Pretty disappointed in the Greens tbh. What they got for guillotining debate seems poultry also,
$500m for social housing energy upgrades and commitments against fossil fuel investment.
Those better be some amazing commitments that Labor definitely won’t just not act on.
Don’t you just love being able to rewrite history in official government releases.
It then law is written loosely enough they may just try to apply it however is politically convenient at the time. Don’t like people using signal? Guess signal is social media lmao.
That’s not to say the original intent is to harass software they don’t like, but a law written ambiguously can be used for other things if desired.
Nevermind then. I wasn’t giving them much credit but it was still too much it seems.
Thanks Bill! Really saving the taxpayer there.
The legislation does note that some services are “excluded”, but does not name specific platforms. For example, while services providing “online social interaction” would be included in the ban, this would not include “online business interaction”.
Looking forward to watching Facebook claim it’s all a business interaction because they’re selling the user data or something. Also surely this includes any and all online forums.
If they were rushing through the bill then any amendments in the senate would require the bill to go back to the house. Partially explains the reluctance to consider amendments (though why bother with debate then).
Depressingly
The ban is, however, backed by 77% of Australians, according to a new poll.
Most of whom probably don’t care how it was passed or details on the amendments.
It also clears the government from legal recourse for negligent decisions, making them immune from civil lawsuits in relation to the removal of a person or their treatment in a third country.
Surely this can’t stand up in courts? The government can just pass a law effectively saying it’s above the law?
Senator Birmingham criticised the Greens, saying their failure to vote for the motion cut against cross-party efforts to improve parliamentary culture.
Yeah don’t suspend Pauline for being a racist though dw about it.
Keep Peter Dutton out? The Greens? Consider the seats the Bandt has explicitly said the Greens will target at the next election: Sydney, Macnamara, Wills, Cooper, Richmond. All Labor seats.
This is true.
I wouldn’t say they’re cannibalizing the nationally left party though, Labor is centre left at best and we don’t have a purely 2 party system like the US so a left wing party could easily run in coalition. Otherwise you could also make the case that the nats cannibalise the libs.
which it makes it easier for the right-wing party to become the largest grouping in Parliament and thus best-placed to form government
If neither major party has the numbers to form majority government next election then they will deal with a minor/independent to form government, the Green’s obtaining more seats means if Labor is serious about forming government they would have to deal with them.
“And our government is not going to wait around while members of the Greens political party call for more housing in the media while opposing it in their electorates and voting against it in the parliament,”
I already said Labor would like credit for the $2B.
Nonetheless, the Greens say they will now “wave through” such terrible legislation.
So on one hand the Greens should get out of the way and pass Labor’s policies on housing, but also they shouldn’t pass this because it’s not good enough. I recall the help to buy scheme at least was assessed by the Australia Institute to make literally no difference because of the scale.
vote for the greens is a vote for the liberals
Ok champ.
They can go fuck themselves to be honest, I cannot believe in a housing crisis the greens are the ones holding up housing of all people…
I worry that a lot of people will feel the same.
Do you think if the greens just waved through the haff as-is, we would have gotten $2B extra for public housing? This funding only came after the Greens blocked the haff with extra funding a demand (though I know Labor take all the credit for it).
This is how independents and minor parties work, they can’t pass their own bills so they have to negotiate by holding government bills up.
Nah, certainly not. I think Albanese’s biggest failure, so far, was not having the next part of this parliaments story ready to go as soon as the referendum was over.
The fact that Labor hasn’t been constantly screeching about having to clean up 10 years of the LNPs mess is a good indication they have no idea how to run a campaign anyway.
Honestly, reducing the teaching + publish-or-perish + the constant need to apply for grants would go a long way towards fixing the review process. Academics have to spend a lot of time doing a lot of non-academic work that peer reviewing properly sometimes gets pushed down the list of priorities.
Never let a crisis go to waste eh.
The Australia Institute also has a new youtube video on this bill.
You’re right the bill does not do that. The point I’m making is that the way in which you remove money from politics is important, not just the removal of it. If the bill essentially removed the ability for any other group to run other than the two major parties then it’s not a good bill.
Do you think that donations are the only way of biasing a party or candidate? How many have gone to work for consultants afterwards?
Would it be a good bill if donations were banned but only the two major parties get public funding?
Well you see you put the pill testing in and then surround it by police so no one wants to use. That way you can point out how ineffective it is and can it.