Newspoll: 58-42

The first honeymoon Newspoll has Labor leading 46 per cent to 35 per cent on the primary vote and 58-42 on two-party preferred (hat tip to James J). Kevin Rudd has a predictably massive 68-11 lead as preferred prime minister, and personal ratings of 59 per cent satisfied, 11 per cent unsatisfied and 30 per cent undecided. However, Brendan Nelson has also started well with a surprisingly strong 36 per cent approval rating – although his 19 per cent disapproval is also high under the circumstances, as demonstrated by this table showing earlier opposition leaders’ ratings at their first Newspolls:

Satisfied Dissatisfied Undecided
Andrew Peacock (June 1989) 22 50 28
John Hewson (April 1990) 33 15 52
Alexander Downer (May 1994) 31 12 57
John Howard (February 1995) 45 23 32
Kim Beazley (April 1996) 39 15 46
Simon Crean (December 2001) 30 25 45
Mark Latham (December 2003) 32 17 51
Kim Beazley (February 2005) 40 22 38
Kevin Rudd (December 2006) 41 10 49
Brendan Nelson (January 2008) 36 19 45

The only point of comparison for an incoming government in Newspoll’s historical data (which goes back to 1985) is the Howard government’s debut entry of 52 per cent to 34 per cent on the primary vote, with no two-party figure available. Past incoming prime ministers’ ratings were Paul Keating’s 21 per cent satisfied, 42 per cent dissatisfied and 37 per cent uncommitted, and John Howard’s 45 per cent, 12 per cent and 43 per cent.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

374 comments on “Newspoll: 58-42”

Comments Page 3 of 8
1 2 3 4 8
  1. Your arguement of the Green’s irreleveance would hold weight in an American voting system but certainly not here with our preferential voting.

  2. I’m not arguing they’re irrelevant, I’m arguing that they’re less relevant than they think they are.
    Preferential voting is based on the assumption that if X party didn’t exist then you would have voted for Y (so I voted Greens first but if there hadn’t been a Green candidate, I would have voted Labor so my vote ultimately goes to Labor).
    Arguments that the Greens are more effective at forcing policy change within the Labor party are based on the premise that Greens preferences would have gone somewhere else otherwise.
    Preferences are important in the Senate, due to the necessity for candidates to achieve a quota, but are only influential in lower house seats if voters blindly follow HTV cards – and the evidence is that Green candidates don’t.
    I think there’s also a good case to argue that Green supporters – if their representation on this thread so far is any guide – don’t have much understanding of ‘real’ politics, the inner workings of the major parties and their own party’s lack of action – which I really, really, really resent – on key environmental issues.

  3. Deano, my recollections of the history of the climate change debate are that it first came to public prominence in the mid 80s as the Greenhouse Effect and that the Hawke government was a world leader in advocating for measures to be taken to fix it in the early days of the debate. To claim that Bob Brown started the public movement for it to be addressed is a bit revisionist.

    The minor parties do serve a very important role in campaigning for progressive policies. Perhaps there also needs to be more respect shown to people such as those who stand for the Labor Party. Labor politicians may start out with an ideologically pure view of the world but are willing to make the compromises and concede defeat where need be in order to achieve goals such as killing off WorkChoices.

  4. 105 TurningWorm , it will be very interesting to see what changes to WorkChoices that the new government makes? I am a worker and a union member.

  5. Some of my best friends are Liberal voters, too – doesn’t mean that I think the party they support has the right ideas or that I let them get away with sloppy thinking…my main objection to the Greens.
    I can’t see why explaining (when asked) what I dislike about a party means I don’t like its members as individuals.
    Sounds a bit totalitarian to me – I’m either with you or against you? How about I’m willing to let you exist but I don’t agree with you? Or I just don’t think you’re as wonderful as you think you are?
    I’d be perfectly contented to NOT criticise the Greens if I saw them ACTING rather than talking – so, as I’ve said before, supporting windfarms publically (would it hurt to say “the Victorian Labor Government’s support of windfarms is to be commended”? “Victorian Greens support Government’s stance on windfarms”? – and then, of course, suggest how the Government could improve?) and skewing the environmental debate to suit their own agendas (Bob Brown’s preference deal in 2004 implied that Tasmanian rainforests were THE most important environmental issue confronting the nation – why didn’t he tie preference deals to climate change action rather than his own parochial interests?)
    Andos, whoops, my rhetoric does run ahead of my brain at times (note other silly mistakes in wording in former post).
    By the way, I could write a post about what’s wrong with the ALP which would really fry your onions – but I’d prefer to work away at changing it from within.

