BY THEIR OWN WORDS: Liberal king-maker Kevin Andrews exposes Greens party menace in gory detail

kevinandrewsgreens Kevin Andrews, the highly-principled Liberal front-bencher who single-handedly set the stage for the change in party leadership that very nearly won them the last federal election, made an important speech yesterday exposing the Greens party’s background, agenda and policy prescriptions.

It is an unprecedented demolition job on the extreme-left party, as its vote continues to balloon in inner-city Melbourne. It’s worth reading the whole thing.

The Greens agenda, in their own words

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP

Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services

Melbourne, November 10, 2010

For many years, the Greens have been treated as a political curiosity. They could win a spot or two in the Senate, but they were absent from the real place of political power, the House of Representatives. That has now changed. Not only will they have more senators from July next year, they also have a seat in the House. More significantly, they are in a formal alliance with the minority Labor government nationally and in Tasmania.

Despite the emphasis on the environment, “the Greens are not a single issue party.”[1] Their objective is clear: “to transform politics and bring about Green government.”[2] The Australian Greens are part of a worldwide movement that is actively engaged in the political process.[3] As their writings state, this objective involves a radical transformation of the culture that underpins western civilization. As a political party, they should be treated like any other political party and subjected to the same scrutiny.

As a political party, [the Greens] should be treated like any other political party and subjected to the same scrutiny.

In order to fully comprehend the Greens’ political ideology, it is necessary to understand the historical roots and foundations of both our own western, liberal democratic culture – and that of the Greens. It this address, I propose to explain the Greens agenda, as set out in their own documents and writings.[4] The paper has three parts: First, a brief examination of the roots of western culture and the origins of the Greens; secondly, an analysis of the Greens ideology; and thirdly, a discussion of the Greens economic, social and other policies.

1. Western civilisation

While shared to some extent by all liberal democracies, Australia’s values have been adapted to our unique setting, moulded and modernised through waves of settlement by people from all over the world. These values and principles reflect strong influences on Australia’s history and culture. They include our Judeo-Christian religious and ethical heritage, a British Parliamentary democracy embracing an earlier Roman understanding of the importance of the law, and the spirit of the European Enlightenment, including a reliance on the empirical and the scientific.

It was Christianity in particular, building on both the Greek and Judeo traditions that insisted on the dignity of all humans.[5] Humans should not be used as a means. Based on the belief that men and women are created in the image and likeness of God, the idea of intrinsic human dignity gradually shaped European civilisation. The idea of human dignity was also propounded by one of the greatest thinkers of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant argued: “Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a dignity.”[6]

Kant’s famous imperative upheld human dignity: “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.”[7] As Michael Novak observes, Kant’s formulation is “a repetition in nonbiblical language of the humanistic half of the essential teaching of Judaism and Christianity: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.’[8]

The centrality of human dignity is reflected in many national and international proclamations. The primary truth, according to the American founders, and held to be self-evident, is the equality of all men and women, derived from biblical belief: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”[9]

One hundred and seventy years later, in the wake of the massive assault on human dignity during two world wars, many in the international community voiced their demand for the protection of human rights. In her narrative history of the drafting of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Mary Ann Glendon describes how, under the leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt, Charles Malik and Rene Cassin, the international instrument based the rights of individuals and their inherent dignity was created.[10] Cassin, a French jurist, conceived the Universal Declaration as a portico – a gateway to a better world – built on the foundations of dignity, liberty, equality and brotherhood.[11] The first words in the preamble of the document reflect the primacy of human dignity: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”[12]

The more recent Declaration of the European Union, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome which brought the union into existence, is explicit: “For us, the individual is paramount. His dignity is inviolable. His rights are inalienable.”[13] Other national and international proclamations of rights are also founded on the integrity and dignity of the individual.[14]

This emphasis on the inherent dignity of the individual reflects not only the Judeo-Christian foundation of the West, but the classic liberal philosophy that underpinned its subsequent development. The notion was also reflected in the development of the Common Law.[15]

The inherent dignity of the individual, as opposed to a post-modern notion of moral egalitarianism, is at the foundation of human freedom. If individual liberty is not predicated on inherent human dignity, then what is its foundation? Anything else is ultimately arbitrary.[16] Once dignity is undermined, freedom is in danger. The consequence is George Orwell’s description in Animal Farm of the loss of freedom: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”[17]

The Greens


In their early manifesto, The Greens, Bob Brown and Peter Singer identify the origins of the Australian greens movement in two strands. The first, well-known strand has its origins in the United Tasmania Group,[18] later morphing into the Tasmanian Wilderness Society,[19] and the election of Norm Sanders, Gerry Bates and Bob Brown to the State Parliament.[20] By 1989, the Greens had secured five seats in the Tasmanian Parliament, and held the balance of power. In a forerunner to more recent events in Tasmania, both major political parties had said prior to the election that they would not deal with the Greens. [21]Subsequently, Labor leader, Michael Field, did so, agreeing to “a raft of social, democratic and environmental reforms in return for the guarantee of office.”[22] Field later regretted the decision, but not before the Greens had set out on a radical agenda.[23] The subsequent advance of the Greens in state and national Parliaments is well-known.

Jack Mundey and the green bans

The modern Greens party however had an earlier origin in the green bans applied by the Builders Labourers Federation in the 1970s in New South Wales.[24] Indeed the visit to Australia by the German activist, Petra Kelly, in 1977, was influential in the foundation of the German Greens.[25] The then leader of the BLF, Jack Mundey, was subsequently invited to conferences in Europe and North America. Mundey, a Communist Party official and candidate, who led the militant New South Wales Builders Labourers union, described himself as “an ecological Marxist.”[26] Speaking years after the Communist Party folded, and a New Left party failed to gain support beyond Trotskyist and anarchist groupings, Mundey prophesised that “in the future there is a possibility of …. what I’d call a Green Red future of socialism.”[27] In addition to Marx and Engels, Mundey was influenced by the overpopulation jeremiad of Paul Ehrlich.[28]

These two strands of the Greens are evident today. What then is the Greens agenda?

2. The Greens are ideologically driven

The Greens operate out of a set of ideological principles and beliefs that extend beyond the warm, cuddly environmentalism they wrap themselves in.[29] While ‘environmentalism’ lies at the core of the Greens ideology, their policies, if ever enacted, would radically change the economic and social culture of Australia.

This has been true from the outset. In the 1970s, Jack Mundey’s BLF campaigned for a range of radical issues beyond the immediate industrial interests of the union. He appealed beyond the blue collar construction workers to the new left alliance of what has become known as “doctors’ wives” and tertiary students and academics.[30]

John Black has analysed Green voters over a series of elections. In a recent report, he categorises Green voters.[31] First, those who vote Green as their primary vote: “This is the Don’s Party group that used to be in the ALP in the sixties and seventies: young university students or graduates, frequently working or still studying in academia, no kids, often gay, arts and drama type degrees or architecture where they specialise is designing environmentally friendly suburbs, agnostic or atheist, often Us or Canadian refugees from capitalism, but well paid in professional consulting or media jobs.”[32]

The Greens operate out of a set of ideological principles and beliefs that extend beyond the warm, cuddly environmentalism they wrap themselves in.

