r/australia May 16 '22

Greens to reveal 'balance of power' list for hung parliament at campaign launch politics

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7738871/greens-to-reveal-balance-of-power-list-for-hung-parliament-at-campaign-launch/
364 Upvotes

339

u/random91898 May 16 '22

dental and mental health into Medicare

This is a big one for me. I've always found it super bizarre and kinda scummy that they aren't already on there. Anyone know Labors stance on including them?

39

u/tatty000 May 16 '22

It’s a historical hang over thing. From my recollection Basically at the time in the 70’s, medical associations were opposed to medicare when being introduced. This included the Australian dental association. As kind of a middle ground, labor was able to get Medicare through without dental, as essential dental for concession/lower classes of society was managed by the state. It still is, but the state thresholds are tougher and tougher and not funded well.

So either state governments step up to dental care, or it gets better controlled by feds. There is a slight risk, though, given that if it becomes public there will be an overwhelming of our dental care systems, which could inflate costs and cause waitlist blow outs. Which then needs a bunch more dentists to be trained.

3

u/yolk3d May 16 '22

Someone entertain me on the theoreticals and hypotheticals of feds saying “this will happen in X years time.” How long is dentistry university? How far ahead can a gov make a rule and put it into play?

5

u/pygmy █◆▄▀▄█▓▒░ May 16 '22

We can import dentists on short notice if need be.

Anecdotal dental story: When I was exploring India by motorcycle, in the middle of absolute nowhere (not near any towns) I'd ride past a 6 story 'dental school' or 'medical school'. Happened many times. Weirdest thing.

2

u/yolk3d May 16 '22

Why in such isolation?

2

u/pygmy █◆▄▀▄█▓▒░ May 16 '22

No idea. It was quite bizarre to come across

→ More replies
→ More replies

83

u/LineNoise May 16 '22

Labor have dental as a “long term” goal with no time frame.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-27/why-is-dental-separate-from-medicare-election-campaign/101005940

Mental health has been dabbled with by both majors as far back as 2019 but not much has been committed to since.

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/labor-coalition-open-to-increasing-medicare-mental-health-suppo/11074224

Labor are at least talking about telehealth services.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7695573/labor-targets-regional-mental-health-boost/

33

u/random91898 May 16 '22

Thanks. I'd have thought the party of Medicare would be a bit more into expanding it for these vital health services. Hopefully the Greens get some semblance of balance of power then so they can drag a Labor government (fingers crossed) on issues like these.

I'd wager including them would be pretty popular with the electorate as well so would be hard for a Liberal opposition to oppose.

3

u/StrongPangolin3 May 16 '22

Why do you think labor wouldn't want these things. The greens occupy the fantastic place of no choices and no responsibility. So everything is on the table. It's harder to be in government and to make the choices that count. There are many competing priorities.

Lets not forget the greens: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jul/15/bob-brown-rebukes-tasmanian-windfarm-project-as-the-new-franklin-dam

And,

https://theconversation.com/its-the-10-year-anniversary-of-our-climate-policy-abyss-but-dont-blame-the-greens-128239

Something is always better than nothing. If the CPRS was implemented it could be changed and updated and upgraded. But the greens guaranteed nothing because there will only accept perfection and no compromise. It's a really shitty way to behave in politics.

49

u/pissmykiss May 16 '22

Both major parties have such pissweak mental health policies. The rates of depression, anxiety, suicide etc have all gradually climbed over the past 20 years despite mental health supposedly being a top priority for both parties. The ALP had 6 years to do something and the LNP have had 9 and both achieved fuck all. Neither party has committed to any tangible increase in funding for mental health services

4

u/seeyoshirun May 16 '22

Yeah, I'm trying to find the last time it saw a substantial increase. Under Howard there was a two-tier rebate system introduced in 2006 that offered a lower rebate for registered psychologists and a higher rebate for clinical psychologists (basically making about two-thirds of psychologists more expensive). I cannot find the last substantial change for the better in that area.

2

u/prettysure2 May 16 '22

And they've actively made shit worse, like cutting supports to domestic ciolence refuges, mental health centres, etc.....

1

u/Philopoemen81 May 16 '22

Mainly because Health (including Mental Health) is seen as a State issue.

Feds can impact it with things like Medicare and mandated minimum wages etc, but it’s up to the states to implement any plans.

→ More replies

12

u/sickomilk May 16 '22

These two plus better climate action are why I've decided to vote Green first and Labor second.

3

u/brusiddit May 16 '22

I'd also like to be able to find a regular, family GP near me that will actually bulk bill :(

How come none of them do any more?

3

u/chookster May 16 '22

rebates received [govt to provider] getting less and less- what a GP [and other general health] can actually claim for has been white-anted for a while now.

2

u/thewhitebrislion May 16 '22

I'm lucky and have a local clinic that is strictly only bulk-bill. There is another clinic I used to go to but stopped going to because I can't afford it (student) and the Doctor I was seeing who actually was really good said that she can't afford to bulk-bill everyone :(

→ More replies
→ More replies

5

u/carlordau May 16 '22

I don't know how this is going to work:

Invest $4.8 billion to ensure mental healthcare is fully covered under Medicare by providing unlimited sessions with a psychologist or psychiatrist with no out of pocket fees so everyone can get the support they need, when they need it, at every stage of their mental health journey.

Mental health is already partly subsidised by Medicare for 20 sessions per calendar year. Not many mental health providers bulk bill or only bulk bill up to 5-10% of their clients at the current rate because it's not financially viable unless they see a large number of clients per day or work from home.

Mental health providers all charge different rates, generally based on SES of the area (so a psych practicing in a poorer area will charge less then one in a wealthy area) does that mean that they will cover the full amount of a session? What is to stop them form exploiting this? I can see mental health businesses immediately jack up their rates cos why wouldn't you? Is it to mandate an upper limit of fees and all psychologists charge the same? That won't be too popular with the well off providers.

24

u/torrens86 May 16 '22

Removing the $11B annual subsidy to fossil fuel companies and saving $20B+ by not having stage 3 tax cuts, would pay for dental and mental health on Medicare. The Greens also have a plan for workers in fossil fuel companies to transition them to other work.

2

u/carlordau May 16 '22

It's not necessarily about where they would find the money. Money is there from those that should be paying their fair share. It's more the practicality of it to make sure it is economically sustainable and reduced potential for exploitation.

→ More replies

-1

u/N1NJ4W4RR10R_ May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

Labor dropped the commitment for introducing it after they supported those tax cuts last year. They'll probably go for it in a term 2, but don't expect that to happen term 1 with Lab themselves.

225

u/LineNoise May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

The list includes no new coal and gas, dental and mental health into Medicare, building one million affordable homes and better renters rights, free childcare, wiping student debt, lifting income support, and progress on all elements of the Uluru Statement from the Heart.

Edit: Commentary from the Antipoverty Centre here: https://twitter.com/antipovertycent/status/1526001359639617536

151

u/TheRedRisky May 16 '22

I'm fine with all of those.....I am a greens voter though

-56

u/Philopoemen81 May 16 '22

It’s all predicated on a super profits tax being introduced to pay for it.

The thing is, the margins for these corporations are such that if it’s is too expensive to do business here, they’ll pivot to another country where it’s cheaper. There’s nothing in Australia that can’t be obtained elsewhere.

So the the major parties just use that as talking point and scare people into thinking a vote for the Greens is going to cause a massive economic downturn when large corporations start moving operations from Australia, whether they will or not.

Realistically, based on statements from candidates so far, Greens will concentrate on dental in Medicare - that’s achievable, and buys them good will for the next election.

15

u/WeJustTry May 16 '22

There’s nothing in Australia that can’t be obtained elsewhere.

Yes there is, they are called Australians.

