pretence is over, the greens are the official loony wing of the ALP, at least now its official. next election (perhaps soon), voting green won't be a protest, it'll be dangerous.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Satyr:

      01 Sep 2010 10:43:17am

      Would've been nice if they could've moved towards stopping the censorship proposed by Labor.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Mike:

        01 Sep 2010 11:41:15am

        They have already committed to blocking the filter. It's not going to happen.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • R:

      01 Sep 2010 10:43:29am

      Well done, Greens.

      Just show that my vote was NOT wasted.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Me:

      01 Sep 2010 10:43:37am

      Yes except the 'move towards full three year parliamentary terms', I think the system works better allowing for flexibility and elections to be held whenever they are deemed necessary.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • peter:

      01 Sep 2010 10:44:44am


      Most of them sound reasonable to me

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Sam:

      01 Sep 2010 10:45:26am

      Yes, provided it doesn't compromise their ability to negotiate amendments in the Senate.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Michael:

      01 Sep 2010 10:47:40am

      The article didn't mention the High Speed rail study to be completed by July. Very cool.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jim:

      01 Sep 2010 10:48:18am

      Meaningless. Labor has no mandate to govern. The country independents have conservative backgrounds and will support toe Coalition.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • mattdownunder:

        01 Sep 2010 11:55:56am

        73 seats does not a mandate make...the coalition doesn't have a mandate either...lets see how meaningless this deal is by the end of the week.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

      • Sam:

        01 Sep 2010 12:04:23pm

        Yes they do, Gillard is still the PM even if only in caretaker mode. Until she's defeated on the floor of parliament, she has a mandate to govern.

        Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Sin:

      01 Sep 2010 10:48:32am

      Yes. Reform of political advertising and donations in particular, have been desperately needed for a long time.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Luke:

      01 Sep 2010 10:48:56am

      What if the Liberals also agree to these measures?

      Most of these were suggested by Liberal before the election campaign and were rejected point blank by Gillard.

      Basically I see nothing here in concrete that means Bandt should have supported the ALP. The only reasons I see that's justifiable are:
      1) the backroom Senate and HoR deal that saved ALP in key seats and got Greens into more Senate control
      2) Bandt went to the election in Melbourne saying he would support the ALP in a hung parliament

      None of these so called concessions mean squat as the Liberals would certainly approve them all as part of negotiations with the other cross-benchers.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Sceptic Cynic:

      01 Sep 2010 10:49:38am


      I think The Greens have managed to get some sensible concessions from Labor, be interesting to see what happens with the other cross-benchers in the House of Reps.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Mike:

      01 Sep 2010 10:52:26am

      A move towards full parliamentary terms is a good start. Fixed four year terms would be even better.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Nate:

      01 Sep 2010 10:54:03am

      hmm, I realise that sides need to be taken so that we can move past this hung parliament stalemate, but like the Independents I would have liked Adam Bandt to have retain a bit more of his autonomy.

      Where is the conscious vote on Same-sex marriage, Free Dental, or their other policies?

      What have the Greens given up to support this deal? Will they be forced to back Labor on everything?

      If that means the Greens will be supporting Labor's asylum seeker's policy of off-shore processing, I will be bitterly disappointed.

      I would have been more upset (and shocked) if they sided with the Coalition, but I would still like to know what concessions the Greens are making....

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Lewis of The Hills:

      01 Sep 2010 10:55:38am

      What concessions? These "reforms" were going to happen anyway and Bandt's support was a given. No, the real sharp end of the Greens' stick will come when the new senate comes in mid next year. That is when the voters will truly get what they voted for.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • James:

      01 Sep 2010 10:59:47am

      Some excellent ideas coming from the Greens. However, they will now need to be subject to the same scrutiny as Coalition/Labor policies to see how they may actually work (or not work) in the real world.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jesse R:

      01 Sep 2010 11:01:11am

      This is clever politics on the part of Gillard, which is refreshing to see and, hopefully, indicative that she has managed to jettison the strategic influence of whoever was compromising her, her campaign and her party.

      The Greens were always going to side with Labor, but these 'concessions' are positioning Labor as aligned to the kinds of reforms that the independents are looking to enact. Comparatively the Coalition look reactive and compromised.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Sean:

      01 Sep 2010 11:03:44am

      Estatic, but I'm not suprised. There is no way the Green's would go with the Liberals, if they did they would loose a lot of voters. Including me!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Politically Incorrect:

      01 Sep 2010 11:09:04am

      It shows that stable government comes first, despite I like alot of the Greens policies (Denticare, high speed rail, carbon tax) they wern't shoving them in Gillards face which should spell well to keep those ideas open.

      One thing about putting dental care into Medicare, its not only just a Greens policy: Tony Abbott even advocated that in his book Battlelines: hopefully Gillard, Brown and Abbott regardless who wins makes a non-partisen approach there.

      As far as advertising funding limits, I believe Malcolm Turnbull mentioned something like that on Q&A. Looks like there could well be some non-partisen things to work out provided Tony can maintain that level of maturity he had during the election campaign (Im yet to be convinced he can but Im open to being proven wrong).

      Hopefully stuff like this can make politics less of a sport, less of a game and more of a genuine process of finding and implementing the best outcomes for this country.

      My view hasn't changed: I would prefer PM Gillard 2010 so we can get a PM Turnbull or PM Hockey in 2013

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Chrissy:

      01 Sep 2010 11:10:14am

      It's working in Tasmania. No reason for it not to work Nationally.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Ron W:

      01 Sep 2010 11:10:15am

      Yes. Excellent news for the first day of Spring. Breathing easier allready.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • fehowarth:

      01 Sep 2010 11:11:54am

      It is an acknowledgement that the two parties share more than they disagree on. I do not believe the same is true of the Liberals. I am old enough to remember when Hayden introduced Medibank. Every time he hit a brick wall, he went over or around it. Eventually we got an imperfect Medibank. It was changed and improved down the track. It is appears that Ms Gillard is pragmatic enough to accept reality and do what is achievable. Oppositions can be negative and anti with what the government does. In the end they cannot stop what the people want or good legislation

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Sean:

      01 Sep 2010 11:23:32am

      What does "a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians" mean? I know there is still plenty of work to do with regards to our indigenous but I'm wondering what more "recognotion" they refer to?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Billy Bob Hall:

      01 Sep 2010 11:25:18am

      No. The directionless have now put their future (and ours) in the hands of the insane.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jim:

      01 Sep 2010 11:30:45am

      89% of the population did not vote for the Greens. Put them back in their box where they belong. This minority of fringe dwellers should be ignored.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Ste:

      01 Sep 2010 11:31:53am

      This is a betrayal of the ALP election promise for a citizens assembly on Climate Change.

      If the ALP cannot be trusted to hold their election promises for 2 weeks after the election can they be trusted to hold on to any of their promises at all?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • iknow:

      01 Sep 2010 11:37:34am

      NO , certainly not

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jenny:

      01 Sep 2010 11:40:50am

      As an ALP member and elected Mayor, I'm very happy with the deal- every item in the list would be supported by my local ALP members.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Pennee:

      01 Sep 2010 11:59:55am

      These things really dont do much to improve the way most of us live. They are mostly symbolism and more hot air from politicians as they bore us with mind numbing spin! So much for the Greens being about real action.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • pouvoir:

    01 Sep 2010 10:23:51am

    Excellent deal - greens careful not to ask for too much or for anything too controversial to avoid alienating the country independents. Great to see the citizens assembly done away with.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • DC:

    01 Sep 2010 10:24:32am

    What about the "price on carbon"? There's no way the Greens would have done such a deal without this.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Andrew:

      01 Sep 2010 11:05:04am

      What do you get when you mix Labor (Red) with Green? Brown!

