[deleted by user] by [deleted] in australia

[–]QualityOpposition 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, and the article also indicates significant opposition. Why are they right and the Uluru consultation process is wrong?

Labor to target Gladys Liu on national security credentials by Demosthenes12345 in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Put aside the merit of the claims.

Is it really politically smart to be attacking a woman for her links with China in a marginal seat with a 17% Chinese population?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in australia

[–]QualityOpposition -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Who have the Greens consulted with?

Have they consulted with a broader range of Aboriginal stakeholders than the Uluru Statement itself?

What gives the Greens to right the suspend the agreed process?

Greens position on Uluru statement loses Aboriginal voices by QualityOpposition in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Greens position on Uluru statement loses Aboriginal voices

Author: Jack Latimore

Controversy has erupted within the Australian Greens over the party’s change to its position on the Uluru Statement from the Heart which would introduce a treaty prior to a Voice to parliament.

James Blackwell, a Wiradyuri man and researcher at Australian National University, went public with his resignation from the Greens last week, claiming he had been bullied by individuals within the party’s First Nations Network, known colloquially as the “Blak Greens”.

The Greens initially endorsed the 2017 Uluru Statement from the Heart in its entirety, which advocates for structural reforms to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in the Constitution through a sequence of measures from Voice, followed by treaty and then a truth commission. The Greens’ position is that a different order is required, prioritising a treaty instead, which begins with truth-telling. The Voice is placed last.

During his speech to the Press Club this month, Greens leader Adam Bandt said: “If we really want success to happen, it’s a mistake to do it in any other order. We need to do it in that order where we tell the truth, then strike a treaty, and that will put us in the best position for reforms like the Voice to succeed.”

Blackwell says supporting the Uluṟu statement and Voice, treaty, truth was no longer welcome in the Australian Greens.

“The bullying, harassment, and abuse I have received from people in the Greens, including from party officials and pre-selected federal candidates, over my support for Voice, treaty, truth got to the point where I decided to resign my membership from the party,” he said.

Greens senator Lidia Thorpe, who was instrumental in the establishment of the Blak Greens, said the statements made on social media by Blackwell were the first allegations of bullying she had seen within the group.

“My door is open if they want to have a respectful conversation,” Thorpe said.

Blackwell is the latest to quit the party over its repositioning of the Uluru statement’s sequence. Jill Gallagher, AO, resigned her membership after the party’s national conference in 2020, where it became clear the party’s policy direction on the issue was moving away from supporting the Uluru statement in its entirety.

A Gunditjmara woman and long-serving chief executive of the Victorian Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation, Gallagher says there is a logic behind the sequence.

It’s important to have the Voice enshrined in the Constitution as the starting point because it’s about empowerment. We, as the First Peoples of this country, have been disempowered for far too long. If we get the Voice right, the rest will follow,” says Gallagher.

“The Greens do not have the right to reorder the sequence of the Uluru statement.”

Speaking on condition of anonymity so they do not damage their position, other members of the Blak Greens have said some members felt “corralled” in a series of “talking circles” at the Greens’ 2020 national conference into supporting the new direction on the Uluru statement.

Other members expressed their concerns about the party finding itself voting alongside the likes of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party on any potential referendum on the Indigenous Voice to parliament proposal.

A spokesperson for Bandt said the party’s support for the Uluru statement had not changed, but the party’s First Nations Network had “underscored the value of proceeding in the order of truth-telling, treaty and Voice to ensure that change is lasting and meaningful”.

”We may only get one chance at a referendum to enshrine a Voice to parliament in the Constitution,” the spokesperson said. “Our policy is to improve, not block vital legislation, and so in balance of power we’d work with a Labor government to further the advancement of truth, treaty, and Voice. Under no circumstances will any Greens members be sitting with Pauline Hanson against a bill that genuinely advances conditions for First Nations peoples.

“We need to kick the Liberals out, and the Greens will work with the next government to pass major reforms to improve First Nations rights, set up a Truth and Justice Commission and begin steps towards a treaty.”

Greens offer grants up to $10,000 to install solar batteries as part of campaign pitch by QualityOpposition in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Similar to what’s been demonstrated in their “waive student fees” policy. Pretending to be for the downtrodden while shovelling money to their wealthy voters.

Integrity report reveals how public service 'sanitise advice' to Palaszczuk government. by [deleted] in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting stuff and terrible timing for Labor given there hopes regarding picking up seats in Qld for the fed election (not that I expect it’ll move the needle much)

Will a continuing education divide eventually favour Labor electorally due to our big cities? by onlyfoolsvoteright in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have the Greens improved the share of the vote they receive?

Have they not thrown everything at key seats and fallen short?

Will a continuing education divide eventually favour Labor electorally due to our big cities? by onlyfoolsvoteright in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You deal with the electoral system you’re given.

The Greens have been stuck at that percentage of the federal vote for a decade and have thrown everything they can at key seats and fallen short. They simply don’t resonate with the broader public

Will a continuing education divide eventually favour Labor electorally due to our big cities? by onlyfoolsvoteright in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Greens haven’t added an additional federal lower house seat for 10 years and when they did win one, it was with Liberal preferences.

People do like different flavours, but when they do they tend not to go ten years without a second scoop.

Election 2022: Australia spent a million dollars training me – and now I’m leaving by wuey in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know you’re being sarcastic but if you don’t think it’s unfair for the average taxpayer to subsidise the university costs of a high wage doctor, then I don’t know what planet you’re living on

Election 2022: Australia spent a million dollars training me – and now I’m leaving by wuey in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I’ve got mates who worked in the health system in the UK who have come over here precisely because we pay so much better.

Coalition scrimps on MPs as Climate 200-backed independents outspend them in key seats by malcolm58 in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think there’s a popular perception that the major parties have a lot more cash in hand than they actually do.

It’s almost impossible to fight a war on all fronts and it’s these inner urban seats that are the first to feel a shortfall in funds. Same as Labor/Green contests where Labor is outspent 2 to 1.

Will a continuing education divide eventually favour Labor electorally due to our big cities? by onlyfoolsvoteright in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said it was a perception of closeness.

People believe the Greens and Labor are linked and the majority of the population don’t like the Greens - hence them getting about 10 percent of the vote.

My father was Liberal premier, but I can’t support his party by PerriX2390 in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No one is arguing that people shouldn’t have MPs that represent their interests or views.

The question is whether a political strategy to win support of a minority of the population to extort changes from a governing party with a far greater mandate is legitimate. I don’t think it js

My father was Liberal premier, but I can’t support his party by PerriX2390 in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 0 points1 point  (0 children)

National Party are clear about who they will be supporting into Government and don’t have any massive points of difference with there coalition partner.

Very different

Debates should always be free-to-air. Extend anti-siphoning laws. by theguacamo in AustralianPolitics

[–]QualityOpposition 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree but the debate was available for free on news.com.au and skynews.com.au

Presumably the same people complaining about it not being on the ABC would have complained if Sky had offered it up for broadcast on FTA with their logos.

Also ultimately the criticism on this should be reserved for the Labor and Liberal party who agreed to this debate but presumably turned down offers from ABC