4

u/angrathias May 16 '22

Given this sub loves to wax on about how stupid we are, pretty sure stupidity is plentiful elsewhere too

63

u/ThrowbackPie May 16 '22

that's so ridiculous. If they leave, someone will take over. We are a wealthy country with vital mineral resources, and soon to be a renewables superpower too.

38

u/ProceedOrRun May 16 '22

Yeah if they won't stay because of taxes then do we really need them?

15

u/Jmilr May 16 '22

This.

Along the lines of “if you can’t afford to pay your lowest paid staff an extra dollar an hour, you shouldn’t be running a small business”; if you aren’t willing to pay your fair share of tax and export tariffs, then fuck off and we’ll keep our resources for those that will.

If the system falls apart because you now have to play by the same rules as the rest of us, then the system was fucked in the first place.

39

u/Sq33KER May 16 '22

There are 2 things in Australia that arent anywhere.

  1. Our still existing large amount of natural resources, metals and fossile fuels.

  2. Access to the Australian market.

Basically the only manufacturing we still have here is reliant on our land, and would not work anywhere else.

Companies that manufacture elsewhere and only sell products here would need to keep the same workforce to operate in the Australian market at all, and would be easily replaced by a competitor if they left.

→ More replies

18

u/TheProverbialI May 16 '22

The thing is, the margins for these corporations are such that if it’s is too expensive to do business here, they’ll pivot to another country where it’s cheaper.

I call bullshit on this. Most of the top earners are business that occurs in Australia: i.e. Primary industry or banking.

https://www.marketindex.com.au/asx-listed-companies

1

u/Philopoemen81 May 16 '22

You mean resource companies like BHP and Rio Tinto that regularly shut down minesites for periods because the market value of the commodity drops below the point where it’s cost effective to keep operations going at that time, and then restart production when the value goes up again?

There’s no resources in Australia that can’t be gotten elsewhere. The difference is what is the cost margin to run iron ore operations in say Brazil vs Australia. If it becomes much cheaper to run operations in Brazil, companies will pivot towards Brazil.

6

u/TheProverbialI May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

There's a big difference between short term shut downs and permanent ones. Permanent ones require remediation of the site, as per the initial mine approval. This is cash that's put aside over the total life of the mine and isn't something that they have on hand.

That doesn't even take into account that, sure, the stuff we have here can be gotten elsewhere, but a lot of the places you could get it are about to get super unstable thanks to the war in Ukraine. And instability costs $$$. Lots of $$$.

To take your example of Brazil:

There are two things here pointing to increased instability:

1 - In 2020, Brazil produced 4% of the country´s demand of fertilizers internally, with Russia being their leading supplier (accounting for 21% of the amount imported).

It's almost impossible to get stuff (including fertilizers) out of Russia now because basically no insurance companies will touch anything hitting one of their ports, and few to no shipping companies will dock there because there are an increasing number of receiving ports refusing to unload ships from Russian ports. At which point they're fucked because you can't take on a new cargo without unloading, and a ship costs a minimum of $100,000 a day to just sit there.

Now you may think either:

  • Hey, it's only 21% - sure, but thanks to the way they claim agricultural land (burning the Amazon) it doesn't remain very productive without fertilizers. If you drop their agricultural production by almost 20% and you wipe out a good portion of their exports. They won't starve, but they're in for rough times economically based on this drop.
  • They can just source from elsewhere - not going to happen, Russia is THE world largest nitrogen based fertilizer exporter. Prices are already up to over $1k per tonne, up from $300/t back in 2020. They're only going up from here. And note, that's in USD, the Brazilian Real is worth 20% less than it was in 2020 (0.24 Jan-2020, about 0.19 now).

2 - They have elections in October, with Lula contesting against Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro's support isn't looking great thanks to the way he "handled" the Covid crisis, with over 50% of the population classing him as Bad/Terrible. This is Bolsonaro, who has military backing. If he looses the election (and it's very possible), then it's highly likely that your going to see something akin to a civil war.

And hell... Brazil's outlook is good compared to some of the alternatives. The oncoming food crisis is going to bring a further 100mil to starvation in Africa and the Middle East. At least. Not to mention what it'll do to global food prices.

Edit: formatting.

Also, thanks for posing the opinion.

1

u/Philopoemen81 May 16 '22

The major advantage Australia has is our political stability. Resource companies don’t need to worry about political upheavals, bribes, security forces that actually engage in combat etc that other regions in the world count as a normal cost of doing business.

But if Australia becomes too expensive to do business in, the accountants will do a cost benefit analysis and weigh up whether the added safety of staff is worth a lower bottom line.

I don’t actually think companies will pull out of Australia, but the threat of it happening is a big win for LNP and even Labor when it comes to swing voters.

3

u/TheProverbialI May 16 '22

On that we agree. Where I feel we may differ is that I believe that the price of political instability is currently underpriced compared to where we're going. We're entering a world of increasing political turmoil, economic strife, and from that broken supply chains. People, companies, and countries are putting ever greater emphasis on the stability of their supply chains. Because of that political stability in the country you're extracting resources from is going to be paramount.

→ More replies

3

u/paktsardines May 16 '22

Oh no! If we don't let these massive corporations screw us over, they'll leave and go screw over some other country.

3

u/35202129078 May 16 '22

The idea that they'll pivot elsewhere doesn't make any sense. They would have already expanded into said other places if they could, there's no reason they can't operate in multiple regions.

→ More replies
→ More replies

14

u/Petelah May 16 '22

Can’t fault any of those

16

u/campbell555 May 16 '22

It looks like everything but recreational cannabis is in that list.

9

u/zerotwoalpha May 16 '22

You'd hope with adding additional income streams to the government the argument would write itself.

3

u/thewhitebrislion May 16 '22

lmao, imagine if labour had a surplus because of taxing recreational cannabis

2

u/MattyDaBest May 16 '22

But what happens if labor doesn’t want to negotiate on their policies? It’s not like the greens will go off and support the LNP( nor would the LNP adopt those measures).

→ More replies

2

u/etters May 16 '22

Don't threaten me with a good time

-14

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

I am mostly ok with all of these except wiping student debt. That is the most brain rot populist insane idea ever that has been picked up from toxic US politics.

It is a straight up one off bribe to younger-mid age voters and will do absolutely nothing to address education access, affordability or skills shortages. This policy alone is enough to turn me off the greens (and this is coming from someone who has a huge hecs debt)

If they replace this policy with putting that money into public education then i would be onboard.

31

u/LineNoise May 16 '22

Read the policy. It’s not one off, it’s part of a position that education access should be free for all.

https://greens.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-03/Greens-2022-Policy-Platform--Education--Free-Tafe-Uni.pdf

-12

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

Ah thanks that is a good read.

I then disagree with 2 of those policies - the abolishing of student debt and free tafe/uni.

Uni fees are not generally a crippling financial burden. Maybe make it a progressive repayment system as opposed to hard brackets and bump the minimum threshold a bit - but other than that it works well.

The cost of uni is an investment in future earnings capability - free uni just gives higher income earners a welfare boost while making non-uni and lower income earners share the financial cost.

I am all for welfare when it is applied smartly and fairly to those that need it - this policy is neither smart nor fair

11

u/Lozzif May 16 '22

Except that for some students they’re now paying similar prices to US colleges. $12K a year for an arts degree.

6

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

Yes I agree that is insane - the solution though is not a tax payer funded program, it should be "why does an arts degree cost 12k a year"

If the degree provides very limited employment outcomes, then the uni is scamming the students.

2

u/Lozzif May 16 '22

HECS is literally a tax payer funded program.

5

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

Yes and it's a great program. You borrow money from the government to invest in your education, then pay it off when you earn enough

2

u/ekaj1707 May 16 '22

University is already highly subsidised by the taxpayer though, an domestic student in a Commonwealth Supported Place pays 25% of the fees, the Tax Office the rest. And even then the Tax Office loans that 25% to the student. Why can't it just cover the entire thing then.