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Dugong:

      01 Sep 2010 11:33:59am

      Read it again.

      Yes, they did.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Dan:

    01 Sep 2010 10:26:06am

    What about gay marriage rights? This is great news but I would have liked to see this as one of their demands.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Dugong:

      01 Sep 2010 11:36:00am

      It was one of their demands, but it was rejected.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Peter:

    01 Sep 2010 10:26:16am

    Is having a tall leader the worst thing in Politics? I find it amusing to see the green members trying to squeeze their face on TV around Bobs shoulders. It happened when Peter Garrett was doing announcements too :)

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Peter of Mitcham:

    01 Sep 2010 10:26:46am

    This is exactly what I wanted. I have a long tradition with voting Labor because of a sense of social justice I have. But when I see your Mark Arbibs and co pullling lords and pushing levers it is time to vote green - which I did. As a victorian I say "Take note Mr Brumby" because when it's too late there's no good crying ove rit. To usurp a more melodramatic tone, "Brumby ... hear your people"

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • steve:

    01 Sep 2010 10:27:32am

    It swings Labor to the left. Can't see how the other independents will be overly excited about this.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Peter:

    01 Sep 2010 10:27:53am

    Well there's nothing there thats particularly scarey. I wonder if we'll get the 'reds under the bed' response from the Coalition given what seems to be a reasonably tame list of agreements. The only one they might have a chance on is the access to Treasury documents.

    I just hope they have the referendum in conjunction with the next election rather then a separate poll...

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Dan:

    01 Sep 2010 10:28:40am

    What about gay marriage rights? I would have like to have seen this as one of their demands but oh well. It's still great news. Wait, what's that sound? Of it's the Libs whinging in opposition for another three years.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Terry:

    01 Sep 2010 10:28:52am

    So what do we call them now? The LAG Party?

    Does it mean Bob Brown will be Deputy PM?

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Ron W:

      01 Sep 2010 11:04:37am

      Great News. Great Country. Labor/Greens can lift the spirits of every voter. Well done Julia and Bob.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • oped:

      01 Sep 2010 11:18:57am

      No it doesn't Terry. Read the agreement, which is very clear. It's not like the Liberal/National agreement where a party with less than 10% of the vote gets the deputy PM and several Ministries.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Phil:

      01 Sep 2010 11:28:35am

      Beats the LAFF (Lib and Family First) party. I guess that would make Abbott and Fielding Laffable.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Kerry:

    01 Sep 2010 10:30:22am

    Fantastic! At last we have the beginning of long overdue electoral reform in this country. More open, transparent and accountable government have been Green policies for 20 years but strangely enough they never got much publicity in the media. Hopefully this will be the beginning of a move towards genuine democracy in this country. It is amazing what can happen when you break the tired old two -party stranglehold on politics!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Bob Tee:

    01 Sep 2010 10:31:03am

    I presume that this new coalition deal will also apply in the Senate. That would mean if Labor/Greens did secure government via a majority in the House, they would also have effective control of the Senate after July 2011.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Dan:

      01 Sep 2010 10:49:48am

      Like Howard. And that guy got stuff done! Besdies at least now the LAbor party won't have every bill they try to pass blocked.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Aldous K:

      01 Sep 2010 11:30:06am

      Not at all. Labor has agreed to pursue these things in the House of Reps and back them in the Senate - every other issue will be debated and negotiated as usual. There's no automatic "green light" (pardon the pun) for everything.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • SR:

    01 Sep 2010 10:32:03am

    Looks like a very reasonable and responsible set of demands to me. There is nothing in there that undermines the parliamentary process, and quite a bit that should improve it.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Dugong:

      01 Sep 2010 11:32:40am

      This list is only was approved by Labor - will we the public see the full list of demands, including the ones rejected?

      But I fundamentally agree - a reasonable outcome.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Andrew:

    01 Sep 2010 10:32:16am

    Time to stop this circus and send it to a revote. The Greens will all but disappear and we will get a clearer preference to where people want their vote to go. You can't ask a government to change laws in truth and ask them to break promises in the same breath.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • Tobes:

      01 Sep 2010 11:10:15am

      How will your kids and grandkids look back on this time if we just go back to major party business-as-usual on Climate Change? A lack of creative thinking that could prove to have tragic consequences in decades to come.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Steve:

      01 Sep 2010 11:30:03am

      Absolutely - this a nonsense process - back to the polls now for a clear decision one way or the other.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Yawn:

    01 Sep 2010 10:32:22am

    I am indeed. This can only be good for Australia and reassures me immensely that I made the right decision in voting fro this eminently sensible and froward thinking Green party.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Trump:

    01 Sep 2010 10:33:20am

    I agree with almost all of those concessions - except the "the formation of a climate change committee"

    Can I get on that ? it must be the greatest bludge going, talk all day and do nothing for years and get paid for it. WOW !

    The Greens could have done most of that with the Libs then some of it might get done, Brown can now be assured that NON of it will happen as it all gets the Labor spin and failure treatment........if she gets back in that is.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Sam:

      01 Sep 2010 11:10:07am

      Surely that'd be a parliamentary committee, not the "Citizens Assembly".

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Dugong:

      01 Sep 2010 11:14:14am

      I agree. Didn't we get committee'd to death for the last 3 years?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Christopher:

    01 Sep 2010 10:33:37am

    Overall they seem quite reasonable. I do wonder at what the expected outcome of some of them are, however. I fail to see how a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians will address the material conditions and the humiliation of the intervention in the NT.

    Nonetheless, with the Greens backing the Labor party in the House of Reps and holding the balance of power in the Senate from mid-next year, I don't see how any 'stable government' across houses could be anything but a Labor government. If the Coalition takes office with such a minority, conditional support from Independents, and has a hostile Senate it wont last too long.

    I only hope that the Greens are responsible with the power they have and recognise that though they have the balance of power they do not have a mandate to force their policies through.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mike K:

    01 Sep 2010 10:34:07am

    It is interesting that all the minor parties are pushing for full three year terms. I think there is nothing wrong with the current system in terms of elections - it does give an advantage to the incumbent when the election is called, but it makes sure lame ducks can get removed. The NSW government is a good reason not to go to fixed terms.

    The only way I would accept a fixed term parliament is if there was a 'recall' mechanism - where the people can recall the government to election if it is underperforming.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • jj:

    01 Sep 2010 10:34:42am

    The 'concessions' in the list are mainly relating to process and therefore, while important, not fatal to any arrangement they may enter into. The only policy in the list - climate change committee and scrapping the embarrassing citizens assembly - are small change.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Max:

    01 Sep 2010 10:35:26am

    The Greens have sold out their base.

    I voted for a protest party not a compromise party.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

    • David P :

      01 Sep 2010 11:07:32am

      A 'protest party' does not have a real base.

      The Greens will only grow if they deal with substantial issues in the real world of politics.

      This is what they are now doing.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Spank:

      01 Sep 2010 11:08:04am

      And here in lies the real issue. I think this is going to hit them both very hard at the next election. The Greens can not now be just a protest party....how many true greens will be happy with that?