  6. zoom, I wouldnt write that blog about what’s wrong with the ALP because you would probalby be expelled for the party. But if you do please use your real name!
    By the way , I am curious, did you actually as a member get the chance to vote for your candidates (especially the Senate candidates?????) Did you receive ballot papers?

  7. Gee Turning Worm, Bob Hawke was a world leader on climate change action back in the 80s???? Here we are 20 years later and the problem, and Australia’s contribution to it, has got worse. Imagine the predicament we would be in if they were in denial! Thats what I call a “partys lack of action”. Wall to wall labour governments and I see nothing, in what year do you think the labour party will act?

  8. Actually any leadership Hawke showed on climate change was undermined by Keating. Hawke set up a process to look at things we could do (not just on climate change but on various environmental matters) that would have broad support. Numerous recommendations came out that had the agreement of the environment movement, unions and the business lobby groups. Very few of them were implemented. It’s hard to know if more would have been had Keating not replaced Hawke, but the fact is Labor chose to throw away literally hundreds of ideas that were supported by all three groups.

    Keating looks great compared to Howard, and he did have some very substantial achievements Hawke would never have matched, but none of them were environmental.

  9. deano
    when i was at school (1970s) the big fear was global cooling not waaaaarming?

    and more importantly not one whaleshagging,treesucking snotty can explain
    the mini ice age 1300-1700 which it has universally (you do the research) been agreed was stopped by the industrial revolution

    so which is it freezing cold cos we stuffed the ozone or boiling hot cos we stuffed the ozone

    bit contradictory

  10. Do a little more digging, Gusface, and you’ll find that the science of global warming/climate change is neither contradictory or involved with the ozone layer in anyway.

    In fact, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the chemicals responsible for depleting the ozone layer, are actually potent greenhouse gasses. If not for the Montreal Protocol global warming would be even worse than it already is (although we ain’t seen nothin’ yet).

  11. 112 Keating was a good Prime Minister, in many ways misunderstood by the Australian public. I think it would be a very different Australia in regard to many issues, if he had remained leader of the country. There, I have been positive about a Labor leader, but I am waiting for all the “other side ” to attack me now.

  12. Hmmm … coal many coal-fired power stations were operating between the years 1300 and 1700?

    I might hazard a guess at ZERO.

    The problem of climate change is not, I might suggest, the earth’s ever varying climate which has rolled from ice age into periods of warming and back again for millions of years …

    The problem is the massive and man-made rise in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution – which is ADDITIONAL to any natural varience in the world’s temperature.

    These man-made emissions increasingly prevent the world from shedding its heat, or so the science tells us.

    The “stuffed the ozone” issue you refer to is a totally different problem, which was generally solved by western countries joining together to ban the use of CFCs.

    Investigate this stuff before you dismiss it as contradictory, please …

    Sorry guys, I know this is a politics blogg …

  13. Yep, Brenton, I do. I also have a lot in common with my Green friends (got a Christmas card from the local candidate, thanking me for my assistance) and have lots of arguments with my ALP friends.
    I happen to think that differences of opinion are good. Arguing your point of view (using facts, a concept you seem unfamiliar with) with someone who has a different world view to yourself – rather than isolating yourself from people who think differently to you – is a good way of testing your own thinking.
    The reason I get along with Liberals, Greens, members of Family First, Democrats (mostly ex – there seem to be more ex Democrats than the sum total of all former and present Democrat members combined, but that’s one of the darker mysteries) as well as – obviously – my Party colleagues is because I value them as individuals. It’s hard for me to dismiss the local Liberal party operatives as somehow not worthy of my friendship because of their political beliefs when I see them working to change to lot of disabled people or campaigning to raise awareness of autism…just as I respect (yes, I do) my Green friends for protecting the local environment.
    I live in the real world, Brenton, where nobody and nothing is perfect and therefore one has to make compromises.
    You seem to live in a world where the only people worth talking to or taking seriously are those who echo your own world view. You want – demand – tolerance and acceptance of yourself as an individual but seem to be denying it to others.
    That’s just as bad as far righters like Steven Kaye or Glen.