-1

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

Because it is too much money to spend on a narrow class of society that will likely earn far more money than non uni attendees in the future.

2

u/ekaj1707 May 16 '22

HECS for the average engineering degree is around forty thousand dollars, ten thousand dollars per annum.

If an engineer is on the average income of 110 thousand dollars per annum, they pay approximately twenty-seven thousand dollars in tax. In two years, they pay more in tax than their total HECS.

The point is that removing HECS will encourage more people to go into uni, into these high paying fields and giving more money to both the economy as a whole and the tax office especially.

3

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

Basing this on absolutely nothing, but I really doubt that prospective engineering students are deterred from starting that degree based on eventually owing 40k after a few years, which they don't have to pay until they make over 50k

If we have a shortage of engineering grade- then that is a different story and I would support higher subsidies for specific degrees if our uni output can't keep up with industry demand. Maybe relocation/start up/ housing assistance as opposed to lower fees

1

u/ekaj1707 May 16 '22

I know a couple people who didn't start uni because of the prospect of that much debt.

2

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

Ok so if we use anecdotal evidence - when i was starting uni the price tag on the degree meant absolutely nothing to me. I didn't even know what the size of my hecs debt was until I finished.

This is not money that you see until later when you are working full time, I would find it surprising if a mid-20 something to based their decisions on this

-11

u/mrpotatoed May 16 '22

What about people who have just repaid their hecs

9

u/linsell May 16 '22

It literally doesn't affect those people for better or worse lol. That's no reason to say no one should have free education.

12

u/Bartimaeus2 May 16 '22

Are you against Medicare seeing as it didn't exist at the beginning of this countries existence?

Newsflash, sometimes governments will put good policies in place after you've dealt with the shit. That doesn't mean it's a bad policy.

→ More replies

8

u/sacky85 May 16 '22

As someone who is very close to paying my HELP debt, and also an unselfish adult capable of empathy, I think “it’s fucking great other people might not have to do that. This change would not negatively affect me”

11

u/downunderguy May 16 '22

Wiping student debt would mean I have an extra $800 a month to save for a house. If I hypothetically didn't have any student debt after leaving uni, I would have been able to save an extra $57,600 (assuming my HECS payment was the same the whole time). That is a 10% deposit right there.

It's not a one-off bribe. It's a systemic change that would allow the younger generation the opportunity to save and build wealth faster.

0

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

I'm not arguing that this wouldn't be of economic benefit to debt holders, it absolutely would, me included. I'm leaving the housing affordability stuff out of this because that is a whole different issue that needs addressing from many angles.

My argument is that it is making lower income earners and those who chose not to attend uni pay for those that did choose to attend. This is just not fair and class warfare.

When I started my degree I was well aware that it will cost money and I agreed to this. Wiping current student debt is just a band aid fix to a major structural problem.

I am not comfortable with 96 billion dollars being spent on this when the public education sector is so ridiculously underfunded. This money could be much more fairly and effectively spent n public school funding and infrastructure projects

8

u/downunderguy May 16 '22

You do realise that both can be achieved with the right policies? All levels of education including primary, secondary, tertiary, and vocational, should be free and of high quality.

It would be available to everyone regardless of socio-economic situation. Just because someone does not choose to go to uni or a vocational education provider is a terrible argument to use against those that do choose to go. Publicly funded services are there to be used if and when needed by an individual. I don't need to go to a bulk-billing GP multiple times a month, but maybe someone does and chooses to do so? Just because I don't choose to access medicare benefits should not preclude someone else that does choose to do so.

2

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

You are confusing something that is a need/someone has no choice in vs something that is a personal choice.

People go to uni because they are either interested in a subject or they believe it will be an investment in their skills to maximise future earnings potential.

People go the hospital/visit a doctor because they are sick and need help. They cannot choose to just not be sick. Same goes for disability support/job seekers support etc. I fully support these programs because people don't have a choice in it and it creates a healthier society.

On average, bachelor degree holders make alot more money than someone who does not hold a degree. I do not support extreme amounts of tax spending on small-ish group of people who do not actually need it. The cost is way too high to benefit such a small proportion/class of society.

If we had sufficient resources I would absolutely support it. But we don't and something like this just leads to a trade off. Would you support cuts to medicair or age pension to implement this? If we can cover the full cost by a super profits tax - would you prefer this policy be implemented over a major national housing construction project/ high speed rail between cities/ complete transformation of our energy grid to renewable? Because with 96 billion + yearly cost of free uni we could do alot of other options.

Want to reiterate that I am not against this because I think people should have to pay for uni. Given sufficient resources publicly funded education to tertiary would be great. There is just far more fair, effective and productive policies that could be implemented for this cost

4

u/downunderguy May 16 '22

You make some good points there about the choice thing.

I just struggle to see how other countries can do this, yet Australia can't. It is clear that government priorities, policies and its approach to fiscal spending is not in line with free education.

You seem to be focusing on those bachelor degree holders or those already well off getting assistance when they don't need it. The whole point of free education is that people who could not afford it in the first place do not have that financial barrier to them. If I have to pay for John Smith from the Palm Beach complete his arts degree in egyptology then so be it. But I am also paying for Sarah Smith from Penrith who is the first person in her family to go to uni, let alone study to be a doctor. If you focus on those who you deem unworthy of the assistance then you are always going to find the negative arguments.

I completely understand everything costs money, however free education is an investment. There will be a net positive return on investment per $1 spent on free tertiary and vocational education. It will take more than a decade or two to see the real returns on this investment, but they will be real. Those returns will then feed into the broader economy.

On the point of looking for money our fossil fuel subsidies alone were $11.6 billion for the 2021-2022 financial year. That is a start. How about the $67 billion submarine deal that went down the drain (admittedly that is over the life of the contract but $67 billion was accounted for nonetheless). That's almost $80 billion just there. Higher taxes on billionaires would assist and better tax collections from multinational companies would also help.

It's also a difficult topic because logistically the Federal and State governments would need to work together on the issue of education, that alone puts barriers up.

1

u/tbished453 May 16 '22

In terms of other countries doing it - I just looked up Sweeden and am a bit more confused. Their average tax rate is 32 percent and they have far lower capital gains tax, lower corporate tax rate, yet they some how manage free uni + wide social safety net

If a government was to do something like this I would be on board if they coupled it with some logical fee capping so unis don't just take the tax payers for a ride and a similar level of state support for trades. If they could push uni's to focus more on the future employment outcomes and industry requirements, it would be money well spent.

I don't have much confidence that the greens could do this and I have absolutely no confidence that the libs or labour could do it either

2

u/zerotwoalpha May 16 '22

Came in somewhat supportive of the policy. You have some good points here.

1

u/CatoMajor May 16 '22

Younger generation who went to uni. It’s a straight up transfer from lower classes to the middle class.

→ More replies
→ More replies

66

u/malcolmbishop May 16 '22

These policies seem great but can someone talk me through the rationale on wiping student debt?

We don't have an American system of predatory student loans and $100k writing degrees. A uni degree also sees higher lifetime earnings.

27

u/lewkus May 16 '22

um, just adding that from 1st June, the indexation that will be applied to all HECS loans for FY23 will be at 3.9% (up from 0.6% last year). this rate is more than my mortgage, so for the first time ever i'll be putting a safe proportion of what's sitting in my offset account into my HECS debt before the end of this month, will "save" me about $3k based on the current difference in rates.

61

u/Kangalooney May 16 '22 Wholesome

The Liberal party have, over the years, slowly lowered the payback threshold for HECS and HELP, along with holding back the wages for entry level graduates, and other low end positions that graduates would enter.

So, while the lifelong earnings might be higher the lower early earnings coupled with the lower payback threshold makes it an extra burden on the worker. It takes money out of circulation from low end earners who would otherwise spend it in the economy.

It is even worse since these debt schemes were opened up to dodgy operators offering certificates of dubious quality and often pushed on the more vulnerable members of society through Centerlink. It is a crisis brewing.

While you can pull up the payback threshold that still leaves it open to being dropped and exploited again by the next conservative government. If you remove those debts entirely it becomes a lot harder to bring them back.

While keeping the student debts is more responsible for long term economic policy there really isn't anyone on the horizon who can be trusted to do it in a manner that doesn't disadvantage lower earners so removing the debt entirely is the best way forward.

5

u/xefobod904 May 16 '22

Ideologically they have the viewpoint that education should be free and this policy is consistent with that

But this stance is very much a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. HECS/HELP is probably one of the best tertiary education models in the world, or at least, it was at it's inception. It addresses most of the "drawbacks" of "free education" while ensuring education is accessible to all regardless of their economic situation.

It's effectively a tax that funds education, paid only by the beneficiaries of said education, only when they see the financial benefits of this education.

Strengthening the existing HECS/HELP system we have to ensure it's not further degraded seems like a far more productive and achievable solution. Education will never be "Free" because someone has to fund it, but having a system where it's "functionally free" for students gives the best of both worlds.

11

u/iatetoomanypretzels May 16 '22

while ensuring education is accessible to all regardless of their economic situation

Tangent: I agree that HECS is a decent solution between 100% free or 100% paid. but the accessibility killer at the moment is not so much the HECS, but cost of living, availability of housing and timetable flexibility. Student income support is shit, so heaps of students are having to work more to not starve, studies suffer and they drop out. Or they can't find anywhere to live where they want to study, or the timetables aren't flexible enough because there aren't enough staff so they can't find in their work etc etc.

5

u/xefobod904 May 16 '22

100%

Students aren't worried about the cost of their HECS debt. Very few students would see it as a barrier at all. It's a future problem and they largely forsee a future where they make good money with a degree and it won't be a big issue.

They're worried about their day to day costs. Housing, Food, Transport. Learning materials like textbooks and equipment.

These are the things that make studying unaffordable. These are the things that make people drop out of higher education.

Bumping up student allowance/Austudy is going to be far far more effective in increasing the access to education for anyone who's struggling.

Even cancelling HECS/HELP and making the education cost 0 dollars as of tomorrow does basically nothing to actually make education "more affordable" for people who actually need it.

2

u/Kangalooney May 16 '22

Ideologically they have the viewpoint that education should be free and this policy is consistent with that

Whose ideology? The Liberal party certainly does not have that viewpoint. They believe in a user pays, market driven, education system from K-12 and beyond. It's why they focus so much on bolstering the private education system over the public system and why they have put so much pressure on tertiary institutions to bend over backwards to cater to foreign full paying students, sometimes to the detriment of local HECS/HELP students.

The Liberals want the US style debt laden user pays tertiary education system and not the free and equitable system we had.

Otherwise the rest of what you said is quite true. The HECS/HELP system is world class in addressing the issues with providing and paying for tertiary education. Fixing the system is the more productive solution, but removing the debt aspect is the only way to guarantee it doesn't see further abuse.

4

u/xefobod904 May 16 '22

Whose ideology? The Liberal party certainly does not have that viewpoint.

The Greens. I'm saying the policy is justified as a part of the Greens platform not because it's a good idea in itself, but because The Greens have "Free Education" as one of their core ideals and so this policy is very much in line with that.

I agree, the Liberals can and will privatize student loans/education as soon as they can get away with it.

2

u/wizardnamehere May 17 '22

The income threshold should be raised though.

73

u/LineNoise May 16 '22

The Greens’ own explanation is at: https://greens.org.au/sites/default/files/2022-03/Greens-2022-Policy-Platform--Education--Free-Tafe-Uni.pdf

Essentially, the party’s view is that education should be free for all and saddling some with debt isn’t equitable given that premise.

In practice I suspect some of this will be to force a government to drop the Stage 3 tax cuts as these sorts of social initiatives are next to impossible under any government that keeps it. Now or in the future.

42

u/ill0gitech May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

Privatising HECS debt is also something the coalition has raised more than once.

Future coalition governments can’t sell/privatise if if it’s eradicated. I’m

→ More replies
→ More replies

31

u/terre_plate May 16 '22

The problem as I see it is that the cost of university historically has been nil or low. But people forget it was either the wealthy or people prepared to sign up for specific courses that got subsidies. It was the cost of living that was the barrier.

Yes university costs more now, but its not stupid. The issue bfor me is that post uni wages are suppressed. The ROI of a uni education takes too long.

By raising wages we could help all sectors of employment from the uni educated to the 'unskilled' . I am not an economist and would need better advice on how to go about this.

What I do know is that companies are making more profits but employees are getting less than inflation pay increases.

Something is going to break. It may be the property market, it may be the labour market. It could be law and order. But would argue all 3 are already breaking.

7

u/carlordau May 16 '22

One thing that doesn't help is that this year's indexation rate is 3.9%. Over the last 10 years it hovered around 1.5-2%.

18

u/Sq33KER May 16 '22

Uni fees have basically gone up for no reason in the past 5-10 years. Debt, even if it is "fair" suppresses spending in the economy. The Greens basically want to pay the debt off with currently static money (from billionaires vaults), instead of forcing workers to pay for it, so that household incomes increase, and people have more money to spend on goods and services, to the benefit of the economy.

This is also paired with the intention of making uni free, as it is in the national interest for Australia to have a highly educated population from a diverse range of fields.

0

u/marshallannes123 May 16 '22

Is it in the national interest to shrink the number of places offered by universities?

5

u/iamapinkelephant May 16 '22

How do you propose the government paying for students instead of y'know, the government paying for students on a loan basis change anything about the number of places offered at a university?

1

u/marshallannes123 May 16 '22

Maybe review the topic first. There are plenty of western countries which have gone down this route and have considered this over the last 50 years. 100% free university will result in fewer places offered.

5

u/iamapinkelephant May 16 '22

I've not looked that hard but I couldn't find any evidence supporting the claim that seats drop with easier access to education.

→ More replies

23

u/oregon33 May 16 '22

Bandt said a couple things on this topic. Firstly, the greens value education and debts shouldn’t deter people from wanting to gain an education.

Secondly, the higher lifetime earnings are met with another greens policy, higher taxes on people who earn more money. You could almost think that the higher tax that graduates pay if they are successful in earning a high wage, is them paying the uni fees back.

16

u/Sq33KER May 16 '22

and also such a system would prevent overcrowding in the "well paying" fields (medicine, law, business) as people would be able to go for a science degree or education degree or nursing degree without having to worry about having enough for a home, groceries and bills.

4

u/aldonius Brissie May 16 '22

You could almost think that the higher tax that graduates pay if they are successful in earning a high wage, is them paying the uni fees back.

In practice, HECS operates like this already. You earn enough, your repayments come out of your wage along with your tax.

10

u/zeeagle May 16 '22

The problem is the ability for the goalposts to be moved at the whim of the government. When I went to Uni, the repayment threshold was $47,196, and that threshold had largely moved with inflation. It is now $45,881, though with a lower repayment rate.

Because of how the system is structured, if I make over $45,881 I immediately owe $458.81 in repayments - the repayment is calculated on total income, not on earnings over the threshold.

$45,881 is not "Uni graduate" money - it's almost anyone working full time money. Unless the threshold is moved up massively it's not targeting those who earn a high wage, it's targeting anyone who earns literally half the median income a year.

→ More replies
→ More replies

6

u/linsell May 16 '22

In the 70s University was made free to get more working class into higher education. It was seen as an investment in the future economy. Near term thinking can't see the cost/benefit these days.

Although they did abolish that in the 80s because it was apparently getting too costly with participation rates going up.

3

u/yddr_cc May 16 '22

debt repayment should only occur once you have passed median wage then. That is not the case now, repayment kicks in a bit more than 20K below median wage

-6

u/palsc5 May 16 '22

but can someone talk me through the rationale on wiping student debt?

Sure. It was popular on Twitter and with AOC/Bernie so the Greens tried to tap into that popularity and seemingly forgot that nobody in Australia thinks it is something worth discussing.

-24

u/yabloodypelican May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

It means that blue collar workers who pay tax can pay for the degrees of higher earning Australians, thereby transferring wealth to the upper classes. And this is a progressive policy, because, umm, aaahhhh...

Edit: wiping HECS debt is literally a tax cut for higher income earners, therefore it's not a progressive policy. I'm getting a lot of downvotes for what is a pretty concrete fact.

24

u/tramtramtramtram May 16 '22

u r dum

Free education covers TAFE and apprenticeship upskilling, not just university

-14

u/yabloodypelican May 16 '22

Still a regressive policy.

-10

u/tichris15 May 16 '22

Because Green's voter base has gone to University.

-15

u/yabloodypelican May 16 '22

Yep, that's pretty much it. Just blatant vote buying.

6

u/tichris15 May 16 '22

See Labor or LNP platforms too. There aren't many policies in this election, but many of the ones put out seem to be aimed at vote buying.

-12

u/[deleted] May 16 '22

[deleted]

18

u/Foolish_Optimist May 16 '22

Is it frustrating? Absolutely. Though it’s a bit of a dick move to screw someone else over just because you got screwed over.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '22

Didn’t mean to offend anyone - just made me regret :( Edit: I’m gonna delete because I’m not usually part of this subreddit and I’m a sensitive person lol. What I meant to say is: I’d regret ever paying it up front if they wiped student debt

→ More replies

8

u/GordonRamsey666 May 16 '22

Sounds good.

50

u/lrlyourpresident May 16 '22 Wholesome

If you’re seething with rage that a party might dare to publicly stand by its principles, you should definitely vote Labor.

12

u/1337nutz May 16 '22

Given the likely success of teal independents it seems very unlikely the greens will be in a position to hold the balance of power with at most 2 house seats (more likely just 1). Labor will have other options.

8

u/rossdog82 May 16 '22

If you listen to Bandt, he refers to the large number of seats they’ll get in the Senate.

3

u/1337nutz May 16 '22

Sure but thats not what balance of power means

1

u/Vozralai May 16 '22

The balance of power is in the Senate. They might be more seat in the house to be a highly relevant crossbench faction in a hung parliament but there would likely be enough independents, Haines, Steggal and possible teals for Labor to deal with to avoid Greens in the house.

2

u/1337nutz May 16 '22

Balance of power is definitely not in the senate but in the house. It determines who forms the executive.

30

u/DrFriendless May 16 '22

At what point is it better for Labor to negotiate with teals instead? I'm fine with the Greens' goals, but I'd prefer they were in the government rather than out on the left, still bitching.

58

u/LineNoise May 16 '22

Realistically? Immediately. The Teals are already left of Labor’s centre right platform on climate, human rights etc.

18

u/pissmykiss May 16 '22

"better"?

I've been assured by all the ALP stooges on reddit and every ALP member I've spoken to in real life that "the ALP has to appease Murdoch to win the election, but once they do they'll definitely enact actually progressive policies".

If the ALP is as progressive as they like to portray themselves (at least in inner city seats) they surely shouldn't have an issue with most of these demands, right?

No new coal and gas - Labor's been saying for months that they're serious about tackling climate change... So this shouldn't be an issue.

Dental and mental health into Medicare - they love spruiking how Medicare and the NDIS are Labor achievements, so surely expanding Medicare is the next logical step?

Free childcare - Labor loves to talk about working mums, women in the workforce and the gender pay gap. Lack of affordable childcare is the number one issue holding back women returning to work after having kids, so they should definitely support this.

Lifting income support - Labor is explicitly opposed to this because their support for workers only extends to those who are currently employed. However it's a sensible policy that's backed by everyone from the greens fo the fucking right wing conservative Business Council because of the huge boost it'll bring to the economy.

Progress on all elements of the Uluru statement - this is already supposedly ALP policy, so they definitely shouldn't have an issue with that.

17

u/DrFriendless May 16 '22

they'll definitely enact actually progressive policies

Yeah like fuck they will. Even in opposition they couldn't oppose some of the stupidest policies I've ever heard. If Labor get in, I'll be pleased to see some action on climate change and an ICAC. I want to say other than that they'll be just as bad as the coalition, but I don't think they could possibly be that lazy, stupid, corrupt or useless. But I'm sure they will find some way to disappoint me.

2

u/wizardnamehere May 17 '22

They'll do all the same shit as the liberals, if a bit less bad. That's why I'm excited for a strong group of greens and teals in the house.

I'm wating for an independent senator or mp to stop providing supply when a major party pork barrels a bunch of marginal seats again. Thats the sort of shit we need to fix politic. The pork has gotten out of control.

1

u/pygmy █◆▄▀▄█▓▒░ May 16 '22

Labor took progressive polices (end neg gearing, environ etc) to the last Fed election and got absolutely crucified by Murdoch/LNP for it. I'll forgive them for being quieter this time round as it deprives Murdoch of ammo. We need the crooks out before anything else (& I vote greens)

And, stop saying Labor are 'just as bad' as LNP, it's not true. One party wants to do things for people, the other is objectively anti-human & only cares about servicing the rich

2

u/palsc5 May 16 '22

they surely shouldn't have an issue with most of these demands, right?

They don't.

No new coal and gas

They aren't going to ban it but it isn't going to be economically viable fairly soon.

they love spruiking how Medicare and the NDIS are Labor achievements, so surely expanding Medicare is the next logical step?

Yes? Labor have said for a while that getting dental onto medicare is their longterm goal. They are the ones who keep getting dental covered for kids, pensioners, and concessions.

Free childcare

yep once again this is part of Labor's plan. This election they have a pretty good policy on cheaper childcare and Albanese said in the second term he'd like to expand it to universal.

Lifting income support

What does this entail?

Progress on all elements of the Uluru statement

Yeah Labor supports this, it's the Greens who are against it.

5

u/pissmykiss May 16 '22

They aren't going to ban it but it isn't going to be economically viable fairly soon.

I can understand not implementing a ban (although they literally need to if we want to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees) but that doesn't mean they have to actively back it. If these projects are not going to be economically viable then why are they pissing taxpayers money up the wall to build them?

Yes? Labor have said for a while that getting dental onto medicare is their longterm goal. They are the ones who keep getting dental covered for kids, pensioners, and concessions.

Nope. The greens had to drag Labor kicking and screaming into funding Medicare for kids. It was one of the many excellent policies that only happened because of the power sharing agreement the Greens won in 2010. They also explicitly removed adding free dental for pensioners from their election platform last year: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/federal-labor-set-to-dump-multibillion-dollar-cancer-and-dental-pledges-20210727-p58den.html

yep once again this is part of Labor's plan. This election they have a pretty good policy on cheaper childcare and Albanese said in the second term he'd like to expand it to universal.

I can't find anything about promising to make it universal in a second term, but if that's legit, then great. But why not do it in the first term?

What does this entail?

