The Question Mark Hanging Over Peter Garrett.

It had to happen - the Government announces the building of a new US Defence facility in Geraldton,
W.A., and the one person the journalists want to hear from is Peter Garrett. To the delight of the
press, especially the Murdoch rags, Garrett has given his unqualified support to the proposal.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1849337.htm

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21229835-1702,00.html


I know he's an expert on all things environmental, but it might have been smarter to give Garrett
a different portfolio. Thanks to the huge success of Midnight Oil, nobody can be in any doubt as to
where his true sympathies lie (or should that be past tense?). We all understand that in politics
it's necessary to sell your soul for the good of the party, which just begs the question - what the
hell is Garrett doing in any party other than the Greens?

It's impossible to forget all the things he has written, spoken and sung so eloquently in the past,
and it's now equally impossible to avoid asking the question: "was he lying then, or is he lying
now?" The Libs in Parliament yesterday mocked him with sendups of his songs, and the right-wing
press is rubbing its hands with glee. He can no good in his current job, because quite frankly,
it's impossible to believe a word he says. I do believe he was sincere back in the 80s and beyond,
and I can't accept what he's saying now. He just looks like a sellout to me, and I'm sure I'm not
alone.

Give him anything, but not the Environment portfolio.

...watching Peter Garrett recanting all those years of political activist beliefs. But then again, I’ve felt for a long time Garrett has been a bit of a political opportunist. Do you remember his NDP days in the early 80s? No US bases was part of his core beliefs. He has been against US bases in Australia, supposedly, until, oh, yesterday.

I don’t know what to make of Peter. Sure, he has been equally used by politicians, most recently by Mark Latham who recruited him. But Latham was anti-US military bases, anti-Iraq War and it was under that premise that Peter joined the party, or so I thought. Obviously he has been co-opted by ‘New’ Labor, a party that does not find it a problem accepting the bulk of US foreign policy. (Note how Rudd has quickly changed his tune on Australian troop withdrawal. Someone somewhere has been given the word.)

I’ll always love the Oils, their music, their message. Peter was the frontman, not necessarily the idealist of the band, is all I can conclude from his latest disaster.

play.
Dealing with the media is a special case. You really have to learn to read between the lines.
Peter is as passionate now as he ever was.

Peter has been a activist/politician long enough to know the state of play, especially as far as the big parties are concerned. I'll take your word for it that the fire is still there. Meanwhile, I'll haul out my old Oils LPs and dust off the turntable....

because he felt that he could achieve more in a party that could win government more so than with a party that at this point in time doesn't have a chance. Dont get me wrong. I love the Greens and all that they stand for, but sometimes you have to suppress (or postpone)some of your ideals and take baby-steps. I am sure many MPs in the Labor Party would love to stand up and say exactly what they think about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the rest of the US war criminals, but its just not politically astute.

I voted Greens in the last federal election because I think that their policies are morally right and I hope that the party will always be there.

which he thought could better be realised within the Labor Party. But
did he misjudge?

On Lateline last night, Virginia Trioli spoke with Grahame Morris and
Rod Cameron (Liberal and Labor pollsters), and both agreed that right
now, Garrett lacks credibility. The conservatives are laughing at him,
and environmentalist and conservation groups are feeling betrayed. The
transcript isn't online yet, but you can replay the interview on the
ABC's online site.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/

Had Garrett joined the Greens he would certainly have been elected and
been a powerful spokesman for them. It's also quite possible that as
climate change becomes a major issue, the Greens could win more seats
in the Senate and become deal-breakers.

As obvious as it seems that Garrett should be Labor's spokesman for the
environment, given the conditions under which he has to operate, I think
he's only harming himself, the Labor Party and the environmental and
conservation groups because of his very obvious hypocrisy.

We all know that in politics everybody has two faces, but the idea is
that the public isn't supposed to see clearly through the mask.

however, if Garrett had spoken up against the US base in WA, I think he would have played right in to the Howard government's hands. At the moment they are desperate for diversionary issues. They want to get away from the subjects that are on everybody's lips, which are water, disintegration of US/Australian relations, Iraq, David Hicks, global warming and "Work Choices".

John Howard is a very worried man at the moment, but he is still an astute politician and I dont want to see another "Tampa" come over the horizon just as we are starting to ride the crest of a winning wave.

but to follow the party line.

But he's never been just "a bit green around the edges"; he was always
a very powerful voice for minority positions on race, conservation,
the environment, and very, very anti-nuclear and anti-war. If he hadn't
been so successful at what he did, the things he's said in the past
wouldn't be coming back to haunt him now.

Having ambitions is fine, but seeing how things are panning out now, it
probably would have been better if he'd been given another portfolio,
however silly that may have seemed at first glance. Then he wouldn't
be in the ridiculous position he finds himself in now, having to say
that what he previously believed was simply "youthful folly". No -
just over six years ago, at the Sydney Olympics, he was seen live around
the world singing his message loud and clear. He was no youth then, but
a mature man already, and it's all too clear that his principles have
been thrown overboard.

So when he gets up in Parliament now to talk about climate change, wait
for the Downer and Costello show to start up again as they lampoon
everything he says.

And by the way - welcome to DU!

I've been here a long time, but my computer died and I had to get another one and because I went from dial-up over to broadband, I had to change my email address. My old username was Ausgail. The irony of the whole situation about Peter Garrett at the moment is that US bases in Australia is not his shadow portfolio. Its Defence.

I watched the Insiders this morning and it was mentioned that 25 years ago while Garrett was picketing Pine Gap, Brendon Nelson was a member of the Labor Party and John Howard was indifferent to apartheid. With the exception of Howard, over 25 years, some people's opinions can change.

he used to have a lot of hair and swore he'd never voted Liberal in
his life.

Like Garrett, I think his sudden conversion has a lot more to do with
Prime Ministerial ambition than true conviction. In his dreams.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1850156.htm

The Greens are working to get the ALP to give them first preferences. I certainly hope that Labor listen to them this time, as last time's attempt to deal with Family First was a disaster.

I think the ALP should really consider this, as the Greens are closer to them in ideology and parliamentary support than FF.

In fact, if both the ALP and the Greens can start working more harmoniously together, I think good things can happen to this country.

Labor supporters in general have nothing in common with FF, and those
who think would never give them their preferences.

Most of my friends are Labor or Green, and we all think they are natural
allies.

But the boys in Sussex Street never listen to the grassroots.

In my opinion Garrett's prime motivation is not left or green but a kind of paternalistic christianity not unlike the two Costellos.