    By the way – am still waiting for SOME Green out there to defend their party on the specific issues I’ve raised. I really would be interested to know if I’m wrong here.

  14. Andos

    i just think no one acknowledges the mini ice age
    to me it is the elephant in the room re climate change

    also a bit presumptive of us as humans that we in our infinite superiority have F**ked mother earth.

    krakatoa (to quote just one natural event) caused alot of short term climatic change (as i understand it the suplhuric emissions wiped out the ozone around the mid east across india all the way thru the tropics to include WA) for at least three years-but then hey gaia regained balance

    the bigger issue is pollution (heavy metals dioxin etc) and their storage.

    ps what happened to the black forest (germany) i was there in 1985/6 you could punch holes thru trees and the prediction was that it would turn into a desert-fast forward to today and it is a wonder of regeneration-there are still high levels of pollutants but nature adapts

    sure have controls but not this ‘the end is nigh” mentality as real science is obscured in the “herd response”

  15. gusface

    Acid rain was a real problem for Europe. Have to stopped to wonder why Europe is moving fast towards windfarms and why they support with vigor the reduction in CO emission.

    All the climate change denial in the world won’t change the fact things have to change, you only have to spend an hour in Chine to work out that.

    And as for the Greens, we need to move to renewable energy we need windfarms. I haven’t heard a peep out of any off them supporting the changes needed, instead we hear about yellow spotted parrots or something.

    The environmental issues are critical moving forward and we have the greens still acting as if the solution is the destruction of humanity .

  16. Turning Worm @ 119 – “In what year will the Greens take any concrete action to solve global warming?”

    The Greens have taken concrete and relevant action against global warming in countries such as Germany and New Zealand where they have been part of a governing coalition. It is why European countries leave this country for dead re the issue. The Greens are still chasing a greater vote here to be part of the global solution. Untill then I ask, in what year will Labour take any concrete action to solve global warming? You suggest they were aware of it on the 80s

    Just a bit of trivia – Australia’s population is one third of one percent (0.33%) of the world’s population yet produces 2% of the world’s carbon emissions.

    Dear William – could you please open a thread on Roswell and Elvis sightings for Gusface?

  17. Charles @120 – It was former enviro liberal minister Ian “dalek” McFarlaine who blocked the Gippsland windfarms to save one orange-bellied parrot per year.

    Have a look at the party website if you have doubts about the parties commitment to renewables. There are binding national targets for 2010, 2020 and 2050. A call for 15% of all electricity needs to be from renewables by 2012 and 25% by 2025. These figures are all very achievable. A relocation of the considerable subsidies from the carbon producers to the renewables sector will ensure a minimal impact on the economy. Not taking action will ensure the economy will take a bigger hit than an obscure parrots.

  18. I have a lot of respect for Gary Bruce’s comments but I beg to differ with his Post 95. I think William was wrong to ban Stephen Kaye on the basis that SK is (allegedly) a ‘wanker’. SK’s posts are outrageously partisan but they are witty. There are plenty of other regular posters who are just as partisan (some more so) but who are completely humourless. I hope William reviews his decision; otherwise, I will be looking to see that there is some consistency with any moderation of future threads.

  19. 121
    Deano

    And thank god the SPD lost in 2005, the Grand Coalition headed by Merkel’s CDU/CSU is planing to extend the life of its nuclear power stations which will reduce its CO2 emissions. Also the British Labor Party has announced that it will expand its own Nuclear Industry as well.

    Windfarms are an eyesore and cannot produce the same level of base load power generation as a Nuclear Power Station.

    Its nice to know that at least one Labor Party in the world backs Nuclear power pity another one down under doesnt too. I fear our coastlines will look like a junk yard if Labor and the Greens get their way 🙁

    Deano also why did Kevin Rudd commit us to targets without knowing the impact on the economy is this something a true fiscal conservative would do?

  20. Glen says

    Its nice to know that at least one Labor Party in the world backs Nuclear power pity another one down under doesnt too. I fear our coastlines will look like a junk yard if Labor and the Greens get their way 🙁

    And there we have it, instead of renewable energy, lets leave it up to our children to tidy up the mess.