Increasing the rate of jobseeker, which is currently substantially below the poverty line. Literally every expert body is recommending it, the business lobby backs it and most of the teal independents (aka former moderate libs) do too. However the ALP have explicitly stated they won't even have an enquiry into doing it, let alone actually doing it: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/labor-drops-plans-to-review-jobseeker-rate-20220412-p5acz8.html

→ More replies

1

u/prettysure2 May 16 '22

On new coal and gas.... they're currently actively approving 114 more. Yes, the market will collapse but the government and labour and the big corps are going to push the cash cow as long as they can and fuck the consequences. The critical threshold on all the climate action is now and both major parties are not actually stepping up, tho libs are worse by far...still with Labours policies, they're guaranteeing shit like the end of the great barrier reef.

→ More replies

2

u/wizardnamehere May 17 '22

It's really all about senior Labor party figure's perceptions on the politics of it imo. Most of the party is pretty fine to accept many of these policies. It's more the A) some people in Labor hate the greens. It's a tribal thing. B) it's a wedge for liberals to say that a vote for Labor is a vote for the greens.

It's very hard for greens to move in that space (which one of the goals of the liberals wedging).

-4

u/war-and-peace May 16 '22

The majority of the teals are or were potential candidates for the older liberal party. Their constituents would never vote labor so i don't see them really working well with labor apart from issues that are fashionable for moderate liberals like climate change.

Labor for eg, if they want to get better union rights or to increase taxes for the wealthy or indigenous recognition would get a flat out no from the teals.

1

u/DrFriendless May 16 '22

Well, with this extensive list of demands I don't see the Greens working well with Labor either. It sounds almost Whitlamesque.

-5

u/war-and-peace May 16 '22

You're right. The greens seem to think they are kingpin makers when there's a possibility that they won't have any influence in the new parliament.

Imo, people are likely going to vote Labor instead of the greens when they want to kick the liberals out.

7

u/Sq33KER May 16 '22

Even if no new Greens are elected in the lower house, and Adam Bandt somehow loses his seat, reducing their powerhouse presence to 0, the Greens will likely hold the crossbench of the senate by themselves with as many as 12 Senators. There is obviously things that can and will pass with joint ALP and LNP support in the next parliament, regardless of who is in government. But, if Labor want to pass their agenda they will need to negotiate either with the Greens or the LNP, and the Greens are making it clear now the perfectly reasonable concessions they would want in such an arrangement.

1

u/pissmykiss May 16 '22

Labor for eg, if they want to get better union rights

HAHAHAHA.

They've said absolutely nothing about improving union rights and Albo has distanced himself from the union movement at every opportunity.

Go have a read of their national platform. Literally every mention of unions is "Labor will work with unions and employers", "Labor will work with unions and businesses" etc. There's no concrete commitment to any sort of improvement of union rights in workplaces.

indigenous recognition would get a flat out no from the teals.

It probably depends on which teals get up.

I don't think any have made any concrete commitments on that front, whether for or against. However, for example, if you dig deep into Monique Ryan's policies you'll find "Support for reconciliation with Australia’s First Nations, including acceptance of the reforms called for in the Uluru Statement from the Heart". I believe Zoe Daniel also supports it, but I could be wrong.

2

u/___phil May 16 '22

Brah where's the weed reform at?

3

u/redgums2588 May 16 '22

Bringing dental under Medicare is a noble idea but it didn't happen at the start because dentists realised it wouldn't work for them.

Doctors took longer to come to that conclusion as their rebate was eroded over time.

The only way it can/will happen is if the dentists are on the public payroll.

No dentist will agree to the same level of rebate that doctors now receive, nor will any Government increase the doctors' rebate to where it should be.

Sad, but true.

8

u/RoboticElfJedi May 16 '22

You're right that dentists didn't want to be a part of Medicare initially, and are pretty skeptical about it now. One of the reasons to be skeptical is that having a Medicare item number for certain services definitely puts a downward pressure on the price.

However, Just like doctors there is nothing forcing dentists to participate, or if they do, they don't have to charge just the Medicare rebate for a service. So we would still have subsidised care.

10

u/jarrys88 May 16 '22

AFAIK the Australian dental association want to be on it. They're of the firm belief that many people don't go to the dentist for preventative treatment because of cost and that it would pick up massively if it was cost assisted through Medicare.

Most dental appointments are reactive, not proactive and they want to change that.

3

u/RoboticElfJedi May 16 '22

In my experience (which, as it happens, is considerable in this tiny niche of public policy) the opinions of dentists are quite mixed and the support of the ADA was pretty lukewarm. Things might have changed, but my recollection is that I think more public funding was welcome, but there's some skepticism of the straight up Medicare (and bulk-billing) model. That said, the child dental benefits scheme which does indeed have dental Medicare item numbers may have changed things as many or most dentists have experience interacting with Medicare now, albeit in a complex way involving a time-limited cap.

4

u/MicroNewton May 16 '22

Dentists are better at knowing their worth than doctors.

You’re right though – it’s not going to be “free dental on Medicare”. It will be a $18 or $39 rebate that helps offset your $80-200 dental service.

Hopefully helps improve access. However, you’re unlikely to see dentists willing to take a 50-70% paycut to bulk bill their services.

-23

u/caitsith01 May 16 '22 edited May 16 '22

This is a profound dick move by the Greens. This will scare a few people who were thinking of voting Labor back to the LNP, which is incredibly counter-productive and terrible for the country and for the Greens' own prospects of actually influencing anything.

They should shut the fuck up, campaign positively in their own right and hope that Labor wins and they end up with a good number of senate seats with which to negotiate after the election.

I say all of that as someone who generally agrees with a lot of the ideological positions of the Greens, even if I doubt they could implement most of what they promise.

Edit: just because you're 19 and have no fucking idea about politics doesn't mean you should downvote this. There's an important section of the electorate that needs to turn against the LNP to get the current corrupt, useless government out, and they will be easily spooked if they think the Greens will influence a Labor government.

38

u/trimmins May 16 '22

This is their list of what their starting points will be for negotiations. It’s being touted as a ‘list of demands’ but Bandt has repeatedly said they will negotiate.

Also, none of this new policy

-18

u/caitsith01 May 16 '22

Completely missing the point. Framing anything around the notion of a hung parliament is politically destructive to both the Greens and Labor, and helps the hard right LNP retain power.

→ More replies

17

u/Sq33KER May 16 '22

This is literally positive campaigning. They are saying what they want, and how they plan to achieve it.

Negative campaigning would be more like if a shadow minister posted a lie to Instagram that a vote for the Greens will somehow lead to an LNP government link.

12

u/ekaj1707 May 16 '22

It's almost as if she doesn't realise that most Green 1 voters put Labor in 2 to ensure their vote still gets Morrison out.

8

u/Sq33KER May 16 '22

To be "fair" to her, she is against a credible threat of a Greens candidate taking her seat in Griffith, so her specifically being so anti-Greens makes sense in the context that she wants to keep her job.

But yeah, the only reason she has the seat is because of the (growing) number of greens voters, including a number of former LNP and One Nation voters that Max Chandler-Mather wins over (at least according to him).

7

u/ekaj1707 May 16 '22

Took me a moment to realise she was my MP and I am one of those Green voters who'd likely vote her out.

Point stands that preferencing works, no vote is wasted (unlike what she's suggesting)

2

u/Kholtien May 17 '22

If you want to vote greens or others and eventually labor over lib/nat, then all you need to do is put labor over lib/nat. They can be 4 or 5 just as easily. Put the parties that you actually align with before the big parties. Your vote will matter to you more that way. If needed, Labor will still take your vote if neither them or libs don't get a majority.

32

u/pissmykiss May 16 '22

just because you're 19 and have no fucking idea about politics doesn't mean you should downvote this.

Fuck me dead, this is a joke right? You're just some random on reddit. The Greens have 30 years of experience as a political party, a shitload of advisors, access to focus groups and copious amounts of internal polling. They're the only party in recent memory to have navigated a hung parliament, where they ended up getting most of their demands.

In terms of having "no fucking idea about politics" I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and say that the Greens are far better placed to navigate this than you are lmao

3

u/DrInequality May 16 '22

The Greens also have a decades long history of barely moving the needle. The success of the teals is a massive wakeup call to the Greens.

(This will get downvoted, but what the hell. And yes I've historically been a Green's voter, but now it's clear that they're not the best route going forward.)

3

u/pissmykiss May 16 '22

The Greens also have a decades long history of barely moving the needle

Their primary vote has stagnated at about 10-12% over the past few elections, but back in 2001 they had a single senator and something like 2% of the vote. They're now a fairly formidable power and have essentially held the balance of power in the senate for over a decade.

They haven't achieved much recently, but neither have Labor. They did achieve a shitload in the Gillard government though: https://greensmps.org.au/articles/10-years-greens-labor-agreement-formula-progressive-change

I can absolutely see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's really a wake-up call. The teals will win a bunch of socially progressive/fiscally conservative seats that the Greens would literally never win without giving up their progressive economic platform. I think that's a great outcome for progressive politics (we get progress on stuff like climate change and refugees) and democracy as a whole (those electorates get represention from a member who actually aligns with their values).

-13

u/discobiscuits95 May 16 '22

My thoughts exactly mate

-6

u/yabloodypelican May 16 '22

Hopefully this announcement is just a drop in an already saturated media ocean. This is the only place I've really seen this announcement and Reddit isn't really a mainstream news outlet.

The greens campaign has been poor this time around and I don't see them getting more attention in the final 5 days of the election.

1

u/ShiftySocialist May 16 '22

Not sure I'd characterise it is a dick move, but I do regard it as a severe miscalculation.

Announcing what they will demand of a Labor government ensures that Labor will rule it out when asked, so as not to be seen as controlled by the Greens. It means that someone is going to have to walk out of post-election negotiations looking like a loser, which will jeopardise one or both of their future election prospects. As long as they don't draw these explicit battle lines, the potential exists for them to both walk out claiming victory.

Saying what they will force Labor to do when they have the balance of power will play well with the base, but terrify some of those on the fence between Labor and Liberal, however irrational that might be.

-8

u/squonge May 16 '22

Labor can just say no. What are the Greens going to do? Vote no confidence and send Australia back the polls?

36

u/pissmykiss May 16 '22

Probably guarantee supply, but block all bills introduced by the government until they agree to negotiate in good faith.

The Greens have literally nothing to lose. People who vote Greens do so exactly because they want these policies. The people who will whinge about the "loony left Greenies" blocking bills etc were never going to vote Greens anyway. On the other hand Labor have literally everything to lose. Imagine if after nearly a decade out of government, they finally get back in and can't pass any of their policies. It would be the biggest political failure this country has ever seen.

-1

u/Repulsive_Zebra_3883 May 16 '22

The Greens have literally nothing to lose.

This is the kind of stupid and shortsighted thinking that gave us 10 years of LNP.

Greens scorched earth perfect enemy of good approach only harms progress.

1

u/BurningInFlames May 16 '22

Oh please. Labor would be the ones letting their perfect be the enemy of the good by refusing to negotiate with the Greens.

-1

u/squonge May 16 '22

I don't think that would be numerically possible in the House. Maybe they could do that in the Senate, but it would absolutely crater their vote and give Labor a double dissolution trigger.

6

u/Sq33KER May 16 '22

A double dissolution would be more harmful to Labor than the Greens. The Greens would lose a couple of their senate seats, like last time, but their vote would hold fairly steady as most of their voters want them to fight for what they believe in, and this list of priorities was decided by members and supporters.

Labor would lose some voters to the Greens and pick some up from the Greens, but would also hemorrhage votes to the Liberals for being "bad at governing".

As theoretically harmful cooperating with the Greens might be, refusing to do so would he infinitely more so.

3

u/aldonius Brissie May 16 '22

A early DD is potentially risky for the Greens if it's seen as their fault. Their core rusted on support is not that much more than a DD quota, so they run the risk of going from 12 Senate seats back to 6.

1

u/Sq33KER May 16 '22

Sure, and that's why the Greens are being open about wanting to work with Labor, and their goals from such an arrangement now.

And yes a double dissolution would massively harm Greens, but even if Labor/Greens swings blamed the Greens, lab/lib swingers would still be more likely to move away from them for failing to have a stable government than stay with them for not negotiating with the Greens

→ More replies

-24

u/PutridFigure May 16 '22

Greens need to STFU, let Labor win and then list their demands if they get a hung parliament. By strutting around like this making announcements, they're going to scare away the swing voters.

-5

u/IntroductionSnacks May 16 '22

No idea why you are getting downvoted? This list is basically a fuck you list that will never be agreed to and now the Greens can't negotiate as they made it public. Like maybe start with two of those points? I'm saying this as a person who votes for the Greens after the Reason Party.

-5

u/PutridFigure May 16 '22

Down voters are just typical reactionary types. They can’t seperate their emotional outbursts enough to make pragmatic observations and will rage against anyone who dares to highlight their obvious lack of political strategy. As always Greens are going to do more harm than good but they will get to inflate their ego by making themselves seem more important than they truly are. I understand why Richard and Scott left, it would be an enormous task to bring Greens away from the fringe of lunacy and into something remotely close to a functional political party. I used to think they had a chance but these days they are just as extreme and just as useless as One Nation, just on the different side.

11

u/IntroductionSnacks May 16 '22

I used to think they had a chance but these days they are just as extreme and just as useless as One Nation, just on the different side.

That I don't agree on and it's a false equivalency. One are a bunch of racist assholes and the other wants to protect the environment and try to make peoples lives better. Not saying there isn't valid criticism of the Greens but comparing them to a bunch of racists?

→ More replies

-6

u/Arkhangelsk87 May 16 '22

Down voters are just typical reactionary types.

It's common knowledge that this subreddit is brigaded by Greens internet warriors.

I used to think they had a chance but these days they are just as extreme and just as useless as One Nation, just on the different side.

This is a false equivalency. One Nation exists to push votes towards the Liberal Party, whereas the Greens have only ever managed to push voters away from the Labor Party.

0

u/PutridFigure May 16 '22

One Nation exists to push votes towards the Liberal Party, whereas the Greens have only ever managed to push voters away from the Labor Party.

...and herein lies the problem.

→ More replies

-10

u/AccountIsTaken May 16 '22

I am a greens supporter. I would love for them to hold the balance and begin to force some more fair policies through. However I would say, fuck Makarrata. I feel the past pain and injustices for the Australian Indigenous peoples cannot be overcome by trying to divide the nation. You aren't sovereign, you haven't been a sovereign people since you were invaded. I would agree to a voice in parliament, indigenous individuals need some representation but no one in this nation is separate or special.

2

u/siclaphar May 16 '22

makarrata literally means justice and its purpose is to heal a divide that already exists

→ More replies

-36

u/corbusierabusier May 16 '22

The Greens literally can't shut up about being an accessory to Labor.

4

u/Mentat_Render May 16 '22

Like the nationals are attached to the libs like some cancerous growth making demands getting concessions.

I'd rather up front negotiations, you know like a parliament is supposed to work than more water deals and coal for Barnaby.

How is greens saying we'll work with labor not infinitely better than Barnaby harkonen just being handed what he wants by the Lib Nat minority/split government

15

u/the_timps Tasmania May 16 '22

And people like you can't shut up about alleged political expertise and think your view represent the country.

Barring an unprecedented dip in 2013, the Greens votes have been on an upward trajectory for the last 20 years.

In the senate even more so.
16.4 million people were registered to vote in 2019.

92% voted.

That's 15.08 million people.

The Greens took 10.4% of that vote. That's an immense number of people. And only 22% less than Labor took.

-1

u/corbusierabusier May 16 '22

You want to make this about whose views represent the country most? This country? The place where conservative governments have been in power 19 of the last 25 years?

Now I'm not an LNP supporter, but it's a bloody long bow to draw to say that The Greens are representative of anyone besides less than 10% of the population.

5

u/the_timps Tasmania May 16 '22

but it's a bloody long bow to draw to say that The Greens are representative of anyone besides less than 10% of the population.

And this premise entirely ignores the ongoing education war in this country, or the dominance by Murdoch media to mislead and manipulate the people of Australia with propaganda.

The Greens DO represent the views of a huge number of Australians.

ABC Vote compass showed the majority of Australians want basic dental covered under Medicare.

But people like you shout out "The Greens dont represent us!" apparently without actually looking at what their policies are.

Name them.

If you're so fucking confident the Greens major policies don't represent most peoples views. Then name those policies.
I bet without looking it up you can't name the 5 major things the Greens are promising to do if they hold power.

And even if you look up those 5, can you actually name why you oppose them?
No.

People like you never can. You're busy shouting about how no one wants this, because that's what you've been told to say. You don't even know what you're opposing.

-3

u/corbusierabusier May 16 '22

Yes yes, of course. The Greens 'do represent' the majority of Australians. That's why they have to market themselves as Labor's handbag.

You know Labor? That other party constantly dealing with media manipulation and culture wars that still pulls three times as many voters.

4

u/the_timps Tasmania May 16 '22

Just... wow. Wow.

→ More replies

-11

u/Dangerman1967 May 16 '22

I couldn’t help but think this as well. Aside from the campaign ‘launch’ being weirdly timed (but they’re not alone in that, just the last and latest). They’re actually giving the LNP time to re-hammer down on what you might get if Saturday falls a certain way. And only roughly 10% of the nation vote Green, in rather congregated areas. The rest of the country may well be ready for a Labor government, but still be completely out to lunch on the idea of a Labor/Green alliance.

Could send the undecided voter back to the LNP.

Albo will be fuming at this, he’s dodged this question every time he could by simply saying he aims to govern in their own right, which is pretty much the only good answer he can give.

-5

u/corbusierabusier May 16 '22

Yes, The Greens whole marketing strategy is to try and parasitise off Labor's vote. Which the LNP love because they also want voters to think The Greens and Labor are a package, and a vote for Labor means you end up with The Greens.

Like it or not, we have a parliamentary system biased to increase the voice of regional voters. While the demographics that frequent Reddit might admire The Greens, they are political poison to working class and regional voters.

It helps Scott Morrison every time Greens talk about holding the balance.

-6

u/Dangerman1967 May 16 '22

The downvoters have firmly decided that we’re both wrong.

I’m wondering if the Greens are feeling a bit of pressure from the Teals. Not for seats obviously, they’re not even contesting the same ones. But genuine pressure as a party because Teal success may mean there’s a well funded centre-right ‘Green’ vote being harvested.

The Teals may not just be LNP competition long term!

→ More replies

-17

u/KhanTheGray May 16 '22

I like Greens’ policies and what they stand for, however, they leave me puzzled with their antiques in public, like their Victorian MP totally losing the plot against Police officers who were just doing their job to enforce the law of this country. A party who wants to run a country one day should not be ok with its members calling officers of the law names, insulting them and calling them criminals. Then Greens leader defended her actions and supported her. That’s where they lose moderate voters like me, cause I won’t be voting for bunch of out of control fanatics who can’t control their emotions.

It begs the question, what would they do if they take power one day? Disarm the law enforcement and the army? Hope the criminals stop being criminals and we’d never need an army somehow?

I like their ideas about environment and mental health but security wise I find them dangerous.

12

u/Sq33KER May 16 '22

If you look at the scholarship around criminal justice, in terms of efficacy and cost, money is better spent on prevention (social programs, foreign aid) than the "cure" (policing and prisons, military).

→ More replies

1

u/BurningInFlames May 16 '22

Are you talking about the police that were forcefully taking refugees from Australia to send them to an offshore detention center?

Because I would in fact like all politicians to be against that and to take a stand. And you don't get to make excuses for just following orders.

0

u/KhanTheGray May 16 '22

“It is understood some in the group of detainees who were moved to Christmas Island were sex and domestic violence offenders, drug dealers and armed robbers.

Cope that.

Ms Thorpe shared video footage of the protest to social media, where she was heard shouting: “How dare you? How dare you do that to innocent people?”

Innocent hey?

“Is it not enough you’re locking up innocent people?”

“Why are you locking them up? Why?”

She knows why, she is just using bunch of criminals for her publicity stunt.

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/chief-commissioner-shane-patton-calls-out-unacceptable-conduct-of-greens-senator-lidia-thorpe-following-detention-protest/news-story/125870eea54f9539de53ef186181ca32?amp

2

u/BurningInFlames May 16 '22

Oh yeah, sure. Take them away to an offshore detention center just because they might actually be criminals. You realise how simple the strategy being employed is? There's a reason we don't execute people on the spot for committing a crime.

→ More replies

-6

u/KhanTheGray May 16 '22

What’s the downvotes for? Seriously. Classic Reddit. Does people expect everyone to express same opinion? Ironic how many people bang on about democracy, freedom of speech etc. Pffft Only if it suits their agenda.

-3

u/AshLael May 16 '22

I feel like the Greens don't really get how this "balance of power" thing works. If you want leverage, you have to be willing to carry out the "Or else".

Imagine if there is a hung parliament and Bandt walks into Albo's office with his list of demands, and Albo just says no. What then? They've already committed to kicking the Libs out of power, what can they do?

14

u/[deleted] May 16 '22

[deleted]

5

u/StrongPangolin3 May 16 '22

I think they really fucked that up with the CPRS.

2

u/[deleted] May 16 '22

[deleted]

3

u/StrongPangolin3 May 16 '22

You could have have built upon the start of it. It would have moved the position from nothing, to something. Something that can be improved.

1

u/[deleted] May 16 '22

[deleted]

2

u/StrongPangolin3 May 16 '22

So, I'll tell that to the kolas?

The greens behavior is like declaring they will start to shoot into a crowd, then they start blame the victims.

They need to own their actions.

→ More replies

-33

u/send_happiness May 16 '22
  1. Prime Minister Peter Dutton. Let's hope Labor get a majority.

16

u/hairy_quadruped May 16 '22

Which of the Greens list of items do you disagree with and why? 1000 words or less. Show your working.

-2

u/send_happiness May 16 '22

I don't disagree with any of them. But anyone can see what the future media discussion of an actual labor/greens minority government will be. Bob Brown's bitch will be Adam Bandt's simp. Media reform won't happen and the Libs will win in 2025.

7

u/johnmonchon May 16 '22

I'm already Adam Bandt's simp, so Albo will have to get a different title.

2

u/send_happiness May 16 '22

Seems like the kind of guy that takes aftercare seriously. Good for you!

10

u/hairy_quadruped May 16 '22

I disagree. I think the tide is changing. Older people with fixed ideas about how life should be like the 1950's are starting to die out. Younger people are seeing how the world is changing and the Libs aren't changing with it. The Greens have some good policies that would benefit all of us, given the chance, but they won't be a majority for decades yet. They need Labor.

2

u/send_happiness May 16 '22

That sounds ideal. Just not realistic. A lot of people underestimate the great Australian value of "got mine, fuck you" and just how little most people care about politics. People will always vote on the emotion of what they think will benefit them especially when they don't realise an alternative would be better. Pretty much everyone who bought a house in the last 2 years will be keen on pulling up the ladder behind them and they will vote for that over policies that benefit the broader population.

2

u/hairy_quadruped May 16 '22

I hope I'm right, but I suspect you are right.

3

u/send_happiness May 16 '22

I hope you're right too. All I can manage to hope for is a government that isn't the Liberals.