      Labor will have a lot of pressure to move left....losing their grip on the central ground. Labor have had to move to the center over that years because deep down they know that left policies do not resonate with the majority of the electorate.

      This all smells of panic by Gillard and Labor to me.

      What ever persuasion...very interesting times ahead as the parties all try and be what they are not to please a minority.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • David:

      01 Sep 2010 11:17:01am

      Max, the Greens have been and will only ever be a sub-branch of the ALP, look how Brown leapt to Julia's defense when her push for minority government was based on a higher 2 party preference vote. Consider Brandt's statement from the start he will only support the ALP, the preference deals and so on....

      The agreement was always a foregone conclusion, Wilkie too will also fall into line with the ALP with some other soft concessions regardless of what the Libs come up with.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Jess:

      01 Sep 2010 11:24:07am

      And would you rather the Librerals took power?

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Phil:

      01 Sep 2010 11:27:09am

      No such thing as a protest party once they get elected.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Dave:

      01 Sep 2010 11:43:21am

      The Greens have not sold out their base. They are not a protest party. Lodging a protest vote with a party does not make it a protest party.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Algernon:

    01 Sep 2010 10:35:34am

    There is much commomality with Wilkie here and I suspect that he'll probably back Labor. If that was the case then its looking more and more like a minority Labor government with some very interesting reforms.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Michael:

    01 Sep 2010 10:36:17am

    I agree that all of these are desirable. I would take their last point further, as I believe Treasury should provide full costings (including testing of all underlying assumptions) of all promises made by all significant parties two weeks before the date of an election.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Kocsonya:

      01 Sep 2010 11:32:09am

      "I believe Treasury should provide full costings (including testing of all underlying assumptions) of all promises made by all significant parties two weeks before the date of an election."

      Agreed. The electorate has a right to know how much BS they are fed when parties promise the Canaan during the campaign.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Pas:

    01 Sep 2010 10:37:37am

    I notice a 'price on carbon' was not on the list of demands. Hypocrites ! I think Greens voters are about to be mightily disappointed.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • David P :

      01 Sep 2010 11:05:30am

      Actually, a price on carbon, in one form another, was mentioned in Brown's press conference. Indeed, acceptance of the notion of a price on carbon is a requirement for being on the new body.

      This is a good outcome. It gets rid of the citizen's assembly, which was a disaster, and replaces it with a body that has the potential to make a real difference. A great step forward.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • ECD:

      01 Sep 2010 11:06:34am

      I think they're biding their time until they control the Senate. They're definitely not going to get a price on carbon with a Coalition government, so they're doing their best to secure an ALP government. They'll then wait until the new Senators arrive before introducing their more extreme bills to the HoR.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Billy Bob Hall:

      01 Sep 2010 11:34:13am

      There is already a price on Carbon.

      It is in Australia (Queensland) - Spot Price Thermal Coal :-

      US$82.50 / tonne - (Dec 4)
      US$81.00 / tonne - (Dec 11)


      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Dave:

      01 Sep 2010 11:47:23am

      Pas,

      If the Greens had included a Carbon Tax then it would have been rejected. Better to get rid of the assembly and then have Adam Bandt to put Carbon Tax forward as a private members bill later.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mark from Vic:

    01 Sep 2010 10:37:56am

    missed opportunity for the Greens. Replacing a citizens council with a parlimentary committee, what the??? Further, I am not sure we need a referendum on the recognition of indigenous Australians as much as we need leadership and action. Another round of judgement by way of referendum is surely a bridge too far.
    Most of this wish list, like that of the Independents is as much about their own survival as it is about the Australian people.
    They have crowed about climate change and same sex marriage for as long as anyone can remember. Yet when the opportunity presents itself to get real reform, it passes by without a whimper. Oh how the voters of Melbourne must be now feeling.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Sheik:

    01 Sep 2010 10:39:33am

    The Greens are and always will be wanderers in their own political wilderness. I can't see how any of their concessions will actually help this country get on with what its needs to do - namely encourage business and investment, build better infrastructure, and keep the unions out of politics!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Phil:

    01 Sep 2010 10:39:41am

    Speaking as a Greens voter (this time) it all sounds good - except the full 3-year term. The only time our 'representatives' seem to take any notice of us voters is when there is an election - so more elections should improve our democracy.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Watermelon man:

    01 Sep 2010 10:41:41am

    Minimalist and responsible as they haven't argued for much that isn't just good governance anyway. Big ticks to restricting political donations and truth in advertising and a commission on leader's debates (so commercial interests can't hijack the process eg Rooty Hill??).

    I expect they have (and should have) some policy demands up their sleeve.

    Withdrawl of support for Gunn's pulp mill in Tas, plus the featherbedding of the native forest pulp industry.
    Proper debate, sense and humanitarian action on asylum seekers.
    Proper action on climate change (committee is a start).
    Inquiries into AWB and Iraq.
    Debate on 'alliance' with USA.
    Proper action on water.
    Debate on population.
    Reform and support for public health and education (this will be whiteanted under Abbott a la Howard).

    Etc Etc

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • ACC:

    01 Sep 2010 10:41:53am

    It's difficult to be optimistic.

    "Stable, open and good governance" shouldn't be the objective - as seems to be the case with all parties - it should be the absolute minimum.

    We lack visionary government, and with it, real potential.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • yys:

    01 Sep 2010 10:41:54am

    Not much detail in above article but am surprised the Green concessions are not MORE substantive.

    How is a Committee on Climate change different to a Citizens Assembly?
    My guess, less members (surely not 150?) and maybe some people on the commitee will actually know what they are taling about? Interested in what the nature of the Committee will be - equal representation across all parties? Tri - partisan plus an independant or two?

    Nothing very earth shattering on the Greens wishlist: where have all their deep Green intentions gone?
    If I had voted Green I think I'd be dissapointed with what they have chosen as their
    10 or so wishes.

    What do all you Greeenies out there think?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Aldous K:

      01 Sep 2010 11:34:40am

      It's very early days. You need to remember The Greens have only one seat in the House of Reps, not the four Labor needs to govern.

      The balance of power in the Senate in important, of course, but not quite enough for The Greens to issue a long list of conditions for support at this stage.

      A conscience vote on same-sex marriage needs to happen, and The Greens will put forward their Marriage Equality Bill (a second time) very soon.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Kocsonya:

      01 Sep 2010 11:45:49am

      "Nothing very earth shattering on the Greens wishlist: where have all their deep Green intentions gone?"

      To get *anything* they need Labor in power. They have absolutely nothing in common with the Coalition. They can not afford alienating Labor.

      Furthermore, they have to prove that they are NOT dope smoking revolutionary homo hippies, which is the picture both big parties but prominently the Coalition painted of them. This list is not revolutionary whatsoever, easily accommodated by Labor yet positive enough so that it can deliver a positive image.

      The Greens will have to do a very fine balancing act in the Senate as well. If they go down on the rigid radicalism route, they can turn people who don't vote Green but sympathise with them against them. If they are too mellow or agree with Labor on everything, they will lose their voter base. I hope that Bob Brown has the ability to find the right mixture, otherwise being the balance of power will be not an opportunity but a curse.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • AH:

    01 Sep 2010 10:42:17am

    The concessions secured by Greens appear to be all good that should have been Labor's agenda anyway. Labor has not conceded to any controversial demands such as gay marriage, etc.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • M.M.:

    01 Sep 2010 10:42:30am

    What about internet censorship? Labor needs to give a guarantee that it will never happen.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Fred:

    01 Sep 2010 10:42:40am

    The prospect of the Greens having a large say in Labor policy-making with one Green lower house seat should be frightening for the 89% of people who did not vote for them.