These groups swung more heavily to the Greens in 2010. “They were led by arts, media or architectural graduate, twenty-somethings, atheists and agnostics, Kiwis, the highly mobile university student groups, gays and the Green family group, which is a professional or admin consulting couple with one child attending expensive private schools.”[33]

While the Greens appeal to an alliance of young, tertiary educated students and professionals, the Party has increasingly been infiltrated at the Parliamentary level by members of the hard left. Let me take two examples. New South Wales senator-elect, Lee Rhiannon, is a former member of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Party of Australia. Her parents were prominent members of the Communist Party.

The new Member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, was a radical student activist. He once attacked the Greens as a “bourgeois” party. Writing on a Marxist website in the 1990s, Mr Bandt attacked capitalism, arguing that ideological purity was paramount. It is clear from his 1995 comments – “Communists can’t fetishise alternative political parties, but should always make some kind of materially based assessment about the effectiveness of any given strategy come election time” – that Bandt views the Greens as a vehicle for his ideological pursuits.

Ecological Marxism

There are many descriptions that could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism.” This description sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.” [34]

Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement. By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.

Let me expand.

According to the Greens ideology, human dignity is neither inherent, nor absolute, but relevant.[35] Humans are only one species amongst others. As Brown and Singer write: “We hold that the dominant ethic is indefensible because it focuses only on human beings and on human beings who are living now, leaving out the interests of others who are not of our species, or not of our generation.”[36]

Elsewhere, they equate humans with animals: “The revolutionary element in Green ethics is its challenge to us to see ourselves in universal terms. . . I must take into account the interests of others, on the same footing as my own. This is true, whether these others are Victorians or Queenslanders, Australian or Rwandans, or even the nonhuman animals whose habitat is destroyed when a forest is destroyed.” [37]

What is revolutionary about this statement is not that the interests of another should be considered in an ethical judgment. Judeo-Christian belief extols consideration of others, as does Kant’s Golden Rule . Burke wrote of society being a compact across generations. What is revolutionary is the equation of humans and animals.

Peter Singer expands these notions in his other works on animal liberation. He charges t
hat humans are guilty of ‘speciesism’, that is, preferring their own species over all others. It leads him to argue in favour of infanticide and doctor assisted suicide on one hand; and bestiality on the other, provided there is mutual consent![38]

Peter Singer’s influence is evident in the Greens’ ideology. The author of a series of books, including Animal Liberation, Singer not only co-authored the Greens’ manifesto with Bob Brown, but stood as a candidate for the party in the Kooyong in 1994, and subsequently as a Senate candidate.[39]

The Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement. By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.

Gaia and ecological wisdom

The Green movement projects the whole planet with a spiritual dimension. The British chemist, James Lovelock, described the Earth as a complex living organism, of which humans are merely parts. He named this planetary organism after the Greek goddess who personified the earth – Gaia – and described “Her” as “alive.”[40]

Singer and Brown are correct to describe this as revolutionary. It involves the creation of a new pagan belief system, concerned not with the relationship between humans and a creator, but based on a deification of the environment.

For the Greens, a pristine global environment represents earthy perfection. It underpins their “ecological wisdom”[41] and is at the core of the new ethic.[42] It is to be protected and promoted at all costs. Hence, all old growth forests are to be locked up;[43] logging is to be prohibited; wealth is to be scorned;[44] economic growth is opposed;[45] exclusive ownership of property is questioned;[46] there should be a moratorium of fossil fuels exploration;[47] dam construction should be discouraged;[48] genetic engineering and agricultural monoculture is rejected;[49] world trade should be reduced;[50] and a barter economy encouraged.[51]

It explains why the Greens believe the world’s population is excessive and should be reduced,[52] and why human consumption should be cut.[53]

The Greens also “Call for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be amended to include rights to a healthy natural environment and intergenerational rights to natural and cultural resources.”[54] In turn, the Greens would be able to rely on international courts and fora to press their agenda. It also explains their concept of “intergenerational rights”:[55] It is a concept squarely aimed at the defence of their belief in “Gaia”, or the perfect pristine earthly environment.

It explains why the Greens support the “right of indigenous peoples to self-determination, land rights, and access to traditional hunting and fishing rights for their own subsistence”[56] and reject measures such as the Northern Territory intervention and income management against the efforts of both major political parties.

Faith and belief

For many Greens supporters, environmentalism is ultimately an article of faith and belief. This is no better illustrated that in the controversy surrounding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC]. It has become increasingly clear that the process of “establishing” human-caused global warming has been manipulated by a small group of people, using mutual peer processes, and claiming to speak for many more scientists who had little input and no real opportunity to review the final documents. The closed-shop nature of the process is counter the scientific empiricism of the enlightenment, and marks another significant break with traditional western culture

To Greens believers, this is of little consequence. Ultimately, global warming is a matter of faith.

For the Greens, a pristine global environment represents earthy perfection. It underpins their “ecological wisdom” and is at the core of the new ethic. It is to be protected and promoted at all costs. Hence, all old growth forests are to be locked up; logging is to be prohibited; wealth is to be scorned; economic growth is opposed; exclusive ownership of property is questioned; there should be a moratorium of fossil fuels exploration; dam construction should be discouraged; genetic engineering and agricultural monoculture is rejected; world trade should be reduced; and a barter economy encouraged.

Similarly Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Perhaps one of the most dramatic scenes in the film is the depiction of an ice-wall collapsing. Viewers are led to believe that they are watching footage of an actual collapse. The truth, however, is that the scene was taken from the opening credits of a Hollywood movie, The day after tomorrow.[57]

Despite the fact that a British court found the film contained significant errors,[58] many environmentalists continue to believe it is true. For these environmentalists, the errors are merely inconvenient mistakes that fail to negate the Armageddon the world faces unless drastic measures are taken. Again, this is an example of belief, rather than reason. “Evidence” can be manufactured. Scientific empiricism is a vehicle to be manipulated for a political cause. Worse still, the film is now being proposed for the National Curriculum in Australian schools.

The Greens belief in their environmental nirvana manifests itself in a new coercive utopianism.

Unless we understand the ideological foundations of the Greens, we will fail to effectively address the challenge of their revolution. We will be left debating instrumental outcomes, as if they are based on the same cultural and philosophical foundations that underpin western civilisation. What the Greens present is the cutting edge of a clash within western civilization itself.[59]

3. Greens policies

Let me turn then to some of the Greens policies that flow from their worldview.

In doing so, it should be noted that the Greens have substantially reduced the number of policies that they publish. In 2004, the Greens policy document was 180 pages long. In 2007, it was greatly reduced. Previous policies have been removed from their website without any clear explanation as to whether they remain policy or not. Much of the current policy material comprises anodyne motherhood statements.

Greens policies

The Greens ‘ecological wisdom’ is the principle upon which all other policies are founded. [60] It shapes their views about every aspect of public policy. It is the foundation of their new ethic. [61]


The centrality of the environment is the foundation of the Greens economic policies: “Human societies exist within, and are dependent upon, natu
ral systems; resource management is, therefore, central to good economic management.”[62] For the Greens, “economic development must be compatible with, and subservient to, ecological sustainability.”[63] Consistent with this principle, the Greens advocate high levels of state ownership in the economy and an expanded role for the bureaucracy, including an extensive international regulatory bureaucracy. They advocate government ownership of natural monopolies, and government investment in strategic assets.[64]

It should be noted that the Greens have substantially reduced the number of policies that they publish. In 2004, the Greens policy document was 180 pages long. In 2007, it was greatly reduced. Previous policies have been removed from their website without any clear explanation as to whether they remain policy or not. Much of the current policy material comprises anodyne motherhood statements.

Wealth and taxes

This is consistent with the directions set out by Brown and Singer, who questioned economic growth,[65] advocated higher taxes,[66] sought the introduction of death duties[67] and resource taxes.[68] Wealth is scorned: “Labor and Liberals share the same myopic vision of what they want to bring about for Australians: more and more individual wealth, measured in money alone.”[69] The fact that wealth generation has resulted in economic prosperity for both individuals and the nation, and lifted many people out of poverty is of less significance than the deification of the environment.

In 2004, the Greens proposed to replace the GST with environmental taxes.[70] Although they softened this approach subsequently, their 2007 policies included a commitment to “implement a gradual and long term shift in the tax-system from work-based taxes to taxes on natural resources and pollution.”[71]

The Greens current policies include removing FTB on vehicles, abolishing the Private Health Insurance rebate, taxing family trusts like companies, increasing top marginal tax rates, introducing death taxes and increasing the company tax rate.[72] The Greens are a high taxing party.


The Greens are deeply sceptical of international trade. Australia should remove itself from its bilateral trade agreements[73] and only enter anymore if it favours the developing country. Brown and Singer advocated a new protectionism with “an across-the-board tax on all imports.”[74] The current policy encourages self-reliance and the prioritising of the sustainable production of goods and services from local sources.[75] This anti-trade stance is reinforced in the Greens Global Charter that encourages “the reduction of the transport of goods around the world, in line with a preference for local production.”[76] The World Trade Organisation should be abolished unless reformed to make sustainability its central goal, and it should be subject to a newly created World Environment Organisation with power to impose sanctions,[77] presumably arising from actions under new ‘rights’ inserted in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to include “rights to a healthy natural environment and intergenerational rights to natural and cultural resources.”[78] In their Global Charter, the Greens commit to working “towards establishing an international court of justice specific for environmental destruction and the loss of biodiversity where cases can be heard against corporations, nation states and individuals.”[79]

Nowhere is the Greens totalitarian impulse to impose global governance more evident.

Welfare state

The Greens are advocates of an enlarged welfare state. Brown and Singer proposed “a guaranteed adequate income for all” with no requirements that people look for work[80] and free childcare in the workplace.[81] The Greens would increase the age pension[82] and subsidies for public housing. They are opposed to income management. Their welfare measures would have to be paid for through higher taxes on a nation less reliant on global trade.


The rapid increase in the standard of living of humanity and the reduction of global poverty is largely due to the energy revolution of the past century. We only have to consider a world without the energy sources that fuel our transport, manufacturing, businesses, communications, agriculture and households, to appreciate how readily available energy has reshaped the world in one of the most significant ways in human history. The policies of the Greens would place much of this at risk.

The Greens support a moratorium on all new fossil fuel exploration and development.[83] They are opposed to building any more coal-fired power stations,[84] and would pressure existing ones by prohibiting any public funding of refurbishments.[85] They would also prohibit then opening of new mines or expansion of any existing mines,[86] hence phasing out coal exports, ending one of Australia’s largest export industries, and forcing other nations to use dirtier sources of coal.

The Greens are also opposed to “any expansion of nuclear power” and where it exists, “will work to phase it out rapidly.”[87] This means the ending of the exploration, mining and export of uranium from Australia.[88] They would also close Lucas Heights, and prevent the import or export of all nuclear products.[89]

The Greens would force up the price of electricity and other forms of energy significantly: “energy prices should reflect the environmental and social costs of production and use.”[90] Their reliance on new green energy would be much more expensive for individuals and businesses.


The Greens want farmers to practice sustainable agriculture, but there policy documents are vague and general as to what this actually means.[91] What is clear from the recent discussion of the Murray-Darling basin however, is that greater central planning and less water will be part of their outcome. Farmers will also face rising energy and fertiliser costs, and new and higher taxes.

Ownership of resources

The private ownership of property and resources, which have underpinned democratic capitalism, is questioned by the Greens. In their Global Charter, they propose to “review the relationship between the exclusive ownership of property and exclusive use of its resources, with a view to curbing environmental abuse and extending access for basic livelihood to all, especially indigenous communities.”[92] This smacks of collectivism under a different name.


The Greens would privilege unions, providing more extensive right of entry provisions,
abolish secret ballots for union action, water down independent contractors’ legislation, abolish the Building and Construction Commission, and introduce a minimum of five weeks annual leave.[93] They would allow secondary boycotts and industry-wide strikes.[94] The Greens also support the privileged position of unions in NSW to be able to prosecute work and safety breaches and profit from the actions.

Despite the boast in 1996 that “we do not get money from big business or the bid trade unions,”[95] the Greens have been recipients of substantial donations from left-wing unions in recent years.[96]

Social policies

Population and the environment

The Greens social policies are linked to their belief in the primacy of the environment. Hence Brown and Singer commence their Greens manifesto by reference to the alleged overpopulation of the world.[97] “Little is being done to discuss slowing population growth,” they later complain.[98]

The theme is taken up in the Global Charter, of which the Australian Greens are subscribers, where they advocate “eliminating the causes of population growth.”[99] Elsewhere, they propose limiting the expansion of cities,[100] opposing freeways and imposing eco-taxes.[101] In their policy documents, the Greens state that “population policy should not be driven by economic goals or to counter the effects of an ageing population”[102] This informs what the Greens mean when they insist on “a population policy directed towards ecological sustainability in the context of global social justice.”[103]

Once again, Greens policy subjugates the individual to the environment. It repeats the Malthusian fear of global overpopulation, contrary to the latest demographic evidence.[104] Combined with a rejection of economic growth, the Greens future is the civilisational death already underway in much of Europe.[105]

These policies are evidence once again that the Greens place no intrinsic value in human life, which is merely instrumental, because intrinsic value lies in the environment itself.

Life issues and marriage

This ideology is manifest in the Greens approach to life issues – infanticide, assisted suicide and euthanasia – where a person has a right to commit suicide, and be assisted if necessary. The Greens policies support euthanasia; Peter Singer has been an advocate of it and infanticide; and the euthanasia practitioner, Dr Philip Nitschke, stood as a Greens candidate in the Northern Territory.

Equally, the Greens believe that human (and non-human) relations that are based simply on consensual activity. Hence marriage can be between any two persons, regardless of gender.

Drug laws

In their Greens manifesto, Brown and Singer quote Phillip Adams comments that “we must scrap our drug laws.”[106] “Eventually, Australia, like other countries, will have to make peace with illicit drugs,” they add.[107]

Following widespread criticism of their policies in 2004 to provide addicts with a regulated supply of heroin and ecstasy,[108] the Greens now state that they “do not support the legalisation of currently illegal drugs.”[109] However, they have recently stated their continued support for supervised injection rooms.[110]


The Greens want to restrict non-government education. They argue for the reduction in “the total level of Commonwealth funding for private schools to 2003-04 levels.[111] This would immediately cut funding by $427 million per year to Catholic schools alone.[112] They have also stated that they will place limits on the number of new private schools, and that anti-discrimination laws will be used to prevent religious schools from giving priority to committed practising Christians when employing teachers. They would also move to stop private schools having control over their own enrolments,[113] and end the schools chaplaincy program.[114]

Other issues

The Greens have many other social proposals including the decriminalisation of all prostitution.[115] They also propose to dump the national flag.[116]

Immigration and security


Consistent with their belief that the world is overpopulated and the environment in danger, the Greens want to reduce immigration. The reduction should be in the skilled immigrants, while the number of refugees and humanitarian entrants increased.[117]

The Greens propose an open door policy for asylum seekers. They would increase the number of places, remove mandatory detention laws, abolish the rule against refugees gaining permanent protection if they had spent time in a third country, restore the migration zone to include places like Christmas Island and Ashmore Reef, provide immediate legal assistance to all claimants, and allow free movement around the nation with access to services.[118]

In addition, the Greens propose, “Australia adopts a definition of environmental refugees in its assessment criteria and works in the UN system for inclusion of a definition in the United Nations Refugee Convention.[119]


The Greens anti-Americanism is well known. They would end the ANZUS treaty unless Australia’s membership can be revised in a manner which is consistent with Australia’s international and human rights obligations; close all existing foreign bases in Australian territory and end foreign troop deployment, training and hosting on Australian territory; and reduce Australia’s military expenditure.[120]


The Greens documents speak on “participatory democracy” as one of their foundation principles,[121] but they favour global and central decision-making: Hence the creation and expansion of international bodies, including the United Nations and new world environmental courts.[122]

While Greens leader, Bob Brown, is currently advocating ‘states rights’ to repeal the Commonwealth legislation about euthanasia, and claiming that the decision of the Commonwealth Parliament pursuant to s 121 of the Australian Constitution is undemocratic, he has been an active advocate of actions to override State laws on two occasions.[123] In 1996, Brown wrote: “There are other, virtually untried, powers that the federal government could use to protect the environment. Among them is the power granted under the constitution to the Commonwealth to regulate trading entities, including logging, mining and energy corporations.”[124] Clearly the use of Constitutional powers is good if it is to advanc
e a Green cause, but bad if to achieve an outcome they reject.

The cost of the Greens policies

Unlike the major parties, the Greens policies have not been subject to rigorous costing by Treasury or independent experts. The Victorian Treasury recently claimed that the Greens policies for the state election would cost $20 billion.[125]

In 2007, the minimum cost of implementing Green policies was likely to be over $100 billion.[126]


What is at stake in the Greens ‘revolution’ is the heart and soul of western civilisation, built on the Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment synthesis that upholds the individual –with obligations and responsibilities to others, but ultimately judged on his or her own conscience and actions – as the possessor of an inherent dignity and inalienable rights. What is also at stake is the economic system that has resulted in the creation of wealth and prosperity for the most people in human history.


[1] Bob Brown and Peter Singer (1996) The Greens [Text, Melbourne], [hereinafter The Greens] 192

[2] The Greens, Preface

[3] The Charter of the Global Greens, Canberra, 2001 [hereinafter Charter] 1

[4] I have used the documents that set out the Greens principles and beliefs, as well as their policy documents. There is other documentation that indicates the position of the Greens on a range of matters, such as their speeches and media releases.

[5] For example: “Insomuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me;” (Matthew 25:40) and the commandment to “love your neighbour as yourself” (Luke 10: 25. See also 1 Corinthians 13). Earlier Jewish tradition contained many similar ideas. (Leviticus 19:18)

[6] Immanuel Kant (1785) Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. Lewis White Beck [New York: Library of Liberal Arts, 1959], 53

[7] Ibid., 429

[8] Michael Novak, (2002) ‘Human dignity, personal liberty: Themes from Abraham Kuyper and Leo XIII’, Journal of Markets & Morality, 5 (1) 59 – 85, 67, quoting Leviticus 19:18

[9] United States Continental Congress (1776) Declaration of Independence.

[10] Mary Ann Glendon (2001) A world made new [Random House, New York]

[11] Ibid., 174

[12] United Nations (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Preamble.

[13] European Union (2007) Declaration on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the signature

of the Treaties of Rome [Declared at Berlin, 2007] Article 1.

[14] For example: UNESCO (2003) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights [New York] Article 28; Russia, Declaration on the Rights and Dignity of the Person (2006) [Russian People’s Council, Moscow] Article 2.

[15] See Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case (1608) 7 Coke Rep 12 (a); 77 Eng Rep 392; and Sir William Blackstone, “ Of the nature of laws in general” in Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol 1 [Macmillan, London, 1979] 29-30

[16] See John Locke (1681) Second Treatise of Government, Ch 11, Sec 135.

[17] George Orwell (1945) Animal Farm

[18] The Greens, 69

[19] The Greens, 70

[20] The Greens, 71-72

[21] The Greens, 74

[22] The Greens, 74

[23] The Greens, 76

[24] Bob Brown and Peter Singer (1996) The Greens [Text, Melbourne], 64 [hereinafter The Greens] See also Sara Parkin “The origins and future of Green parties: The UK, Europe and beyond,” in Frank Zelko and Carolin Brinkmann (2006) Green Parties: Reflections on the first three decades [Heinrich Boll Foundation, Washington DC], 31. Note: Although Brown and Singer state that The Greens is “not a formal or official statement of Green policy”, they also say that it is “generally consistent with the policies of the Australian Greens.” (Page 2) As I am discussing the underlying philosophy and policies of the Greens, it is appropriate to refer to the writings of two of the founders and leaders of the Greens Party.

[25] The Greens, 65

[26] Interview with Jack Mundey (October 6, 2000) at: [hereinafter Mundey interview]

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid

[29] See for example The Charter of the Global Greens, Canberra, 2001 [hereinafter Charter] The Charter is a set of “the core beliefs and ideals” that Green parties hold in common: The Australian Greens are members of the Global Greens and were instrumental in the conference and charter. In 2008, the Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown, announced that Australian would establish and host a Global Greens Secretariat and Information Centre.

[30] Mundey interview

[31] John Black, 2010 election profile and some relevant documents, [Australian Development Strategies Pty Ltd, 2010] See also: John Black “Wealthy Greens the new DLP” Online Opinion, June 11, 2010

[32] Ibid, 14

[33] Ibid., 16

[34] Charter, 3

[35] The Australian Greens do not refer to any inherent dignity of the human person. The Victorian Greens state that “every human being has inherent, inalienable human rights by virtue of birth” but it this is not the same ‘human dignity’ as understood in the western, Judeo-Christian tradition.

[36] The Greens, 44

[37] The Greens, 55

[38] Peter Singer (2001) “Heavy Petting”, Nerve

[39] The Greens, 87

[40] James E Lovelock, (1989) The ages of Gaia [Oxford University Press, Oxford] Many environmentalists subscribe to Lovelock’s theory, although many scientists question it.

[41] Charter, 3

[42] The Greens, 51 ff

[43] Greens website, Environmental principles

[44] The Greens, 49-51

[45] The Greens, 43

[46] Charter, 8

[47] Charter, 9

[48] Charter, 10

[49] Charter, 10

[50] Charter, 10 – 11

[51] The Greens, 149

[52] The Greens, 5, 42, 190; Charter, 1

[53] Charter, 5

[54] Charter, 12

[55] Charter, 12

[56] Charter, 12

[57] Noel Sheppard, “Gore uses fictional video to illustrate ‘inconvenient truth’ “ Newsbusters, April 22, 2008, quoting script from the ABC TV (US) program 20/20.

[58] Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2007] EWHC 2288

[59] On the idea of a clash within western civilization more generally, see James Kurth, (1994) ‘The real clash’, The National Interest, 3 – 15. See also Robert P George (2001) The clash of orthodoxies [ISI Books, Wilmington, Delaware]

[60] Charter, 3

[61] The Greens, 51

[62] The Australian Greens: http// hereinafter Greens website. (Accessed November 7, 2010)

[63] Greens website (emphasis added)

[64] Greens website

[65] The Greens, 43, 131

[66] The Greens, 150, 161

[67] The Greens, 150

[68] The Greens, 151

[69] The Greens, 49

[70] In 2004, the Greens proposed more than 40 new taxes. See Jim Hoggett (2004) The Australian Greens’ Election Policies [IPA, Melbourne, September 2004]

[71] Greens website (at August 2007)

[72] Greens website

[73] Greens website

[74] The Greens, 137-145

[75] Greens website

[76] Charter, 10

[77] Charter, 11

[78] Charter, 12

[79] Charter, 10

[80] The Greens, 169. See also Greens website

[81] The Greens, 174

[82] Greens website

[83] Charter, 9

[84] Greens website

[85] Greens website

[86] Greens website (emphasis added)

[87] Charter, 9

[88] Greens website

[89] Greens website

[90] Greens website. See also Charter, 5

[91] Greens website

[92] Charter, 8

[93] Greens website

[94] Greens website

[95] The Greens, 59

[96] See, for example: Matthew Denholm “Greens are our allies: union boss” The Australian, February 24, 2006; and Ben Schneiders “Union bankrolls Greens” The Age, August 18, 2010

[97] The Greens, Preface

[98] The Greens, 42

[99] Charter, 5

[100] Charter, 14

[101] Charter, 15

[102] Greens website

[103] Greens website

[104] See for example: Nicholas Eberstat (2007) Too many people? [International Policy Network, London] and Nicholas Eberstat (2007) ‘Global demographic outlook for 2025’ Speech, Economic Conference on Demography, Growth and Wellbeing , Zurich [American Enterprise Institute, Washington DC]

[105] Id.

[106] The Greens, 177

[107] The Greens, 180 – citing Dr Alex Wodak.

[108] Australian Greens, Policies, 2004

[109] Greens website

[110] See [Hereinafter Victoria Votes] and Farrah Tomazin “Greens hold line on drugs” The Age, June 11, 2010

[111] Greens website

[112] Bill Griffiths, The Australian Greens policy on education – Catholic schools [National Catholic Education Commission, Canberra, August 6, 2010]

[113] Greens website


[115] Stephen McMahon, ‘Greens candidate Kathleen Maltzahn’s plea on prostitution’ Herald-Sun, November 9, 2010

[116] Bob Brown, “Brown calls for vote on new flag” Press Release, January 29, 2010

[117] Greens website

[118] Greens website, Immigration and Refugees policy

[119] Greens website, Immigration and Refugees policy

[120] Greens website, Peace and security policy

[121] Charter, 3 – 4

[122] Charter, 16

[123] The Greens, 39 (the Tasmanian Wilderness Case) and 107 – 08 (the Tasmanian Criminal Law Case)

[124] The Greens, 41

[125] Farrah Tomazin “Greens split on need to have all promises costed” The Age, November 8, 2010

[126] Based on departmental estimates.



Filed under Uncategorized

82 responses to “BY THEIR OWN WORDS: Liberal king-maker Kevin Andrews exposes Greens party menace in gory detail

  1. Wendy

    Brilliant article Kevin.

    I am stunned that this fringe group has an ideology! That should be exposed for what it is. It is appalling that these radicals have ideological values.
    It is also disgusting that they do not represent Christian values and norms. When you look at what Christianity has delivered – the Crusades, the slave trade, anti-Semitism, child abuse – it is incredulous that these non believers should freely sprout values that are anti-family and children (except those tossed overboard).

    It beggars belief too that the Greens consider humans just one of many species. Do these idiots not know God created the earth in 7 days? Melbourne was created on Thursday between 5 and 5.15 pm. Evolution is a nonsense as Kevin rightly points out.

    Finally, Kevin nails those twerps about their trade policies. Of course we should be dealing with Burma, Iran, anyone really. Human rights have no place when it comes to trade. I loved the way Menzies understood this and sold precious iron to our enemies. I only wish he had done more for Nazi Germany in the trade department.

    Great work Kevin. True Christian values expressed here. You’ve exposed these clowns for having an ideology and agenda. My goodness, image in the Liberals and Labor ever did that!

  2. Joe the plumber

    Andrew do you know that that hippie-commie-poof Bob Rbown is speaking to the Melbourne Press Club today

    Bob Brown to address Melbourne Press Club

    ‘Why the Greens are galvanising support’

    WHO: Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown

    WHEN: 1.15 pm, Wednesday 11 November

    WHERE: Melbourne Press Club

    The Windsor Grand Ballroom

    103 Spring Street, Melbourne

  3. Arther conan doyle

    I would like that RDR fellow to offer Kevin Andrews a lift home.

  4. Wendy is a dickhead

    Wendy, I presume you support the current US embargo on Cuba if you hate trade so much. Your sectarian bigotry is breathtakingly stupid. Andrews is not a creationist but putting words into your opponents’ mouth and sarcasm are the only defenses the Greens have once you catalogue their ludicrious policies

  5. Wendy

    Nothing I wrote was sarcastic you merkin wearing buffoon. I said lift all trade embargos and trade with everyone. Read my lips. Kevin is spot on here and his expose of a radical extremist party with an ideology and values is anathema to Christian beliefs.

  6. Wendy is a dickhead

    merkins are comfortable

  7. True Believer

    An article like this was due in. Excellent work Kevin

  8. Bring it on!

    At last, someone who wants to make an ideological and a political death struggle with the greens! Word!

  9. Hawke Hunter

    Mr Hawke and his supporters have split from the Right faction and formed an alliance with the Left, with the result that former Young Liberal president Matt Keane, who is from the Left, will gain preselection in Hornsby on Saturday.

    Says it all.

    Hawke has joined the Left.

    Never before has someone with so little principle, so few values sought to divide and conquer of his own personal gain.

  10. Does ‘ecological Marxism’ represent an advance over ‘Christian values’?
    A hundred million people would probably say no.

  11. anon

    No wonder his Mrs loves to have a wee drinky or two.

  12. Toby2.1

    Kevin – you clearly hate the Greens. Why are you preferencing them in the State Election then?

  13. Adrian Jackson

    Wasn’t the German activist Petra Kelly, mentioned earlier in this article, later murdered along with her husband an senior ex German Army officer?

  14. Adrian Jackson

    I have noticed a trend with Greens candidates at candidates forums that I attended last night for Albert Park District and earlier for the federal electorate of Melbourne Ports.

    If the question is to uncomfortable politically than the candidate says I will have to refer that to the party and my colleagues or a short vague answer is given or the question is simply not answered, like the abortion question last night, or a statement is made that illegal drug injection room are NSW but not part of Victorian Greens policy when Ann Birrell was asked do you support injection rooms in South Melbourne or St Kilda which she did not answer.

  15. Piv

    Thankyou for posting this article Andrew. Although I don’t always agree with Kevin Andrews I must commend the man for drawing his positions from a strong understanding of Judeo/Christian principles and for having the courage to dig beneath the surface and expose the Greens for who they truly are.

    I would be interested to see an intelligent Greens response to this, it would probably confirm Andrew’s assertion of the clash of ideologies within Western civilisiation.

  16. Margie Andrews is a drunk

    Why doesn’t Kevin mention anything in his article about the drinking problem of his spouse?

  17. Kevin - 20 years of nothing

    This was not an ‘important speech’. In fact, it wasn’t even a speech. It was nothing more than an article written by Kevin for his own website.

    Remember this: Kevin would never give a speech because he could never give a speech. He could never give a speech because no one would ever invite him to give one.

  18. Worst MP in the House of Reps

    I thought Kevin didnt spend his time doing anything other than writing crap pieces about bike riding

  19. The underachiever

    Turn it up. This wasnt a speech at all. Its just some online dross written by Kevin. As if anyone would ever invite hi to deliver a speech.

  20. The underachiever

    Kevin didn’t single handedly do anything last year. In fact, the only thing he did was possible cement Malcolm’s leadership for good. There was a clear majority of the party that wanted malcolm gone. yet when kevin proposed a challenge, close to two-thirds of the room decided to support kevin. it was only when anyone other than kevin put their hand up (ie Tony) that macolm was gone.

  21. He who gave us workchoices

    Kevin can try all he likes, but he can’t re-write history. When he was making noise last year, Laurie Oakes gave an editorial about Kevin on channel 9. ‘The man’s a joke’ were his precise words. Forget workchoices and haneef and general incompetence. Its the absolute lack of charisma, personal skills, or relatability to any normal person in the electorate that plagues Kevin.

    To quote Laurie Oaks again: Kevin was an ‘appalling minister’ and a ‘stumblebum’.

  22. The employment minister who cost us government

    Kevin can try all he likes, but he can’t re-write history. When he was making noise last year, Laurie Oakes gave an editorial about Kevin on channel 9. ‘The man’s a joke’ were his precise words. Forget workchoices and haneef and general incompetence. Its the absolute lack of charisma, personal skills, or relatability to any normal person in the electorate that plagues Kevin. To quote Laurie Oaks again: Kevin was an ‘appalling minister’ and a ‘stumblebum’.

  23. He who gave us workchoices

    Last year, L Oakes the most prestigious commentator on television, said Kevin was ‘a joke’. Before that, he called him, in print, an ‘appalling minister’ and a ‘stumblebum’.

  24. The underachiever

    Re The underachiever | November 11, 2010, 14:39

    That should say, when Kevin put himself up as a challenger, two-thirds of the party room fell in behind Malcolm, despite being desperate to get rid of him.

  25. 20 years of nothing

    kevin has been an mp for 20 years. what has he achieved in that time? workchoices? haneef? and what position does he hold now? leader? deputy leader? senior shadow? epic fail kevin!

  26. Green devils dressed in Koala suits

    The Greens in Victoria are not environmentalists dressed up as cuddly Koalas. They are an extreme left socialist organisation whose real agenda is about bringing down the labour government, causing as much social upheaval and disunity in order to impose their political will over the people.

    Monash University politics lecturer Narelle Miragliotta says that while the Greens are seen as inspired by a desire to preserve wilderness areas, this is strictly only true of the Tasmania and Queensland branches.

    ”The thing about Tasmania and Queensland, they did mobilise around charismatic individuals [Bob Brown and Drew Hutton],” she says. The Greens in Victoria and New South Wales came from a broader social justice movement, creating a sort of pan-left party.

    The last thing Victoria can afford is a hung parliament where the Greens hold the balance of power. Victoria is not Tasmania.

    The Brumby Government for all its faults has provided economic and social stability whilst delivering on services to the community. It may not deserve to be re elected but it certainly odes not deserve to be thrown out of office.

    Victoria is better off with an ALP-Brumby Government then the alternate possibilities.

    God Help Victoria

  27. Haneef

    a ‘speech’? that is about as misleading as the time kevin pretended he was the author of a book, when in fact he wasn’t

  28. Wendy

    Well said “green devils”, although I think it unlikely the Greens agenda is about “bringing down the labour government”, unless they are after the Tory’s in the UK, which may be difficult given this is a Victorian election.

  29. John

    USYD Feral Left attempting to subvert the results of the last SRC election.

  30. a-dore (farlow-uher puppy- yes it's time to bring this up again)

    i cant believe kevin andrews beat me to it. ive been working on such a report for months now to put up on facebook. now what iwll i do with all my spare time. I ❤ facebook!!!

  31. RJ

    I’m trying to work out why I should listen to a religious zealout lecturing on about evidence vs faith.

  32. RJ

    @Joe the plumber: No need to use homophobic slurs, thank you.

  33. anon

    Can’t wait to find some rosary beads to defecate on, to illustrate my hatred of idiot catholics like Andrews and Abbott.

  34. True Believer

    Hey underachiever, you should try and do you numbers a bit better next time. How is Turnbull getting 48 out of 83 two thirds of the party room. Nowhere near 66%. Go back to year 6 champ

  35. Zaf

    “It is an unprecedented demolition job on the extreme-left party, as its vote continues to balloon in inner-city Melbourne. ”

    Well, good to see Kevin Andrews is so effective! I guess we all have a lot to learn from him. No, actually he’s a bit of a hoot – the article is so odd that it starts gettin funny about half way through. Who would have pegged him for a comic genius? Either way, he’s fantastic.

    But a quesion for you, Vexnews. I enjoy reading the articles on your website, especially the ones about the Greens – but I can’t help wondering: who is your target audience? Why are so many of your articles about the Greens?

    Clearly you aren’t going to change any Green voters minds with your level of logic and accuracy. Those people might log on to have a laugh, but I don’t see anybody bothering to defend the Green pov here.

    So who is your target audience? The only ones who would take you seriously already believe that the Greens are the heroin using anti-christ in drag, so why would you bother with them? If you are not trying to reach undecided voters (and I think that you aren’t even trying to do that), then who ARE you trying to reach?

    Don’t get me wrong, I really enjoy your website (expeically the articles about the Greens and/or by Kevin Andrews) but I can’t help wondering: what is your objective?

  36. Patrick

    Gee – even most religous people think that Kevin Andrews is few bricks short.

  37. Who ever is posting cross promotional material for C.Sidler, better pull their head in. He ain’t going any further than USyd SRC. I Guarantee personally it!

  38. So what you’re saying is, you don’t have an intellectually sound come back, because Mr. Kingmaker has made an awesome argument.

    *Peasants 0*
    *Mr Kingmaker 1*

  39. Underachiever

    You are absolutely right True Believer. Turnbull did get 48, which means he got 58%, which is nowhere near the two-thirds figure of 66%. pfffft whatever

    Now, True Believer, you must be a Kevin staffer. Because quite frankly, unless you are paid to do it, there is no way you could believe in anything associated with Kevin.

  40. Anon

    This is the most boring thing i’ve ever read, which is pretty much consistent with kevin himself. so, so boring.

  41. Margie Andrews is a drunk

    I need to drink as much as wine as possible. how else could i possibly tolerate life with kevin. he makes the old kevin PM look like a hawiian shirt wearing party animal

  42. Alfred Deakin

    Kevin Andrews – this is a joke surely?

    If the Greens are really the spawn of Satan that you describe, why oh why did your Liberal Party put Adam Bandt into the Federal House of Representatives, and why are they repeating this by putting four Greens into Victoria’s Legislative Assembly?

    When your Liberal Party stop putting Greens into Parliament I might actually think that you believe what you are saying here!!

  43. hic!

    Have another drink Andrews you vile hypocrite. Maybe if you get sozzled enough you will be able to cosy up to your slatternly alko wife and get all ‘family values’ on her ass. Without sherry there would be no offspring in the Andrews household.

  44. sad really

    Clearly Andrews is arguing from an ideologcal position to put the Greens last. You can’t attack him for being in the same party as Ted Baillieu!!

    Judging by the personal and sectarian attacks, Kevin must have won the debate on the greens. Pretty low to attack an MP’s spouse but you’d expect that from greens. They are a bunch of nasty arrogant arseholes.

  45. Kevin is also a drunk

    How many drinks did Kevin drink before spewing out this dribble. OMG – Kevin must have won the debate if all we can do is make fun of him and his wife being a total alko couple. Let’s see what the result is at the next state election then. I’ll bet the farm that Kevin has won nothing, and the greens get their biggest vote ever.

  46. left with no right answers

    Everything Kevin Andrews says is so correct
    the Greens are all for wombats and wattles , but human life doesnt count
    so vote the greens out and vote the ALP out too
    vote for the DLP because they have the right answers!
    The Greens and the ALP stand for fighting each other! but be fair too good on the greens for biting labors derriere!

  47. McPerton

    I too like the odd drink of European Whiskey – please be nice to Margie Andrews – there is nothing worng with being drunk.

  48. Pissy Chryne

    I like stumblebums.

  49. Eugene


    Thanks for publishing the Andrews speech in full. It will be seen one day as a seminal episode in the ongoing battle against the totalitarians. It doesn’t surprise me that a few of your readers have spewed out their vile – without addressing the arguments at all – because someone who stands for something is always a threat to the wannabes and time servers in politics.

    I am not a Liberal (or a Nat) but I have watched Andrews for more than a decade. Because he is not your typical pollie, people don’t know how to deal with him – other than pour out their vile.

    He is one of the old fashioned (and rare) politicians who has put principle above pragmatism. He doesn’t court the media, he doesn’t spend every waking moment on the phone to colleagues, and he certainly doesn’t feel he has to dine with them every night to be important. His moral authority in the party is astronomical – both amongst moderates and drys – because he treats arguments on their merit, and is prepared to state his case, when others shy away from saying what they think.

    The pity of his exposure of the Greens is that it didn’t come from someone in the Labor Party, whose position is being eroded by their cancer, just like it was by the communists. Then again, it was the Liberals who first recognised that happening in Labor.

    The dimwits who have contributed to this discussion by puerile attacks on Andrews should think again. Their comments smack of jealousy of someone who has actually made a difference. As for the comments about his wife, they are beneath contempt.

    Andrew, you often publish a lead of rubbish. But this time, you have published something that is really significant. I wait for a serious rejoinder from someone in the Greens.

  50. Anon

    This is the lamest thing i’ve ever read. do people in the liberal party actually take this guy seriously

  51. McPerton

    Since my divorce I drink a lot of Eastern European Spirits whilst I watch the dirty flics on SBS on Friday evenings, after partaking in luncheon with Fatty.

  52. Nathan

    The nutty left also have an uncharacteristically good demolition of the Greens:

  53. Maths Teacher

    48/83 is actually closer to 50% than two thirds (66.667%). Obviously I didn’t teach underachiever fractions or percentages properly.

  54. Piv

    Eugene @ 23:08, You’ll be waiting a long time for a serious response from the Greens. They prefer insults to reason.

  55. Speedy

    Andrew – a great article, why isn’t this on Page 1 of The Australian? Do the Greens deny that these are their policies and philosophies?

    They can insult you as much as they like, but it doesn’t change the truth.



  56. Roland

    This is one of the most dodgy pieces of argument I have seen in a very long time. Does the man have a brain?

  57. Wendy

    Speedy, the Australian does not normally print the rantings of a dud Liberal racist hack on page one. They do it in the op-ed section.

  58. Al

    Why are all of the troglodytes that are dismissing or attacking Andrews’ piece not actually able to refute any of the arguments and points that he has raised? Why are they only able to revert to moronic statements such as “This is the lamest thing i’ve ever read” and other such drivel? If Andrews’ piece is so “lame”, please disprove his arguments rather than resorting to such childish cretinism.

  59. pathetic spivs

    Do any of you morons, who are attacking Kevin Andrews with little school kid taunts, have any idea what he wrote about or are you all simplistic non-thinking sheep who follow and believe anything the shepherd says?
    If he is wrong in what he says, he will get sued for slander and lose everything he has got, if he is right, nothing will happen and you will all have to eat your words.
    What a pathetic bunch of morons you are, indicitive of your political leanings.

  60. Walter Plinge

    ” Hence marriage can be between any two persons, regardless of gender.”

    Not far enough. To be logically consistent (something Greens find hard to manage) they should also support marriage between other persons whose marriage is currently prohibited. It’s not just same-sex — why don’t the Greens also support marriage for children under 18, between parents and children, brothers and sisters, and persons of severely sub-normal intelligence. There are plenty of 50 year old male teachers who would like to marry 16 year old students.

  61. John

    These two very stark images sum up what Western Civilization is really all about.

    They are featured in the book The Pentagon of Power (1972) by Lewis Mumford.

    Such is effectively the world-view that Kevin promotes, as indeed do most, if not all so called conservatives.

    The same power relentless power drive and its applied politics is described here:

    Note the appalling sado-masochistic snuff/splatter film which prompted this essay.

  62. Walter Plinge

    And, I should add, Catholic priests who would like to marry 12 year old altar boys. Not fair Greens!

  63. Anon

    To Al, pathetic spivs, and other Kevin backers (who must be on his payroll, because no one would have any time for him otherwise, unless they were drunk, like his wife).
    There is nothing to refute. All Kevin has done is set out the Greens’ policy platform. Either that platform is appealing to the electorate, or it is not. I bet the state election shows that it is appealing.
    What about kevin’s platform? he says that under malcolm’s leadership, the party was about to be mauled by the elctorate. who was the MP responsible for party policy all through that time? Actually, it was kevin. once malcolm was gone, kevin was no longer responsible for party policy, and their prospects went up.

  64. Piv

    Jeez Anon @ 15:19, is that the best you can do?

    Kevin is speaking about the Greens philosophy, as laid out in ethics works by Peter Singer, the Greens Party platform (much of which has been remived to hide Greens long term goals) and any number of other new age pantheistic, animistic works which deny the inalienable dignity of human person.

    Greens policy is informed, nay, driven by this philosophy.

    If you couldn’t see that in his speech then there’s not much else we can do for you.

  65. Anonymous

    Kevin was responsible for policy development in the Liberal party from 2007 to 2009. In that time, their popularity dropped to all time low, and the party was seen as having no policy at all. This is hardly a surprise, given his work with Haneef and Workchoices. Then he claims that he has done ‘extensive research’ for this paper. But what has he done, other than read a couple of publicly available documents.

  66. Anonski

    So Eugene, you too must be on the Kevin payroll. How else can you explain not being a liberal or not, but havign watched Kevin for 10 years and believing he is a man of principle and of moral authority. So what part of Haneef impressed you? What part of the racist comments against Sudanese impressed you? What part of Workchoices impressed you? What part of his 2 years as head of policy in the liberal party impressed you?
    You say his speech is a seminal episode. We’ll lets see how seminal when the Greens get their biggest vote ever this election. Kevin has spread this ‘speech’ (actually not a speech, as he didn’t deliver it to anyone) far and wide. Everyone will have read it by then. Lets see how much influence it has. My vote says zero.

  67. mhab

    Most of what Andrews says about the Greens seems pretty reasonable, and something for them to be proud of. But his references to Marxism without any explanation at all seem to be blatant dishonesty. Surely he knows what Marxism is: basically a class-based economic analysis. The Greens are mainly middle-class, and talk in terms of “social justice” and “protection of the vulnerable” – certainly not working class revolution, worker ownership of the means of production, and totalitarian autocracy. So despite the fact this article appears so intellectual, the author’s credibility is totally undermined by blatant irrational sloganeering.

  68. Gerry of Mentone

    Anonski,”actually not a speech, as he didn’t deliver it to anyone”.
    How would you know?

  69. Anonski

    Gerry, its pretty simple really. A – No one would ever ask him to give a speech (unless they were all drunk, which is the prerequisite for his company). B – notice how he doesn’t say where and when he delivered the speech.

  70. Anonymous

    Of course he didnt give the speech to anyone. No one would ever want him to give a speech, unless they were totally wasted. And he doesn’t say who he gave the speech to, or when he gave it. A dead give-away really.

  71. Anon

    Is it just me or is this just a list? Seriously, how is this a well-researched “speech”? It’s no different than some know-it-all greenie publishing in Green Left Weekly a line by line account of every Liberal policy ever published and hoping the shocking facts speak for themselves. Sure, your target audience will lap it up, but what have you achieved? Lightweight!

  72. Dr Dre

    How is this speech ‘well-reasoned’? How is this speech ‘thoroughly-researched’? All he has done is give us a bullet point summary of two documents – The Greens and The Charter – both of which are publicly available. Then at the end, he claims the ‘Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment synthesis’ is at stake. This is seriously lightweight and embarrassing. If this was a year 12 essay, you’d struggle to give it a C+.

  73. Dr Death

    How is this well-reasoned? How is it ‘thoroughly-researched’? All Kevin has done is summarise two publicly available documents. He then claims the ‘Christian/Enlightenment synthesis’ is at stake – whatever that means. This is seriously lightweight and embarrassing. If this was a year 12 essay, you would struggle to give it a C+

  74. Piv

    Well then Dr Dre @ 12:37, seeing as Kevin’s argument is so weak, you’ll be able to impress us with your undergrad ethics and philosophy and demonstrate where he is wrong regarding Greens philosophical positions and clarify what their long term intent is.

  75. Anon

    Piv, that is the point. Kevin is not wrong. Unless he has made these up, all he has done is cut and paste already published policies. As for his “argument”, I’m sorry, I just fail to see one. None of what he says matters. Also, with Ted’s chances rising, Kevin’s backhand intervention on green preferences (in defiance of Kemp) is now seen to be very poorly timed, not to mention hypocritical. Challenging Turnbull aside, if you look at his career, poor judgment has been the norm. Time to join the Tour de France commentary team.

  76. cynic

    The truth is, what KA has done is do no more than put a spot light on the greens policies. If people od not like what they read, have a look at the greens website & read for them for yourselves. If you do not like what you read then do not vote for them. It’s YOUR choice.

  77. Giuseppe De Simone

    Kevin Andrews is a patriot. His analysis is based on a world view with which I agree. The enlightenment arose from a flowering of Christian rational enquiry nurtured in the monasteries and schools. Like most movements, it took a while for the leadership to accept what was inevitable – liberal democracy and the inexorable march of knowledge as precursors to increased well-being. By the way, Workchoices failed because it was too regulatory. While it purported to espouse the true liberal economic values of freedom of association and the right to contract, the legislation created a bureaucracy that took control of the agenda from the government and put real fear into small business. The Haneef issue was an unmitigated disaster for all concerned. The Minister was wrongly advised but courageously took responsibility for the decisions made in good faith.

  78. Anonymous

    Anything that threatens right wing hegemony has to be put down eh Kev? Long live totalitarianism! Does your party have ANY green values? Mikey Robbins is right when he says the ALP and Libs are like two cheeks of the same ar*e; parties with no ideas and outdated and irrelevant policies, stagnant and poisonous.

    The collusion of LAB and Libs in placing green prefs at the bottom of their voting ticket is a blatant example of voter manipulation. Electoral reform is long overdue.

  79. Wise Jim

    I was keen to read Kevin Andrews speech after it was referenced in the mainstream media with the suggestion that if it had been delivered by the mighty Malcolm Turnbull (rather than low profile Andrews) then it would have been lauded as the most credible intellectual demolition of the Greens ever articulated.

    However, I was disappointed and I do not think Malcolm would have delivered this speech because it is lacking in intellectual rigour. A good try by Andrews but no cigar! What was most lacking for me were the absence of counter strategies to the most pressing environmental and resource use issues addressed by many of the Greens policies.

    Blind Freddy can see that the very high standards of living enjoyed by much of the world in 2010 is due to such things as: very high energy use, intensive agricultural practices, clearance of natural environments and free world trade that supports highly questionable practices in developing countries etc. World wealth and the human population is booming as a consequence of growth founded on unsustaible resource use. It could reasonably be argued that humans are now in plague proportions whereas most other species (other than farmed animals and related pests) are now in critical decline.

    Blind Freddy can also see that most of the natural resource exploitation practices that support our current wealth and growth are ultimately unsustainable – oil and gas will soon run out, all land will be cleared, our rivers face salinity, the third world will be grossly polluted. Consequently the output of agriculture will eventually decline substantially. We have a likely future of increasing world wars to fight over ever scarcer critical natural resources and ultimately famine. Maybe this will be in 10 years time, maybe 80 years but certainly before the next 250 years.

    Given that the current policies of Liberal and Labor have blind economic growth agendas that strongly support our current wealth but continue to destroy our planet and hence are at the expense of future generations, then the lack of acknowledgement of the Greens objectives and the failure to offer viable Liberal or Conservative strategies to address these important sustainability objectives was very disappointing.

    Andrews argues that it is good to exploit waning fossil fuels because it fosters ever higher standards of living for an ever greater proportion of the world’s population. Undoubtedly true Kevin but what happens when these very finite resources have been fully exploited? In hindsight in 2101, young Kevin Andrews IV might be thinking that the free market resource exploitation policies of the 20th/21st centuries were not really in the long term interest of human kind.

    To me, the Greens are the party of selfless forward thinkers, whereas Liberal/Labor are the parties to protect and grow my personal wealth. I will never vote for the Greens because I am concerned about their socialist tendencies and potential intrusion into my life, I do not want Australia to be overrun by third world migrants that threaten our cultural values, and because I am a greedy bastard that wants to maximise my wealth without much consideration for future generations not yet born.

    However, I very much understand and respect the Greens environmentally-based world view without the need to pseudo-intellectually dismiss it as anti Judeo-Christian or a threat to human dignity. Rather it could be better argued as the embodiment of human learning through science.

  80. ‎”According to the Greens ideology, human dignity is neither inherent, nor absolute, but relevant” … isn’t the word he is searching for “relative”? Not the brightest candle on the cake is he?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s