  21. Deano Says:
    January 24th, 2008 at 7:54 pm

    Charles @120 – It was former enviro liberal minister Ian “dalek” McFarlaine who blocked the Gippsland windfarms to save one orange-bellied parrot per year.

    I know; my complaint is the greens didn’t do their best to roll the guy; it was by any account a disgrace.

    It’s funny you know; you go to Europe and they have these large majestic windmills scattered all over the place, go to California and you see hillsides covered in smaller units, and in Australia you have people that haven’t traveled past their backyard advocating solutions that where rejected ( for very good reasons) in the 80’s.

    Glen the world has moved on, we are one of the few countries that enjoy blue skies, the one’s that have lost them want them back further Europe knows what it’s like to have a radioactive cloud pass across it’s population, they are not keen for it to happen again.

    Australia has two choices when it comes to renewable energy, lead or follow. Fortunately Rudd has put us in a position where we may be able to lead, it’s a bit sad the backward looking lot we had in destroyed the lead we had.

    Glen if you really subscribe to this nonsense about economic damage because a country is moving to forward get on you bike and go and look at what is happening in Europe.

  22. Glen,

    I see your coastline with turbines, and raise you two clearfelled hillsides.

    A trip through Northern Tasmania was interesting … the Northwest is betting on the foodie, and the Northeast is temporarily reforesting, forty acres at a time.

    I’d say the latter is a decent bet only if someone else is paying for the road damage.

    Ian Whitchurch

  23. Glen the Poms are in the early stages of decommissioning Calder Hall, their first Nuke power station.

    Q: How long do you figure it will take them to return it to a condition that would allow humans to use the land?

    A: 120 years. And then they have to guard the waste for another 100,000 years. http://www.wcssg.co.uk/calder.htm

    How much will that cost, not only in monetary terms but also environmental?

    Of course the real problem with nukes is that if we generated all the world’s electricity needs with it then all known uranium reserves would be exhausted within about 2-3 years. Even the current power stations will use up all significant reserves by mid century.

    And its not like nuke reduces carbon emissions by much. Build 1,000 stations and annual carbon emissions will drop by about 5%, a long, long way short of the 60% we need.

  24. Where is the realism of BOTH the Left and the Right

    To increase the present 440 Nuke Power stations to 1,000 will take min 20 years
    to build.

    According to the UN the 1,000 will only contribute just 36% of the world’s energy needs. So the Right are unrealistic.

    According to the UN Renewable energy at best can contribute 30% of world energy needs by 2030. So the Left are also unrealistic.

    Hopefully future technology can capture the emissions by Plant and either disapate/clean them or make them renewable.
    Hopefully also a ‘clean energy’ motor car will assist

    With the UN ‘tipping point of irreversibility dropping now to the 2030 ‘s , the Left and the Right’s solutions are fooling a concerned Public

  25. Ron the future is bleak, no the world is finished. Whilst all the skeptics on here don’t agree i think their is no turning back.
    The arctic is melting rapidly and according to Nasa scientists last month in will be completly melted in the summer months by 2012 and antarctic is melting rapidly as well .
    What we must realise is that ice helps to cool down the planet by reflecting the suns rays but once it goes temperatures will rise rapidly. The western world is doing little, this country nothing but people here keep stating we are only 1 per cent of emissions, these are denial crowd.
    We continue to build roads, pulp mills, deepen channels and allow subsidies on diesel, and company car handouts and clear forests. Sorry this country is pathetic and visionless, and we have Labor Governments from coast to coast.
    Just waiting for someone to say that Federal Labor has been in six minutes, yes but they not stopping the pulp mill, not stopping road funding, and not a hint yet of scrapping subsidies and tax cuts for company cars and farm equipment and diesel. Ron nuclear is not realistically the answer, when you have terrorists, nuclear waste and the cost and then possible malfunctioning.

  26. Yep i may sound depressed with my ranting on but only write how it is. Put simply i care about people and world especially people who live in difficult circumstances each day.
    Saw an article in todays Age monthly glossy spread and nearly choked on wheeties boats moored in Port Phillip Bay costing 2.5 million and quite a few, good to see whilst workers work their guts out to just pay for house and car.
    Yep i am bearer of optimism but i’m afraid pessimism mostly.
    Sorry if you don’t like it but i cannot stand to see a few doing very well and most not and a beautiful world dying before our eyes.