    If given power they will bring the economy to its knees, just look at the basket case economy of Tasmania.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • johnno:

      01 Sep 2010 11:29:57am

      Doesn't frighten me - and I didn't vote for them.

      I didn't vote for any of the other independents either.

      But it looks like, whatever happens, we will get the long overdue reforms that each major party would not implement because they would lose some advantage or the other.

      And I don't mean fake reforms like the so-called charter of budget honesty. Which Costello brought in to stuff up Labor oppositions, but his own side weaseled out when they had to to put their rubbish up.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mellisa:

    01 Sep 2010 10:43:17am

    It's kind of like the Greens reserving deck chair 73 on the Titanic.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • luke Weyland:

    01 Sep 2010 10:43:46am

    One more needed
    - Bandt to lead a left coalition government-

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jeffers:

    01 Sep 2010 10:43:58am

    Certainly not. This is a totalitarian exercise by the far left. The climate change committee will not permit any alternate views to be heard as to the science, ecconomic issues , alternate views. The Tomato party is a dangerous mob .

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Allan:

    01 Sep 2010 10:44:19am

    Definitely happy the 'citizen's assembly' has been dropped. What kind of weird spinnery was that anyway?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Michelle:

    01 Sep 2010 10:44:44am

    I am happy with the Greens deal.

    I prefer referendums on contentious issues. Even if the outcome is not my preferrred one I am happy if I know that the majority voted for it.

    I do think we have enough committees that achieve nothing, as on Yes, Minister, a committee is the perfect way to sound like you are doing something while you actually bury the whole issue forever. People forget and reports are handed down to some junior nobody.

    There is a better chance for results this time however because if Bob ain't happy, he can always block something handy until he gets his results.

    But, on the whole, it's OK.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • LK:

    01 Sep 2010 10:45:15am

    Absolutely. In particular the truth in political advertising is something the Australian voters have needed for many years.

    At present political advertising is exempt from any legislation designed to weed out false or misleading commercial advertising. Both major parties have made full use of this exemption in recent years pedalling blatant liars.

    Go the Greens/independents!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • spark:

    01 Sep 2010 10:45:49am

    Brandt ( an exIndustrial Relations union lawyer ) siding with Labor was never in doubt. I noticed alot of the concessions include commissions and committees, which I'm guessing will provide jobs for the boys, but will the cost to establish these committees outweigh any outcomes? Tax dollars are precious.
    If I were Adam I'd be more worried about the doppleganger on the other side of Bob Brown. I thought I was seeing double.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Richard:

    01 Sep 2010 10:47:06am

    Labor and the Greens may as well sign a formal coalition agreement as the vast majority of green preferences flow to Labor. Together with Adam Bandt's election night announcement to immediately side with Labor I can't really see any point in the 2 parties pretending to be anything but formally aligned. Its like the union movement attempting to con the public that they are not simply a wing of the ALP (or some may argue the ALP simply a wing of the union movement). If we are all pretending that this is a new way forward lets start with removing the deception that Labor and the Greens are anything but a coalition in all but written form.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Tez:

    01 Sep 2010 10:48:17am

    If the greens had supported the CPRS in the previous parlt we'd be on the way to working on climate change, and we wouldn't have a hung parliament.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • asecure:

    01 Sep 2010 10:48:32am

    Inevitable realy, the greens have shown us that we can't trust their politics, they will hold the country to ransom. The labor party, Julia Gillard particularly has shown us that she will do a deal with anyone and make unachievable promises to achieve power. Our system of government has turned into a farce with independants holding us to ransom. Our head of state is an irrelevant foreign royal who has long lost any hold on power on her own country but still holds the power in ours. The greens will have us paing dearly for their idealistic goals in a country of 22m we should be focusing on trying to solve our own problems not world issues that we only represent a tiny fraction of population. This government is doomed and I can't wait until the next election to continue voting against Julia Gillard. The Governor General should step in and exercise her constitutional power, if she doesn't have any then she's a complete waste of money.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • RD:

    01 Sep 2010 10:48:33am

    Bob Brown wouldn't like the title but is this 'laminated Labor'? - maybe someone can come up with a better one that still gets the idea.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jeffers:

    01 Sep 2010 10:48:45am

    So Gillard has broken her stupid election promise about the citizens assembly! The first of many.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • bill:

    01 Sep 2010 10:49:08am

    The live video from the press conference, BoB Brown mentioned a referendum on the recognition of local and regional government. Why was this not reported in the article.
    other media have reported on this.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • mark:

    01 Sep 2010 10:49:09am

    The Greens are literally adopting the term 'hung' when it comes to the future of our great country....no wonder they want to ensure they get a full 3 years to stuff us all!!!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • wow:

    01 Sep 2010 10:49:27am

    A vote for the greens was always going to be a vote for labor, thats why so many people didnt vote!
    Carbon tax is just an excuse for some to make money from the rest of us.
    The Liberals can match and better anything the ALP can do, The coalition much more responsible and give us the people confidence, which the ALP dont!

    Gillard is just the mouth, puts us to sleep with her sloooow, constant, friends, I believe, Tony Abbott this and Tony Abbott that. She makes the story up as she goes! Tony Abbott takes half the time to get the message across.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Danno:

    01 Sep 2010 10:49:45am

    Does this mean that Labor will do anything and change any of its policies in the effort to cling onto power? I really do find it hard to accept a "clear mandate" exists when the party gets only 37.7% of the primary vote. 62.3% (a clear majority) did not vote for them.

    The real benefit with this deal here is that only Labor will get its policies thru the Senate next year when the Greens take control, and that means "stable Labor government" from that point. If Abbott gets the nod now, we will only go back to the polls next July, when none of the Liberal policies get thru the new Senate.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Tim:

      01 Sep 2010 11:45:17am

      A clear majority of the public voted against the Coalition as well. The combined Green/Labor vote however is very close to a majority of votes cast.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • RD:

    01 Sep 2010 10:50:16am

    a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians? Does that mean that the greens and labor do not recognise them currently?

    restrictions on political donations? Will this apply to the trade union movement?

    legislation on truth in political advertising? this will cost all parties untold monies and time in courts and totally bog down the entire political process, the lawyers will love this one.

    Knowing that Julia would sell her mother to become an elected prime minister I would say the Greens could have gone a lot more radical and got away with it.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Tassie:

    01 Sep 2010 10:50:23am

    With the sharing of preferences and these agreements I wonder why the Labor party and the Greens do not have the courage to declare themselves as a coalition

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Chris:

    01 Sep 2010 10:50:36am

    None of the concessions seem to be geared towards personal acquisition of power or the 'me me me' perception I have of the independents, instead focussing on reform and focus on the key issues facing Australia. It confirms my opinion that the Greens bring common sense to Politics.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Sandra Bargery:

    01 Sep 2010 10:50:51am

    Time to dump this wrangling and go to a non partisan Parliament, there are good people in both parties or else go back to a new election. Sort this mess out - Australians have basically rejected both major parties. This negotiating with minority independents is not going to create a stable govt and the sooner we get rid of partisan politics the better.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Steve:

    01 Sep 2010 10:52:06am

    Not happy at all, but it had to happen. Let's hope the next decisions are not as predictable as that one. Let's hope also that some common sense is applied. How can Gillard suddenly have such an interest in stable government and have the nerve to claim that right, when she and Rudd have just presided over one of the most unstable governments in recent times? Absolutely amazing - the gall of the woman and the party!

