Those who live in greenhouses should not throw rhetoric

The ‘Red Menace’ of yesteryear has evolved into a decisively smug shade of Green. Forget the Reds under your bed for I am far more concerned about the Greens in their Priuses or, worse yet, on their soapboxes. The other day I came home only to find the unsightly visage of none other than Senator Bob Brown gracing my T.V.


“Tony Abbott is a puppet of big business!” He decried, much like a self-proclaimed prophet standing on the hill preaching to the true believers and curious bystanders who always gather to gawk at the mentally ill. “Tobacco companies! Mining giants! Multinational conglomerates! All have Tony Abbott and the devilish Coalition bowing at their feet! Follow them if you wish to descend into a tobacco and pollution haze of greed and corruption!” Ok, so the often sighted criticism of yours truly being slightly prone to hyperbole may, at times, be somewhat appropriate. This, however, is not one of those times... anyway, moving forward...


Every time I have the great misfortunate of gazing upon Senator Brown’s sickly face it is undoubtedly accompanied with either a self-congratulatory pat on the back or a rampant tirade about how the Coalition are the whipping boys of evil corporate forces, the likes of which who plot against him personally and, more broadly, anyone sporting a liberal agenda. Senator Brown’s paranoia over New Ltd. aside, the good senator does seem to derive a great sense of satisfaction pointing out that the Coalition does receive large donations from ‘vested interests’ (oh how Bob loathes donations, all the while gladly accepting them himself...). The clear inference being that large organisations can throw some money Tony’s way and –Hey Presto! – you have the Opposition opposing for opposition’s sake.


Plain packaging getting you down? No problem! For a nominal fee Tony ‘Action Man’ Abbott will take up the charge and defend your wicked organisation’s vile intellectual property rights...


So this got me thinking. Political parties, by necessity, collect donations to fund their election campaigns, etcetera. It makes sense, therefore, that non-political entities will support parties which champion causes which will lead to beneficial outcomes for them. The unions support the ALP because they believe that Labor will be a voice for the ‘working man/woman’. By extension, business groups will support the Coalition as their core values centre around lower taxation and limited government interference (i.e. the idea of ‘small government’). So far, this all seems fair; no ethical alarm bells sounding... Of course, a supporter becomes a vested interest when their contribution influences actual policy outcomes. For example, ensuring that one of your mates who supported your campaign lands a sweet government contract or that government funds are going to a sector which is a generous donor, even if the allocation of funds is to the determent of the Australian people.


This is the heart of Senator Brown’s criticism of the Coalition. The Coalition accepts money from the coal industry by the form of donations. Tony Abbott and the Coalition oppose the Carbon tax. Ipso facto, Tony Abbott is a slave to the vested interests of the coal sector. In the less astute mind of your typical Green support this may send those aforementioned ethical alarm bells into motion, screeching in a tone almost as annoying as the voice of Sarah Hanson-Young. To your average voter on the street this may raise an eyebrow and warrant a second consideration of the issue, but for the most part nothing more. This avenue of attack, ironically, is now one of the key vulnerabilities of the Greens who, up until now, have largely escaped the harsh spotlight of critical evaluation (nice work, liberal media!). If, however, the Greens want to play in the big league, then there are some serious questions that need to be asked...


The first dark corner which our spotlight must be shone is funding; where exactly is the Green’s money coming from? The renewable energy sector, of course! The green, environmental sustainability sector throws large sacks of cash in Senator Brown’s direction, supposedly because the Green’s want to move Australia to a low emissions economy. Is this really what the Green’s are trying to achieve, though...?


That brings us to the second corner on which we must shed some illumination: the Carbon Tax. Emissions reducing saviour or false prophet aimed at swelling the pockets of those nasty ‘vested interests’? The $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation (colloquially referred to as ‘Green Bank’) is essentially tax-payer dollars being funnelled to approved green initiatives (direct action, anyone?). Now Green Bank is the creation of Bob Brown and was the key sweetener to getting the Greens on board to support this wildly unpopular legislation. Who decides what warrants an acceptable ‘green initiative’ worthy of those hard-earned tax-payer dollars? Why Senator Brown and his ilk, of course! And who do you think those funds are likely to go to? The Green’s largest and most generous financial backers, perhaps? Did I hear someone say “conflict of interest?”


Does anyone seriously believe that those who financially supported the Greens will not be the first in line to collect their recycled-plastic Government funded ‘Green Visa’ from Green Bank, with the Australian tax-payer picking up the tab? Is this not a blatant case of mates helping mates, of vested interests coming before national interests? If you are unconvinced, just considered Senator Brown’s reaction to the use of Green Bank funds to assist in the development of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology. Clearly not the reaction of a man considering all of the options in the nation’s best interest... Is there an allegiance you are putting ahead of the interests of the people, Senator?