Greetings,

Peter Garrett walks a difficult and sensitive line, which is enforced
by the operation of politics and the media in Australia.

It's probably best demonstrated by considering what would happen if
Garrett woke up tomorrow and decided to have a massive rant at a press
conference about uranium mining. I don't like uranium mining, most
people here probably don't like it, and I doubt Peter would have much
love for it either.

The question is - what would be achieved.
1. Garrett would not achieve a change of policy this way. No party
changes difficult policy positions because one individual has a rant.
2. The media would have a field day, attacking the Federal ALP for
disunity, inconsistency and whatever else they can imagine.
3. Garrett's influence and standing in the ALP would be diminished.
His ability to bring about change would be lessened.

Garrett has a reasonable amount of respect in the ALP because he
understands the system. There is a time and place for a good stoush -
conferences that decide policy; caucus; cabinet - but not in the
public eye. When it comes to the public face, political parties have
to present themselves as one unanimous team.

Unfortunately, the political system in Australia does not have the
maturity to accept differences of public opinion within parties - it's
presented and viewed as weakness and dysfunctional conflict (rather
than healthy debate).

Garrett would not have sold out his personal views and perspectives.
It's just that the nature of Australian politics is such that he can
not express these views as freely as he ideally should.

So Garrett works within the broad policy positions established by the
ALP and tailors them as much as possible in a particular direction.
For example, while Garrett can not overturn the uranium mining
position, he can regulate the hell out uranium mines.

Regards

Stuart 'political stooge' Fenech


2009/8/20 Jeff McLean <jeffmclean@internode.on.net>:

It's so interesting to hear what people think of PG these days.

I could take your comments one of two ways, Tom - I honestly don't know if
you're having a dig, or if you're thinking he's doing things cleverly.  In
any case, what follows is not a response to just your mail.

So back to Peter.  I'm glad I'm not him.

The amount of people that have turned from him, after they've consumed a
combined total of about 2 hours of news is astounding.  When you think about
it, I reckon if most of us have sat through 2 hours of news stories about
Peter Garrett, that is probably about average.  That's not a great deal to
form an opinion on.  And even if we have listened to and read just about all
of the stories, we haven't been there to see the cabinet discussions, or
been one of his staffers.  I just don't believe that a man with such strong
previous convictions, that has demonstrated his allegiances with years on
boards of organizations that we admire, can just enter the Labor Party and
say "Bugger my history - I'm going to fall over and do what I can to become
a power broker."  It is almost foolish to think that.

And why have people turned away?  Is it because he sung about politicians
that he considered untrustworthy for so long and is now "reaping those
rewards?"  Did he do too good a job back then??

That interview was bloody marvellous - I'm sure Kerry was almost knocked off
his feet.  Up until the last 2mins he answered every question.  Sure, the
last two minutes were - granted - not perfect, but they weren't shocking
either. He answered the questions properly.  He answered largely without
resorting to oft-tramped out cliches, or repeated harpings in the same
interview.  It was a breath of fresh air.

Sure, he might not be implementing exactly what we all want.  But he is not
the Government.

I'm so glad he's there; I just wish for him that he didn't have to put up
with the pathetic whinings of some of us that expected him to ride in there
and take what would amount to an undemocratic coup on his own party.

Cheers,
Joffa

Tom Spencer wrote: