This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/03/the-australia-institute-is-out-to-get-christine-milne-thats-a-fools-strategy

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The Australia Institute is out to get Christine Milne. That's a fool's strategy The Australia Institute is out to get Christine Milne. That's a fool's strategy
(35 minutes later)
The Australia Institute has long played an important role in our national political debate, pushing the boundaries of discussion into new territory and taking on sacred cows. Recently, it has contributed valuably to the fossil fuel divestment push started by 350.org, and continued its excellent work highlighting the stark difference between how the mining industry is portrayed and what it actually contributes.The Australia Institute has long played an important role in our national political debate, pushing the boundaries of discussion into new territory and taking on sacred cows. Recently, it has contributed valuably to the fossil fuel divestment push started by 350.org, and continued its excellent work highlighting the stark difference between how the mining industry is portrayed and what it actually contributes.
That’s why serious questions need to be asked about its current political strategy. Why has it allowed the personal animosity that Richard Denniss and Ben Oquist hold towards Christine Milne to take the Australia Institute into dangerous territory, attacking the Greens and shackling itself to an unpredictable, populist coal mining billionaire?That’s why serious questions need to be asked about its current political strategy. Why has it allowed the personal animosity that Richard Denniss and Ben Oquist hold towards Christine Milne to take the Australia Institute into dangerous territory, attacking the Greens and shackling itself to an unpredictable, populist coal mining billionaire?
After years of Clive Hamilton working to expose John Howard’s greenhouse mafia and their figleaf policies – such as the greenhouse gas abatement program – why is The Australia Institute now shepherding direct action, a policy which looks a lot like Howard’s GGAP all over again? Why hand billions of dollars to polluters with no guarantee that the climate will benefit at all?After years of Clive Hamilton working to expose John Howard’s greenhouse mafia and their figleaf policies – such as the greenhouse gas abatement program – why is The Australia Institute now shepherding direct action, a policy which looks a lot like Howard’s GGAP all over again? Why hand billions of dollars to polluters with no guarantee that the climate will benefit at all?
It is worth acknowledging that, for an organisation such as the Australia Institute, independence is vital. If it becomes seen as politically partisan, it does lose some of its cachet. A side-step away from the Greens and a willingness to work with others is entirely reasonable. It would indeed be tremendously strategically useful if we had an independent think tank, once again seriously pushing the boundaries of our debate out towards the left.It is worth acknowledging that, for an organisation such as the Australia Institute, independence is vital. If it becomes seen as politically partisan, it does lose some of its cachet. A side-step away from the Greens and a willingness to work with others is entirely reasonable. It would indeed be tremendously strategically useful if we had an independent think tank, once again seriously pushing the boundaries of our debate out towards the left.
Rather than take this sensible road, the Australia Institute has swung in the opposite direction, with Oquist taking on the role of Palmer’s de facto chief of staff. Denniss has been writing op-ed after op-ed, doing interview after interview, attacking Milne’s political strategy.Rather than take this sensible road, the Australia Institute has swung in the opposite direction, with Oquist taking on the role of Palmer’s de facto chief of staff. Denniss has been writing op-ed after op-ed, doing interview after interview, attacking Milne’s political strategy.
Take Denniss’s critique of the Greens Party Room’s consensus decision several months ago to choose not to support reindexation of petrol excise, while the mining industry continued to get off scot free with its hugely generous diesel fuel rebate intact. It is legitimate to critique this on policy grounds, of course, although it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Institute’s relationship with a mining baron might have influenced its position.Take Denniss’s critique of the Greens Party Room’s consensus decision several months ago to choose not to support reindexation of petrol excise, while the mining industry continued to get off scot free with its hugely generous diesel fuel rebate intact. It is legitimate to critique this on policy grounds, of course, although it is hard to escape the conclusion that the Institute’s relationship with a mining baron might have influenced its position.
Denniss’s attacks on Milne, painting her as the obstructionist head of a protest party, go beyond policy critique. By casting the Greens’ party room decision as belonging to Milne alone and hurling invective, Denniss turns it into a very deliberate tactic to undermine her leadership.Denniss’s attacks on Milne, painting her as the obstructionist head of a protest party, go beyond policy critique. By casting the Greens’ party room decision as belonging to Milne alone and hurling invective, Denniss turns it into a very deliberate tactic to undermine her leadership.
The giveaway is his ludicrous claim that Milne could have somehow convinced the Abbott government to increase the renewable energy target in exchange for support for reindexing fuel excise. Beg pardon? Tony Abbott calls coal “good for humanity”. Joe Hockey calls wind farms “offensive”. A barrage of other ministers and backbenchers pile on all the myths about wind and solar power ever invented. The idea that Abbott might have been open to such a deal is sheer fantasy.The giveaway is his ludicrous claim that Milne could have somehow convinced the Abbott government to increase the renewable energy target in exchange for support for reindexing fuel excise. Beg pardon? Tony Abbott calls coal “good for humanity”. Joe Hockey calls wind farms “offensive”. A barrage of other ministers and backbenchers pile on all the myths about wind and solar power ever invented. The idea that Abbott might have been open to such a deal is sheer fantasy.
Denniss must know it is fantasy, or he, Oquist and Palmer would have negotiated that outcome in exchange for the much more politically valuable direct action policy, instead of caving in and letting it pass in exchange for a “review of emissions trading” which the government has already pledged to ignore.Denniss must know it is fantasy, or he, Oquist and Palmer would have negotiated that outcome in exchange for the much more politically valuable direct action policy, instead of caving in and letting it pass in exchange for a “review of emissions trading” which the government has already pledged to ignore.
The fact that Denniss has filed several columns on the fuel tax question months after the fact suggest it is a deliberate tactic to direct dissatisfaction towards Milne, just as the institute was getting ready to cut a deal that would anger a lot of people who care about the environment.The fact that Denniss has filed several columns on the fuel tax question months after the fact suggest it is a deliberate tactic to direct dissatisfaction towards Milne, just as the institute was getting ready to cut a deal that would anger a lot of people who care about the environment.
It also comes very soon after Milne and her colleague Larissa Waters spectacularly outflanked and out-manoeuvred Oquist and Palmer to deliver a win for the environment.It also comes very soon after Milne and her colleague Larissa Waters spectacularly outflanked and out-manoeuvred Oquist and Palmer to deliver a win for the environment.
When the Greens first rejected Palmer’s proposed Senate inquiry into Queensland, the Australia Institute howled in protest. But Milne and Waters strategically used Palmer’s desire for that inquiry to not only improve its terms of reference, but also to trade support for it with Palmer’s agreement to help finally kill the proposed hand-off of federal environment protection powers to the states.When the Greens first rejected Palmer’s proposed Senate inquiry into Queensland, the Australia Institute howled in protest. But Milne and Waters strategically used Palmer’s desire for that inquiry to not only improve its terms of reference, but also to trade support for it with Palmer’s agreement to help finally kill the proposed hand-off of federal environment protection powers to the states.
The Australia Institute may be able to boast of its media profile and cross-party connections. But it is Milne’s strategic smarts which delivered what is likely to be the biggest environmental win of this parliamentary term.The Australia Institute may be able to boast of its media profile and cross-party connections. But it is Milne’s strategic smarts which delivered what is likely to be the biggest environmental win of this parliamentary term.
The real question here is, with Milne’s strategic mind and Denniss and Oquist’s tactical nous, how much could be achieved if the Australia Institute swallowed its pride, got over its bitterness, and agreed to productively collaborate with the Greens on the many issues on which they agree?The real question here is, with Milne’s strategic mind and Denniss and Oquist’s tactical nous, how much could be achieved if the Australia Institute swallowed its pride, got over its bitterness, and agreed to productively collaborate with the Greens on the many issues on which they agree?
The Australia Institute by no means has to always agree with the Greens. But shackling themselves to Palmer and undermining Milne is a fool’s strategy. It’s time it ended.The Australia Institute by no means has to always agree with the Greens. But shackling themselves to Palmer and undermining Milne is a fool’s strategy. It’s time it ended.
Tim Hollo is a former communications director for Christine Milne.