Greensleeves?

The Greens are an interesting phenomenon - a party that is now running candidates at all levels of Government - Council, State and Federal. In this respect, they certainly take "Think Global, Act Local" to heart.

Usually made up of disaffected Labor and ex-Democrats, Greens are in the best of all situations - they will never be in a position to implement most of their policies. They will never have to compromise, nor do deals. They can be seen to remain pure, green and 'above' politics.

They are certainly renowned for taking populist, emotive positions on things. Usually positions, that if a national or state government were to take them would be disastrous for the economy and confidence generally.

Bob Brown is a case in point - a purist Green who remains unsullied by having to govern. But unlike other idealists - for example Peter Garrett who has compromised, he will never see most of his policies see the light of day. Who is the more effective politician?

It was Labor that saved the Gordon Below Frankin, it was Labor that apologised to Australia's Indigenous peoples. Not the Greens.

The conservative side of politics too, have been responsible for setting up many (if not most, given how long they've often been in government) national parks, for liberalising and promoting things like multiculturalism. Yes, Jeffrey Kennett may have been a lot of things, but he was pro-multicultural. In many senses - a true liberal, in the small 'l' sense of the word.

What have the Greens done? Very little, if the list of "scores" is looked at in a meaningful way. Yet somehow, they manage to take credit for many of these things.

The other side of remaining pure and above politics, is that it attracts a fervor that the more established parties find hard to replicate. There is a core of dedicated believers who are, like the so-called "Moral Majority"in the US (who were in actuality a minority) make more noise - "heat and light" - than their numbers would indicate.

I have to say the same is true of the Dandenongs. You can't live in the Dandenongs, in The Hills and not have regard for the environment. It would be nonsensical to want to turn our environment, unique in much of the world into the suburbs we all decry.

But the point of protecting the environment is for people - that unique interface where individuals, aesthetic sensibility and environment intersect. We must ensure that this is not forgotten when discussing the environment. People live in the Hills, and it is people who tend to be forgotten in much of the Green dialectic.

People need places to live, places to work, security, and services. Things that I think would slowly degrade if the Greens had their ultimate way.

I think it is important therefore to take back the environmental argument from the Greens. Just because you may be opposed to the Greens, with their emotive, often-times irrational discourse does not make you an environmental vandal. What it does it make sure you are aware of the bigger picture, that the world does not operate the way many Green supporters wish it would.

I for one, am glad of that.