    Surely common sense will prevail!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • jenbrad:

    01 Sep 2010 10:52:29am

    I don't understand the Greens' heading - recognise indigenous Australians. If they mean, ensure their position as original settlers of the Australia in the constitution, why don't they say so? Or commit to improving their status in Australian society (via health, education, appropriate programs, involvement of indigenous Australians in decisons and so on)? As it stands, it's totally useless - I'd be more specific if I wanted Labor to commit to it. Much as I think both sides have been appalling in recent years on this topic, I'd still like to know what the Greens see as the way forward.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jon Regan:

    01 Sep 2010 10:52:34am

    Fantastic result for the Greens and the country.
    I would like to have a bit of clarification as to what a "referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians" would mean, but I'm sure that will come in time.
    As for the "leaders' debates commission", does that mean that Bob Brown will be part of the debates?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • CMc:

    01 Sep 2010 10:53:26am

    I wonder how effectively the Coalition exploit this Labor/Green alliance with the 3 conservative independents? Although I agree with others that the points are fairly constrained.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Gruff:

    01 Sep 2010 10:54:29am

    Wasn't it Labor who obtained a mandate on climate change at the previous election and failed to deliver. Why exactly are the Greens getting into bed with them?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Bob:

    01 Sep 2010 10:54:41am

    From the moment Bandt won the seat of Melbourne, I think it was obvious the Greens were going to jump into bed with Labor. Anything Bob Brown ever says about the Greens being in any way independent from Labor is rubbish - they're basically a proxy for Labor. I wonder how the people of the electorate of Melbourne feel now? They got angry with the Labor Government, so they voted in a Green, that's done nothing but sell out to the Labor party anyway - anyone in Melbourne feeling like their vote against Labor was meaningless???

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Tim:

      01 Sep 2010 11:42:41am

      I voted for Adam Bandt and given the current circumstances I am happy the Greens have signed an agreement to support a Labor government on supply and confidence. Unlike ALP members, Mr Bandt can still choose to vote against or try to amend any legislation proposed by Gillard. I suspect this gives him more influence than an ALP representative.

      So this is one Melbourne voter happy with this outcome. My vote has made a real difference.

      Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Michael C:

    01 Sep 2010 10:54:45am

    Sure, good policies, all.
    I must ask though, what is meant by "a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians"?
    I mean the word "recognising"....
    What would the question be?

    The plight of the Aboriginal people of Australia is something I care a great deal about. Surely they could use more help than a referendum??
    What about a referendum on the responsible service of alcohol on pension day?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Jesse Smythe:

    01 Sep 2010 10:55:33am

    It was always Greens/Labor. I have concerns about the Greens and now hope that the independents side with the Coalition - The Greens can't be trusted

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Rodent:

    01 Sep 2010 10:56:06am

    It would seem that the ALP/Greens alliance was already factored in as the markets haven't changed since the announcement. Money movement still suggests Tony Abbott is twice as likely to be the leader of a minority government than Julia Gillard.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • ZOOTV:

    01 Sep 2010 10:56:21am

    As if this needed to be reported with the Labor/Greens preference deal. Clearly a Labor political stunt to get the independants onboard.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Bioboy:

    01 Sep 2010 10:56:46am

    No I am not happy. Where's our price on carbon ?
    Once again a political party (the Greens this time) courts our votes with promises of action on climate change, and when those votes get them into power they turn around and say "we'll form a committee" , then do nothing. How could you Bob Brown ?
    Another damaging outcome for our embattled planet.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • WND in Canberra:

    01 Sep 2010 10:56:55am

    Fixed parliamentary terms is a disastrous idea (if that is what is meant by 'full 3 year parliamentary terms'), and should be avoided at all costs.

    There has to be the option of going to the polls in the event that a government collapses and no longer enjoys the support of the House. In a circumstance where a government collapses (for whatever reason - the recent plane crash which killed half the Polish executive is a good example) at the beginning of a term, with no prospect of effectively renewing itself in short order, the Demos MUST be allowed the opportunity to elect an alternative - because the damage that could be done while we wait for the term to expire could take decades to undo.

    And speaking for myself, I am at a loss to explain what the obsession with serving a full term is - having the same people in the same job for a long time does not automatically equate to stability. Elections are crucially important, and relatively painless. And they could be made even more painless by one simple reform: Make the parliamentary parties pay for costs associated with their campaigns - such as travel - from the time the electoral rolls close, and not when they decide to launch their campaigns.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Flavian Hardcastle:

    01 Sep 2010 10:57:40am

    This looks like the sort of stuff the ALP would promise to deliver from Opposition. I don't know how those country independents are going to like more recognition of indigenous Australians, they might see it as a threat to their pastoral leases or something. I'll be fascinated to see how Katter, Windsor and Oakeshott respond to this.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Colin P:

    01 Sep 2010 10:58:53am

    A formal deal with the Greens allows Gillard to go to the GG now and claim she can form a stable, workable government. She doesn't need to wait for the other independents. Why? Because the remaining independents have all said they want stability and so would presummably not vote against the government in a no-confidence motion. That and a workable Senate after mid next year is all that Labor needs.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Ronald Spencer:

    01 Sep 2010 10:58:53am

    At least at the next election the voters will know who they are voting for .A labor + Greens coaliltion or a Liberal + National coalition

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Pierre:

    01 Sep 2010 10:59:10am

    If that's all of it, I think the Greens should driven a harder bargain. This will be a make or break term for their ongoing survival. It isn't lost on Labor that the Greens are a much bigger threat than Abbott. All those on the left of Australian politics who have been for so many years let down by Labor have finally made themselves noticed. But, whilst an alliance with the ALP is more natural for the Greens, they are naive if they don't think their erstwhile ally won't attempt at the first opportunity to discredit them. The Greens would have been wiser to play the independents-type role for a little longer and extracted more concessions.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Solon:

    01 Sep 2010 11:00:01am

    Surprise, surprise!!! The Greens will support the Labor Government!!! Surely this is non-news? Did anyone think they would support the Coalition? Why pompously sign declarations with smirks on their faces? The Green should have kept their distance so their hand could have held more leverage not made themselves into a life buoy for Gillard and Swan's egos.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Angus:

    01 Sep 2010 11:02:27am

    On balance I think this is good. As an aside, the Greens crew look happier about the deal than Julia and Wayne in the photo.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Theo Mackaay:

    01 Sep 2010 11:03:01am

    On the issue of truth in election advertising, it seems to me that two things are needed: (1) amned the Trade Practices Act to "bind the Crown" is all its section - ie, make the misleading advertising sections binding on governments and (2) include political parties in the scope of the Act

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Karen from Qld:

    01 Sep 2010 11:03:17am

    "the Greens did not get Labor to commit to a price on carbon or any move towards legalising gay marriage but Greens Leader Bob Brown says the deal is still a "work in progress".
    Read into that - we will wait till we have the independents on board and then it will be a done deal.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Andrew:

    01 Sep 2010 11:03:57am

    Looks like the signing of the registry, and we know that's never going to happen for either.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mel - Perth:

