Federal Politics

There is a difference between Greens MPs and other MPs being landlords though, as the Greens have made anti-landlordism a core policy of theirs in an effort to attract the youth renter vote. It’s dishonest in my view to then have representatives who are landlords and who have likely profited from the rental crisis.

Imagine if a Greens MP had a stake in a coal mine or an offshore oil rig. In my view this is really not any different.


Exactly. Of course if they knew better they’d keep it to themselves without anyone finding out but it’s like if the Greens said: ‘We don’t want new coal mines being built but we want to get funding from Gina Rinehart’, or something along the lines of ‘We oppose discrimination by religious organisations but we’ll be advised by the Australian Christian Lobby’ or something else.

Or if let’s say the Coalition say ‘We’re anti-China’ yet they’re being supported by CCP-backed donors. You can’t take them seriously if that’s the kind of cards they’re playing with the public.


I think you’ve both got it backwards, the problem is when a pro-coal, pro-China, or pro-property investment take money from coal, China or investment properties.

The better analogy for the other side is a conservative that supports Medicare cuts goes to the doctor and accepts a rebate. I doubt there are many that would pay that money back to the government.

Perhaps another, more effective example would be this. When President Bush Jr came to Parliament House to do his speech in 2003, Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle both interrupted during the speech (and the speaker asked for them to be removed, even though they stayed, protesting about detainees in Guantanamo Bay). Clearly they were very anti-US, yet when Bush exited the building, Brown and Nettle tried to shake hands and speak to Bush as if nothing’s happened.

They’ve managed to be both pro and anti-US simultaneously. Greens certainly know how to take the ‘two-way street’ idea literally even back in the early noughties.

(Funnily enough, both of them were ‘named’ after that speech and barred from parliament for the next day without a vote).


Well we aren’t going to agree on any of this, but I think it should be a basic responsibility of a politician to be capable of both diplomacy and calling out human rights abuse. The two are not contradictory, it is going to be an important challenge with China in the coming decades; they will continue to be a trading partner, but that shouldn’t mean they get a free pass on everything.

On the Guantanamo Bay issue, the greens were on the right side of history, imo its everyone else that remained silent that have the explaining to do.

1 Like

Agree with that, along with the Iraq war and all. Although given Howard was basically rewarded for being Bush-lackey for all those years one wonders why Australians overall were war-lovers.

All I’m saying is that politicians, if they’re going on the public record, should hold themselves to the standard they set about particular areas. Albanese made it pretty clear that on China they will work with them but also not afraid to call out their issues. That’s transparency. Greens and their each-way bet on housing policies have a long way to go.

1 Like

Moving on. Something that’s always kind of amused me is in the UK House of Commons (which I believe we derived most of our rules in parliament from, in the Westminster system), members in there are referred to by their first and last names (e.g. Sir Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak, Boris Johnson etc) but here in our lower house members are referred to by their electoral divisions (e.g. Albo is Member for Grayndler, Dutton is Member for Dickson etc).

Given that IIRC UK Commons MPs also come from electoral divisions (with some fairly long names too), why is it that they don’t use that in their chambers (e.g. calling Sir Keir Starmer 'The Member for Holborn & St Pancreas), and conversely, why don’t our MPs get referred to as (for example) ‘The Hon. Mr. Angus Taylor’ or something else?

It is important to note that only the Speaker of the House of Commons can refer to members by their name. I don’t know what the reasoning behind this (and it is bugging me not knowing), but I would suspect it is an old tradition from a time when literacy rates were lower.

As for why members can’t call each other by name, it is part tradition and part decorum. It is a tradition of debates that you address the meeting as a whole rather than the individual. As there are a lot of people and you can’t realistically address them all directly, it became practice to address the Speaker as the chair of the debate and representative of the House.

Removing the ability to address members directly by their name was also designed (at least in theory) to keep debates more civil, and addressing by title or by the general “member” makes it impersonal. Members also can’t use the second person “you” in reference to another member because all remarks are through the Speaker, so you implies they are addressing the Speaker directly.


Listen to this 3DB news bulletin from the dismissal - You don’t see “Mister Fraser” etc. anymore

1 Like

Funnily enough whenever the speaker refers to a member by their name I thought it related to the procedure of ‘naming’ (which is obviously different as that’s cue for a motion to suspend), but then I got caught up with how it works in Australia where the speaker gets to say ‘I name the Member for X’ rather than calling out ‘Mr. Anthony Albanese’ in anger :sweat_smile:

IIRC I still hear it on The World Today.

1 Like

Anthony Albanese is plotting to call a very early election. Peter Van Onselen reveals the inside word from the PM’s war room - and the telling clues Aussies are about to be forced to decide | Daily Mail Online

The date he is looking at is Saturday, August 31.

The writs for an election need to be issued 33 days before polling day, which means the PM is looking at the last weekend this month - July 27/28 - to visit his newly appointed Governor General Sam Moystn and dissolve the parliament.

Personally i don’t see him going prior to the Qld election in October, but the arguments PVO lays out make some sense. - the greens are occupied by Palastine, the LNP are still figuring out the nuclear policy and there is the potental for a rate rise in september. theres also the stage 3 tax cuts fresh in peoples minds


Very interesting.
I think it actually has a good chance of paying off if true, most of the issues facing society are likely to get worse before they get better, and I can see things like unemployment getting worse too as the post pandemic boom fades out.

Going early was normal in the 70s to the 90s for a first term government

1 Like

Interesting given he announced three candidates in key Queensland seats in the last few days

1 Like

The accent of that 3DB newsreader is also old-school as since the 1970s, newsreaders and announcers mostly sound more like normal people instead of that Australian version of BBC English.

Don’t usually read The Australian but if there’s any merits to this article, then it could be a blessing in disguise for Labor.


Hilarious. The same Muslim movements that the Greens claim to back are now being told to stay away from Wills and the Senate so they don’t take their votes? As if the Muslim Vote movement is going to want anything to do with the Greens anyway given they’re on their own platform. The Greens can’t have the cake and eat it too.

If this sort of fighting continues as reported, Labor will be loving all this ammunition this disunity has given them. It would expose the Greens as nothing but publicity-loving, politic-obsessed, fake and frauds that makes Labor look principled and pragmatic by comparison


Isn’t that pretty much their entire platform? The phrase ‘rules for thee, not for me’ springs to mind when I think of the Greens.

1 Like

Given how right-skewing the media in this country is, I just don’t get why a lot of people who vote for them can’t see past their headline-grabbing grandstanding to see that they’re all a bunch of daydreamers?

I fall into the cohort that happens to blindly vote for Greens because they think it’s cool, but if I want centre-left I’d vote Labor because they’ve got the right policy agenda and are pragmatic. They’re not perfect but still more productive than Greens or the Coalition.

As for the Muslim Vote, as angry as they are about Labor, I honestly can’t see them preferencing the Coalition or Greens above Labor when push comes to shove.

1 Like

Exactly. To be quite honest part of me really wants to like the Greens (being also in that general age bracket that is their support base), as there are the foundations of some actual decent ideas mixed amongst the sloganeering and rhetoric, but sadly they lack substance and credibility.

I also can’t get behind (and this is a broader criticism I have of many on the progressive left in this country) the generally aggressive and disrespectful nature with which they respond to anyone who does not agree with them. Attack and dissect policies and proposals, not people.

I don’t really the idea of voting blocs or parties being formed on the basis of religion or race as that can lead down a very dangerous rabbit hole, but I think you’re right in that they’ll begrudgingly back Labor over the other two. Most likely they’ll just try their luck at pushing Labor into a stronger view on the Palestine issue in return.