  27. MarkyMark,

    The ice isnt the main problem IMO. It’s the methane trapped in what is ceasing to be permafrost, combined with the rotting of the plant matter in what used to be permafrost.

  28. That whole geothermal thing seems rather promising. there has been abit of chatter around about that here in Tassie:
    http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,23044488-3462,00.html

    Most of our electricity is already non carbon, ie Hydro/Wind. Of course there is no one solution, but there are ways to reduce the influence of coal. Which needs alot of fresh water that can not be used again.

    Tidal is one that in the near future could be very helpful.

    http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1965853.htm

  29. Thankyou for providing me with that information and yes you are correct Ian, but what also frightens me is carbon dioxide as it i think (as you may be greater scientific knowledge) can sit within our atmosphere for many years and each day we add to it and add to it causing even more harm to be done at faster and faster rates.

  30. ESJ,

    Not to my knowledge, Comrade Citizen.

    Scotty,

    I agree that Geothermal should be getting more attention than it is, and for what it’s worth Matt Simmons thinks wave/tidal/ocean energy is a promising approach.

  31. marky marky @ 134

    Ron the future is bleak, no the world is finished. Whilst all the skeptics on here don’t agree i think their is no turning back.

    I agree with you. History shows that whenever humans have had to choose between modifying their behaviour to repair their environmetal damage or continuing as before they’ve done the latter. But it ain’t all bad. No doubt in several million years some new slightly intelligent creature will be teaching its young about us in the same way we teach ours about the dinosaurs.

    That said, marky marky, if there is indeed such a place, I suspect you’ll even be disappointed in Heaven!

  32. “the future is bleak, no the world is finished”

    Sounds like the “Chaos” and madness theme of the libs at the last election. If you’re right looks like I was sensible in taking the 30 year option to repay my loan, finally I will get one over the banks.

    However I like gusfaces’s thinking also, we have had mini ice ages not that long ago and Krakatoa threw a massive amount of pollution and debri into the atmosphere, we have recurring cycles going back thousands of years.

    Still I agree we are polluting too much and a big city can warm its’ surrounds, but there is an “industry” associated with this global warming that benefits from all this “sky is falling talk”.

  33. Bottom line is that Australia will not be part of the solution to global warming with this government. Charle’s comment @ 128 that Rudd has put Australia in a position to lead is laughable. There is nothing on the horizon to suggest they would even come close to matching the action taken by EU nations. Our fed government has traded in the Howard Hummer for a V8 as far as global warming is concerned

  34. marky marky the world is not finished. Planet earth has had climates a lot more extreme than what we are headed for. I doubt mankind is finished (much more likely). What is finished is the carbon economy. We have two choices, heads in the sand and wait for the walls to start coming down, or start using the technology developed to start a new economy. Europe is going for the second option.

  35. Charles when the carbon ‘tipping point’ of irreversibility is reached according to the UN panel of 400 odd world wide cientists , nothing can get done stop global warming.

    The temperature increase is a 1% to 3% range.

    1/3 of current species will become extinct. oceans will rise. Droughts will be longer etc etc

    I am baffled that seemingingly intelligent blogers & most World leaders simply ignore the undeniable science.

    The future kids will ask why this generation ignored science

    My answer from the grave would be the majority of humans in the World whilst perhaps too greedy if given the science info WOULD HAVE accepted the inconvenience & costs of permanently stopping climate change.

    The minority led by political & business Leaders from the US (& perhaps by China & India) were too personally greedy & power hungry for THEIR present life irrespective of the future cost

  36. charles@145
    well put

    changing tack

    Our deputy PM wants to put all the IR stuff in the Feds hands
    maybe recreate the old ir commission and take away the states powers

    is this worstchoices Reinforced or the beginning of Repealling these draconian laws