    01 Sep 2010 11:04:07am

    Sounds like Labor caved in... the Greens have issued demands... it doesn't make Aussies any happier I bet. Nothing in the Greens' demands seem of importance for Aussies as far as my perspective is concerned. Seems like there is demands for more debates and talking between Pollies, blah blah blah..... nothing overly exciting for Aussies! Had they demanded a better deal for Pensioners and the health care system then that would have seemed like they were actually working together to do something for Australians.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • wow:

    01 Sep 2010 11:04:23am

    Lets go to another election now that the greens have shown their true colours!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Lord Haw Haw:

    01 Sep 2010 11:06:29am

    I think that the Greens have done very well for themselves. However, in my electorate the Greens ran an open ticket for their preferences and it surprised me why they didn't sure up their support on their how-to-vote cards before the election. So with the excitement of this new deal, I wonder how the relationship will go after the honeymoon is over?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Brian:

    01 Sep 2010 11:06:45am

    Public servants may well rejoice with this decisions.....However a bad day for business...both large and small. I fear if this coalition ever get power the unemployment rate will steadily rise and standard of living for all Australians will fall

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • bitrich:

    01 Sep 2010 11:07:36am

    So everyone is cheering the end of Labor's central plank on climate change, the Citizens Assembly? Breaking election commitments is ethical?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Maxi:

    01 Sep 2010 11:08:10am

    it looks like to me Greens are trying to help Labor form a government rather than Gillard give in to their demands.

    but what I really want to see is whether Gillard is going to implement her election promise, the so called 'Citizen Assembly' if she form a government without green's demand to dump it.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Perth Boy:

    01 Sep 2010 11:08:27am

    As I have always said, a vote for green is a labor vote. All this talk of 2PP vote, where 80+% of green preferences go to labor, is a joke. They may as well form one party now and be done with it.

    Greens are about higher taxes, destroying the economy. They spruke policies that never had a chance of getting mainstream support, as they had no fear these policies would be scrutinised, it's about time they were. Have their policies been costed and sent to Treasury. If I see Bob Brown acting holier than thou on this issue I will bring up my lunch.

    It's about time that people started waking up to the Greens and, if it is a protest vote you want to make, don't vote, deposit an incomplete form in the ballot box rather than protest against labor by voting green, as this will not make any difference.

    This farce of being held to ransom by minor parties and independants has to end. Both major parties have to try to work it out, rather than pander to them. This, I know is a pipe dream as labor will never willingly relinquish power, even if 500,000 more people vote coalition. Gillard needs to do the right thing, for once, and step aside and put in a competant administration.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • harlequin:

    01 Sep 2010 11:08:32am

    An agreement on nothing very much of substance, but typical of the left side of politics its all very spin-able. Seems to tickle the fancy of a lot of people though. The Labour agreement with the Greens is nothing surprising, they are the more left of Australian society and a perfect fit for the dissaffected Labour voters - very little seperates the two so in effect its what the electorate wanted anyway. Will be interesting to see how the NSW Right factions and Union power brokers can operate under this "green" yoke though! Idealism vs cynicism. I think the economy is in for a hell of a beating though.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • worad:

    01 Sep 2010 11:10:40am

    What a load of crap - Labor and the Greens have always been in bed together, and once the 'three amigos' join them it will be goodbye free speech, goodbye $43B, goodbye infrastructure in cities and hello internet filter, hello NBN, hello boat people, hello gay marriage, hello to $B's for the three amigos electorates and hello the high electricity prices.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Saraswati:

    01 Sep 2010 11:12:01am

    These are responsible, sensible, moderate changes. It's unfortunate that there wasn't a conscience vote on Gay Marriage included with the deal, but we can live in hope as Bob Brown has mentioned that the deal is a work in progress.

    I'm glad the deal is more for the overall good rather than any kind of selfish pork barrelling.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Greg:

    01 Sep 2010 11:12:06am

    I think the Greens are dangerous and people who voted them really don't know what they're doing. I like the idea of the two major parties working together somehow but I don't know how you choose a Prime Minister out of that. Maybe rock, paper scissors!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • drew:

    01 Sep 2010 11:12:47am

    to quote Kath Day-Knight - I feel ecstatic!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • oped:

    01 Sep 2010 11:14:35am

    At least we know the terms of the agreement, which is more than we know about what the Liberals are conceding to the National Party, the WA Nationals and the Qld Liberal/National Party to form their grand coalition.

    These are rather extraordinary times, and what is important is that we are able to have a stable Government for the next three years.

    The Australian electorate has delivered their verdict, and the politicians now have to work with what they have, which will mean negotiations and arrangements.

    What is clear is the scrutiny of our politicians in the next parliament will be intense, and they know that the next election will be a judgment on how these various arrangements have benefited the nation. I would predict some rather dramatic changes in voting in 2013.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • erro:

    01 Sep 2010 11:14:41am

    I think julia is scred and greens are always going to stick together

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • john:

    01 Sep 2010 11:15:19am

    Fantastic. I hope that this really is the end of Labor V Liberal. The signs are positive. The men holding the balance of power all seem to be the right type to remain independent. Greens and Independents will continue to win further seats and we really will have a better chance of representative government. I hope many of you agree

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David:

    01 Sep 2010 11:16:06am

    the greens gave in for basically nothing - just weakened the future of their own political importance.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Thakur of Asind:

    01 Sep 2010 11:16:50am

    The "Agreement" is a good step to the return of the Labour Government under Jlia Gillard.
    I have put some trust in the theory that the ALP has now appreciated that it cannot just have "ideas" without a thorough understanding of how those "ideas" are to be implemented.
    It's particularly saddening that the ALP was so inept in handling the insulation program, the school redevelopment program, and wasted so many millions of taxpayers funds in the rather silly and inept mass payments at the start of the GFC.
    Incompetent Ministers like Peter Garrett must be sidelined as they (and Mr. Garrett in particular) do not have the intellectual power or skills required of a Minister.
    It also would be appropriate to withdraw our commitment to Iraq and Afgahnastan as it is a lost cause. To remain in those two areas is counterproductive and only increases the Arabs primitive and irrational hatred of the West.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Josh:

    01 Sep 2010 11:16:51am

    Well Bob Brown has said it's still a work in progress.

    I'm disappointed to see the environmental policies not mentioned in this deal, however as far as I'm concerned this deal is only to do with the lower house and to do with Bandt backing Labor as the government. There is no mention of him voting with Labor on every bill and as such they will still need to bargain with the greens to get anything through.

    Funny to see the Coalition already calling this a Labor/Greens coalition and rightly so, they'll be feeling very threatened by the Greens. As of July 1st 2011 I believe a Coaltion government will be impossible. And as one of the independents put it quite rightly any government formed is a by-election away from disaster.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Chris H:

    01 Sep 2010 11:17:11am

    I think these concessions secured by the Greens are fair and the dumping of the Citizens Assembly is a great outcome, as a Labor supporter that in my opinion was the worst decision during the election campaign by the ALP, it showed a lack of leadership.

    We vote our members of parliament in to make decisions we dont need this giant focus group on top of them.

    The most annoying thing about this election is Wilkie from Denison having the power he has, this bloke only got 22% of the primary vote and he is holding the country to ransom, if I was either side I would not want to rely on his vote.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Liam:

    01 Sep 2010 11:19:36am

    So, in the end, a vote for the Greens really was a vote for Labor. Those who voted Green, or gave their preferences to them, in trying to make a real statement against the major parties have accomplished jack squat. I notice there's no reference in the above list to the internet filter. If Labor get in and that gets through, there's going to be a rather large number of people who will be understandably pissed at the Greens for their failure to live up to their promises.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • John Keating:

    01 Sep 2010 11:19:48am

    I can see pressure building on Fielding from sources "unknown" to strike down this deal before he leaves the Senate with continuing "supply" becoming an issue with the aim to go back to the polls, particularly if the House of Reps is controlled by Labor. This may also be impacted by up coming State elections that may turn the balance towards the Coalition, invigorating them to support a "supply" forced Federal election.

    I am more concerned about the ongoing Greens agenda than this group of unremarkable changes.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Craig:

    01 Sep 2010 11:20:49am

    Well, the ALP should have stuck to its committment to a CPRS, then this sorry situation would not have arisen.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Andy:

    01 Sep 2010 11:23:31am

    This is exactly the process that should follow from a hung parliament, with each major party trying to form a workable coalition with minor parties and independants. Forget about the media's obsession with who got the most primary or 2pp votes. Perhaps we're now entering a modern multi-party democracy, rather than the current view that we have to accept all or nothing from either of the two major parties.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • dennis:

    01 Sep 2010 11:23:34am

    There is never a more truthful phrase than "what you learn from history is that you don't learn from history." Look how the constituents of the Nationals have been used by successive Liberal Governments allegedly in a "coalition" with the Nationals, except the "coalition" has occurred for 30 years and the incumbent Nationals have nowhere to go but to declare themselves Independent and use the rorts and name recognition of their incumbency to gain re-election as Independents. So the Greens are following suit on the opposite side of the aisle, led by a medical doctor with a lower house barrister too silly to not paint themselves into a corner.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Julian Russell:

    01 Sep 2010 11:24:34am

    This really just represents the Greens arrangement to support the Labor party in a no confidence motion and I assume that there will be ongoing negotiations on each bill, which would really just represent moving the negotiations in the senate down into the house of reps. This wasn't the time for major policy advances - I think the Greens have shown themselves to be a mature bunch.

    People worrying about the Greens having too much power compared to their primary vote: a Labor government can always negotiate a bill with the Liberals if they don't like the Green position on something. Compromise is going to be a fact of life in whatever arrangement we get.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

    • Tim:

      01 Sep 2010 11:39:39am

      The fact is the Green primary vote was about 100 times the votes of the four independents combined, and they are grossly under-represented in the House of Reps compared to say the National Party, who received a fraction of the vote the Greens received. Some reform to our democracy might not be such a bad thing.

      Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Fredsmob:

    01 Sep 2010 11:26:02am

    As Prime Minister, Julia Gillard makes a fine used car salesperson.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • 6c legs:

    01 Sep 2010 11:27:18am

    wow. those damn scary Greens have gone and done it now - can't they see that they'll SEND THE COUNTRY BROKE with <i>unreasonable</i> demands like those!!!

    .../sarc... *off to give em yet another donation--->*

    Happy?
    Hell yeah! LOL

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • xDonx:

    01 Sep 2010 11:28:20am

    I don't see anything to get excited about here:

    the formation of a climate change committee
    - to talk about stuff rather than do anything

    a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan
    - to talk about stuff rather than do anything

    a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians
    - I always wondered about this, do we just have a line-up and see how many australians can correctly pick which people in the line-up are indigenous?

    restrictions on political donations
    - big deal, the parties will just find another source of income

    legislation on truth in political advertising
    - waht? something along the lines of "all advertising must be at least 10% truthful"?

    the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Committee
    - to talk about stuff rather than do anything

    a leaders' debates commission
    - to talk about stuff rather than do anything

    a move towards full three-year parliamentary terms
    - there needs to be SOME flexibility, so that we don't have to worry about changing government at the same time as some sort of national emergency that would be compromised by a transitional phase in government

    two-and-a-half hours of allocated debate for private members' bills
    - to talk about stuff rather than do anything

    access for Greens to various Treasury documents
    - like what exactly?

    there is a lot of 'we will agree to talk about stuff', with no commitment to actually DOING anything about it. While not doing anything limits the chance of stuffing up, inaction is often more damaging than a wrong action.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • neet:

    01 Sep 2010 11:28:45am

    Its a step in the right direction. Even though there isnt a price on Carbon as part of the deal, there is still hope. There is no way a deal would have ever been made with the Coalition and the greens, and if there had been I would never had voted Green again.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • Frank from St. Marys:

    01 Sep 2010 11:29:30am

    The concessions being granted are all well and good, but what I worry about is what the Greens are going to demand should they form a government with Labor. I'm a shooter (target shooting, but not a hunter) and I enjoy the fun when I meet once a month with my friends and fellow club members in friendly competition. The Greens are intent on taking this pleasure away from shooters like myself.

    Considering that cars kill and maim more people in a month than guns do in a year, it makes one wonder when motor sports will come into their sights once they've eliminated my sport. Considering the risks of all this happening, I still prefer Labor in power than what is becoming a farce and a joke that the Liberal party is presenting to Australians.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Big Lou:

    01 Sep 2010 11:30:29am

    What are the Greens going to do with all those treasury documents?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Phil Again:

    01 Sep 2010 11:31:05am

    What else would you expect, the Greens were set up in WA by the Labor party to help them the (labor) get elected. The unions have been funding the Greens across the country for years. The Greens are the radical side of the Labor Party. Perhaps Julia should come clean on this deal in particular the introduction of Death Duties.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Trump:

    01 Sep 2010 11:31:35am

    The more I think about it the more apparent it becomes that this is just a list of subjects for endless talk fests, no wonder Gillard signed off on it, she's an expert in spin and forming useless committees.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Andrew:

    01 Sep 2010 11:32:50am

    Yawn,

    Everybody knew that labor would end up in bed with the greens - this is hardly news and will only add to the dysfunctional operations of the labor party.

    The greens are no longer the 'protest' party - that ship has well and truly sailed and anyone who thought so at the last election was living on some other planet.

    They are a waste of space!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • David:

    01 Sep 2010 11:33:41am

    So Labor just dumps its 'Citizens Assembly' plan as part of a deal with a party that had no intention of even considering a deal with the coalition. It makes you wonder how many of these stupid ideas were real proposals and how many were shake and bake concoctions raised at a moments notice to give the media and the voters something to chew on during the campaign.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • bunyip:

    01 Sep 2010 11:37:20am

    A lot of people voted for them right across Australia. It is only democratic (and we constantly reiterate that we are a democracy) that they should have a say.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Julian Russell:

    01 Sep 2010 11:38:33am

    A price on carbon was part of the deal, in so much as the document had an agreement that a price on carbon is required, without describing any specifics on how and when it will be implemented.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Scepro:

    01 Sep 2010 11:40:03am

    Great insights in the comments being made about the Greenmail outcome. Merely serves to highlight that the aim is power rather than policy, gain rather than the greater good.
    I think we are in a lot of trouble if we are relying on the Greens and the "Independants" to be the agents of change and the architects of policy. It seems that no party and no individual has a vision for a stonger, better, fairer Australia.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Fred Patterson:

    01 Sep 2010 11:40:46am

    Don't you love these Liberals who don't appear to understand preferential voting. The Greens are no more part of the Labor Party than the DLP, whose preferences got Menzies elected, were part of the Liberal Party.
    The Labor/Greens government in Tasmania would appear to be an example of how a minority government could work.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • itsacon:

    01 Sep 2010 11:44:17am

    The Nats must be kicking themselves as they won't get a chance to demand anything. Such is the price of forming a coalition BEFORE the election. Australia is the only country where coalitions are formed before an election and the smaller party always loses. In the rest of the world coalitions are formed post election amid much horse trading.

