Matt Hrkac's Blog
Noted Left-wing Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon is under attack from her own party room:
New South Wales Greens senator Lee Rhiannon could face censure or expulsion from the [Greens] party room after a signed complaint letter from all her colleagues accused her of potentially damaging conduct in the schools debate.
The letter regarding Rhiannon’s conduct was discussed at a special national council meeting over the weekend but it is understood the council advised Greens MPs that it was up to the party room to take action as they saw fit.
The decision made here will very well determine whether or not the Greens can viably remain a home for the Left.
If Lee Rhiannon is exciled from the Greens party room, then that will show that the Left have no place within the Greens going forward. If she is allowed to remain, then the Left have a glimmer of hope within the Greens.
Either way, the party is splitting at the seams. Interesting times ahead.
Updated: Just who is supporting the Coalition's agenda?
05 April 2017
By popular demand, here is an updated graph of how often our Senators vote with the Government:
Once again, One Nation, the Nick Xenophon Team, David Leyonhjelm, and Derryn Hinch continue to be reliable votes for the Government on the floor of the Senate, with the latter three firming up as more reliable for the Government over the first half of 2017.
Those most likely to vote opposite of the Government are the Greens, Jacqui Lambie, and Labor; with Labor remaining unchanged, while both the Greens and Jacqui Lambie voted less often with the Government.
In the first sitting half of 2017, Jacqui Lambie was absent from votes a total of 30 times (out of a total of 136 divisions that took place during that period). David Leyonhjelm was absent 23 times.
One Nation has missed 10 divisions and the Nick Xenophon Team has missed 9 divisions, while Derryn Hinch maintains a good attendance record, missing only 2 divisions.
The Greens, and Labor, both have perfect attendance records.
Stats compiled from Hansard.
Mark Kenny misses the mark on marriage equality plebiscite
27 August 2016
There are a few things to go over here, so let's do that. First, the 'analysis' flatly and bluntly assumes that the LGBTI community wants a plebiscite to achieve marriage equality. The fact is, the vast majority of the LGBTI community and marriage equality advocacy groups don't want to go anywhere near a plebiscite; which they describe as dangerous, divisive, and opens up the floodgates of hate and bigotry to be espoused by the likes of the Australian Christian Lobby and other extreme-right groups.
Considering it is the LGBTI community who would bear the brunt of a hate campaign against them in the event of a plebiscite, I really think that it is they who we should be listening to.
Secondly, the article also assumes that the LGBTI community would rather a plebiscite, then to wait for a parliamentary vote. That is also wrong, as many such advocacy groups are coming out and saying that they would rather wait a few years, and a possible change of government, for a parliamentary vote, then to be subjected to a plebiscite.
Thirdly, Mark Kenny's analysis also assumes that the Turnbull Government is obliged to act on the results of a plebiscite, assuming it winds up being a yes result. Fact is, they aren't, because the plebiscite is not binding in any way. It is merely a glorified opinion poll that the Government can just turn a blind eye to regardless of the result.
If we want an opinion poll on what Australians think of marriage equality, we only need to look at opinion polls published over the last half a decade. A vast majority of Australians support marriage equality.
And fourth, despite Mark Kenny's persistent claim that the Greens aren't willing to compromise (which one is it, by the way, are they unwilling to compromise or are they sellouts?) - they've taken a principled stance in opposing what is bad legislation that a vast majority of the LGBTI community and marriage equality advocacy groups also oppose.
Absolutely poor journalism, and it is telling that The Age, of all media outlets, allowed it to be published.