Clearly, for the world to be in balance, this headline should have read:
State OH&S Regulator Goes Bush And Inspect Snakes
Well, my jury's still out on the extent of Garrett's culpability, but despite the crowing and braying the case against him seems pretty average at this point. And the political hypocrisy is mind-blowing.
In a pretty one-sided media scrum, Helen puts the counter-argument pretty persuasively.
Garrett has sucked a pretty dry mango since joining the ALP. I'm not The Greens' biggest fan overall, but it seems he would have had a far saner, more tolerable run if he'd gone there. I suppose he didn't know Climate Change (which back then looked interesting and progressive on the ALP platform) would get hived off.
I don't think the ALP have mounted a serious counter-attack, and I'm starting to wonder why. Perhaps he is earmarked for a slow demotion?
After all, can't lists be compiled of people who died because of coalition ministers' programs? This seems to be the extent of their point. Abbott on Health, Hockey on Human Services- there must be dozens of people who died missing out on hospital or support beds under their watch, if that's what it comes down to.
Back to The Greens, and even at the time I thought it was unnecessary for Bob Brown to burn the bridges the way he has done with Garrett. Because even at the time Garrett made the call, I thought of Cheryl Kernot, and wondered... whether Garrett would have some regrets once he'd tasted the inside of the party and parliamentary machines... and if the door had been left, even partly, open...
I don't know, do you think they still would, or could?
My latest article is about the economics of divorce and dependency - Here is my latest article for Daily Life: And dependence is a funny word to use for older women. By the time they are claiming the aged pension, paltry as ...
22 hours ago