    Interesting the leaders commission which means leaders debates will include the Greens in future. I wonder if the Nats are considered as a party and have a leader? All other indicators are that they are second fiddle to the Libs and will have no say.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Vic:

    01 Sep 2010 11:48:02am

    Well, what choice did Brown have after Bandt blurted out his support for ALP the first time he was asked by a journalist? I bet he didn't have the authority to do this from his party. I think this agreement is a sell-out by the Greens and it totally dilutes their agenda .. though maybe that's not a bad thing as they will get a 'reality check' about workable policy.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Mike:

    01 Sep 2010 11:48:31am

    Yawnnnn!!! No one saw this coming! Just like no one sees Oakeschott supporting the ALP. Please can we just get back to the polls. This is not what the majority of Australians voted for.

    Agree (1) Alert moderator

  • josh:

    01 Sep 2010 11:52:22am

    The big problem the independants face in chosing who to form government with is the power of the Greens in the senate. If they side with the Coalition they could well face a block of supply and poor us gets to ride another 3 years with no action on anything except politicians pay increases...

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Paladin:

    01 Sep 2010 11:52:56am

    Seems a bit premature to me. If the Coalition can scrape together a gov with the other independents then the one Green in the House of Reps would be better off to support that party surely when it comes to concessions. Then since stability is the number one priority of the Greens, (whch I dont think it is) why would they be thinking of not supporting a Coalition gov at least to the normal extent?

    The Greens and Coaltion are in agreement with the stupid Citizens Committee, I assume the committe they call for is a parliamentary one.

    Debate Afghanistan? will that include the families of lost soldiers and what they think of the work they are doing?

    Why a referundum on the indiginous Australians?...most support us doing as much as we can for them now. We keep getting what we are doing wrong apparently...that needs bipartisan debates with them to get it right surely.

    Do they call the misleading advertising on forestry burn-offs that insinuate its virgin forest being cleared to support their lies, part of the false advertising demand?

    Why only the Greens get access to treasury docs, shouldn't we all see them?

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • nick:

    01 Sep 2010 11:53:37am

    How come Julias and Bobs partners are missing in this significant deal? Are you all joking ,It was done when both party signed the preference deal. Cant believe these 2 mobs are going to run Trillion dollar economy, private sector will not even interview for accountant role.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • john:

    01 Sep 2010 11:57:59am

    This just poves how Labor has sold its soul and will do anything to stay in power.
    Labor has abandoned its ideoligy all together.
    Bob Brown will flex his muscle and watch Labor jump what a sad day for Australia.
    I hope the independants can see through all of this.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • pintopete:

    01 Sep 2010 12:01:27pm

    To answer the "Moderator" - yes. It would appear that it is alright for the Nationals to form a coalition with the Liberals but not so for the Greens and Labor! Oh dear folks!!!

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • PETE SMITH:

    01 Sep 2010 12:01:38pm

    I can not find the words to articulate my feelings on this matter but. I have a strong sense of betrayal. Back to the polls I say.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • wondering:

    01 Sep 2010 12:03:13pm

    the greens have ruined tasmania, i cant believe this is what the australians want

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • Pop:

    01 Sep 2010 12:03:59pm

    Now that we can see that real politics can originate from 'independents and minor parties' and the two main parties don't have to call the shots. It's time to move to a 'proportional voting system' in the house of reps', one vote one value. All voices will then be represented instead of just hearing them outside main media outlets. This will truly lead to a more democratic, better and fairer Australia.


    Pop

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

  • ateday:

    01 Sep 2010 12:07:24pm

    It is a good start.
    Next a policy on population control and we might have a future.

    Agree (0) Alert moderator

Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.

State of the Parties

76 seats required for victory

88.8% counted.
Updated Thu Sep 2 05:09AM
Party % Vote Swing Won Predict
Labor 38.1 -5.3 72
Coalition 43.8 +1.6 73
Greens 11.5 +3.8 1
Others 6.6 -0.1 4

Changing Seats

88.8% counted.
Last updated Thu Sep 2 05:09AM
Time Count % Electorate Held By Margin 2PP % Swing Predict
14:37 93.5 La Trobe L/NP 0.5 50.9 1.4% to ALP ALP GAIN
15:08 86.5 McEwen L/NP 0.0 55.4 5.4% to ALP ALP GAIN
11:23 88.3 Solomon ALP 0.2 51.9 2.0% to CLP CLP GAIN
18:07 81.1 Melbourne ALP 4.7 55.6 10.3% to GRN GRN GAIN
16:38 93.8 Denison ALP 15.3 51.2 16.5% from ALP IND GAIN
17:07 90.3 Bennelong ALP 1.4 53.6 5.0% to LIB LIB GAIN
16:38 89.8 Gilmore * ALP 0.4 55.2 5.6% to LIB LIB WIN
11:23 92.7 Hasluck ALP 0.8 50.6 1.4% to LIB LIB GAIN
16:52 91.1 Macarthur * ALP 0.5 53.0 3.5% to LIB LIB WIN
11:23 92.5 Macquarie ALP 0.3 51.2 1.5% to LIB LIB GAIN
18:54 90.3 Swan * ALP 0.3 52.6 2.8% to LIB LIB WIN
15:22 89.3 Bonner ALP 4.5 52.5 7.0% to LNP LNP GAIN
11:23 87.0 Brisbane ALP 4.6 51.1 5.7% to LNP LNP GAIN
16:52 92.1 Dawson ALP 2.6 52.4 5.0% to LNP LNP GAIN
17:38 92.5 Dickson * ALP 0.8 55.2 5.9% to LNP LNP WIN
14:37 86.4 Flynn ALP 2.2 53.0 5.3% to LNP LNP GAIN
11:23 90.3 Forde ALP 3.4 51.6 5.0% to LNP LNP GAIN
16:08 91.4 Herbert * ALP 0.0 52.1 2.1% to LNP LNP WIN
16:52 89.7 Leichhardt ALP 4.1 54.5 8.5% to LNP LNP GAIN
11:23 91.2 Longman ALP 1.9 51.8 3.7% to LNP LNP GAIN

ABC News Online Investigative Unit

The ABC News Online Investigative Unit encourages whistleblowers, and others with access to information they believe should be revealed for the public good, to contact us.

Election Live

76 needed to form government

88.8% counted.
Updated Thu Sep 2 05:09AM
Party % Vote Swing Won Predict
Labor 38.1 -5.3 72
Coalition 43.8 +1.6 73
Greens 11.5 +3.8 1
Others 6.6 -0.1 4
  1. Cedric the Tasmanian Devil with researcher Alex Kreiss RIP Cedric

    Researchers euthanased a tasmanian devil that was thought to be immune from the deadly facial tumour disease.

  2. US President Barack Obama addresses the nation Video Turning the page

    US president Barack Obama delivers an address to the nation, marking the end of combat operations in Iraq.

  3. 3-D virtual tech helps agoraphobes Video High-tech help

    Sophie Scott reports that Australian scientists are starting to use virtual reality to help agoraphobes conquer their fears.

  4. Does being an early riser make you healthier? Fact Buster

    Was Benjamin Franklin right when he quipped: "early to bed, early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise"?