    i know which one i want 🙂

  37. zoom, I can quite understand why NO Green has responded to your demands! They probably are not into verbal rollercoasters. How curious you presume ANYTHING about my life! You know little about my life experience. You assumed that because you are from the country that I no nothing about it . I lived for the first 28 years of my life in a small rural community and I know a great deal about country life and people. At least I have the guts to USE my real Christian name on this site. Usually on Green blogs , people on the whole use their real identities and contributions are welcomed whether people are highly educated or not. On this site if you dont get it right the first time people jump down your neck and everything is twisted to suit the ‘high’ ego levels of many of the contributors. Do all the people who go out to vote for the ALP know ALP policy back to front? People vote for particular parties for various reasons. Sometimes it might even be one particular issue that they feel passionate about. I love the Greens at this stage of my voting life. I do not go to branch meetings or hold any Party positions , but I admire many of their politicians and it is where I feel comfortable. You stated how at ease you are with so many different types of people. Lucky you and you are fortunate that your life and relationships have been valued , respected and I doubt( I may be wrong) that you have been threatened both verbally and physically throughout your life. I suffered so much mentally during the Howard years and especially with the rise of One Nation , that yes it affected every part of my life. My partner and I were threatened with having our throats cut on public transport and we stopped going out at night for a very long period of time. I hated where the country was going. I may not be able to express myself very well at times and I probably say some dumb things , but I am trying my best in life and I am interested in politics . I do not know a great deal about policy , I greatly admire people who do. I very much admire William for having this site and he probably thinks i am a dipstick , but he hasnt got rid of me because I do try to be civilised and I do want to learn from the many well informed people who contribute on here. I do admit to being staggered about the amount of coverage and comment the Greens get on here for a small party. The Labor and Liberal parties are the main political parties and yet little comment is made about the many things that are happening with them. I hope that when Parliament resumes in Canberra that there will be much more interaction between the traditional foes. zoom , I wish you well in your life and I hope that the Labor Government delivers the many things that will improve the quailty of life for all citizens and our Australian environment.

  38. Well well,
    the Greens are back as topic -again. We seem to generate a lot of comment for such a suppodely irrelvant force in Australian politics.
    I think a few of you need to take a deep breath and and calm down.
    Greens , like other parties, are made up of people with a vast array of experiences and opinions. We are not a homogeneos group who all agree on every point. As a candidate I try to best represent the policies of the part to the voters in my (rural) electorate. I also disagree at times with other party members, and try to have input into revising current, and developing new policy.
    As to the futility of trying to make changes from outside the majors, ask Peter Garrett. It must be pretty difficult for him to defend the Tamar Pulp mill, the dredging of port Phillip bay, the ongoing logging of wilderness, the mining of uranium etc etc. He may have truly believed that a high profile candidate like him could really influnce labour policy
    But he was wrong.
    BTW- as a candidate in the 2004 election I actively and publicly supported the banning of cattle in the high country( and copped plenty of personal abuse for doing so.)

  39. Brenton – you might notice that, at the start of the thread, I did apologise for mistakes I made. I would also happily say I was wrong about some of my concerns about the Greens, if someone would actually show that I was in error (and I have repeatedly ASKED for people to do so).
    I like to think the best of people and people are what make up political parties. One of the reasons I got involved with blogging was that I wanted to understand why people supported various ideologies – I think in past posts I have made it clear how disappointed I was when noone on the Right actually could mount a decent argument to defend their various positions. Depressing if it’s the same as the Greens.
    It’s great to support a party but it’s also good to be aware of its shortcomings, otherwise it can never improve.
    Yes, I have suffered bullying and isolation as a child, not for the same reasons you did but because of being obviously different. I must say it’s made my life in politics a bit easier, as the vitriolic attacks from my political opponents, the personal costs (my battles against the Kennett Government have meant that it’s difficult for me to find employment in this very conservative area), and the physical and verbal abuse one receives when one stands up for minority beliefs have all been easier to bear – and to understand.
    Hi Jen!
    On Peter Garrett – yes, it is difficult to change party policy if you’ve only been there a few years and don’t have the connections and the know how to influence policy. Some of the policies I’ve got up have taken me years of plugging away and sometimes involved quite convoluted manouevering. However, I think Peter Garrett would echo what John Thwaites once said – that’s it’s better to be in Government and get some of what you want than be out of Government and get nothing.
    I don’t believe the Greens are irrelevant – I’ve said that before. I do think they need to be more realistic about the extent of their influence to use what they have effectively. If Bob Brown had put climate change ahead of Tasmanian rainforests when doing preference deals, for example, we might be a lot further down that particular track.

Comments Page 3 of 8
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *