Accounts created after Oct 7th 2023 or with less than two months active
participation in the sub may not participate in this thread. These
accounts will be banned. Abuse, racism, bigotry and incitement to
violence will also result in a permanent ban. Violations of these rules
will result in the thread being locked.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s a shame as I suspect it will serve as a warning for selecting more young people to the senate ticket.
Why risk with a potentially passionate unknown when you can choose a more proven (and predictable) Labor-aligned union worker?
Just suspended from caucus (i.e. she has no say in determining party policy or positions), not the party. She still sits as a Labor representative in the Senate until such time as she decides to leave or federal Labor expel her.
So basically the same as her temp suspension last week, except open-ended.
This is bizarrely stupid, everyone in the Labor senate voted against these policies, the entire fucking point with this controversy is how strict Labor caucus rules are. Penny Wong openly voted against legislation to protect gay people and is a lesbian, she did it because the Labor caucus didn’t support this.
Picking Fatima out as a “Muslim” and that’s why is such a stretch of an attempt to push this bigoted agenda. As a member of the Labor Left faction she openly supported and endorsed pro lgbtq protections in party caucus in the same way the Labor Left are generally the internal advocates for Palestinian state recognition.
I'm intensely curious as to whether the public discourse would have been different if Penny Wong had defied Labor caucus rules over gay marriage; or if there's something different about this situation...
The political fallout would have been greater because Penny Wong was already a senior leader of the Labor Party. There is a good interview between a former Tory party politician named Rory Stewart and Ash Sarkar on YouTube where they talk about the ethics and practical considerations of party loyalty.
Also this is an example of a Wedge issue for anyone interested in politics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue
.
The Labor party has rules that you're not meant to go against the party line, or you'll likely get kicked out.
Now, this does help keep the public perception of infighting down, but I feel it serves as a better argument for the idea that we shouldn't have two major parties, and pretty much all of our governments should be a coalition (not The Coalition) of smaller parties.
It's much more practical than the other way. US does not have this for example and because each politician can vote however they want it leads to parties having to bribe them with pork to get them to vote for it's legislation or else they cannot pass anything. Far too easy for a few pols to hold the patry hostage.
The real reason the USA has such problems is because they have to have more than a majority of votes in the Senate to pass most things because they refuse to get rid of the Filibuster. If a simple 50 senators voted to get rid of that, then it would be a simple matter of who's got the majority.
Don't get me wrong, their two party system sucks, but the specific problem you brought up was the filibuster.
Yes, Wong was even on Q&A in the early 2000s defending Labor's then anti-gay marriage stance. She also voted in 2004 to change the Marriage Act to effectively ban gay marriage. She and Labor have shown a total lack of leadership on many issues.
Source for these assertions? I’m not disagreeing with you because im well aware of the ALPs party policies. It’s just that Q&A wasn’t around until 2008 for one.
I think you missed my point. The fact that the Greens overlook the opinions of groups, who given the chance to govern, would almost certainly outlaw same sex relationships is ludicrous and I'll never understood why left or hard left leaning liberal groups and individuals actively support or protect groups that would destroy them if given a chance.
Well, left leaning people, support human rights for people, regardless of their personal beliefs. The greens aren't ignorant to the fact that the majority of Muslims are very conservative. But that doesn't mean Muslims deserve to be genocided in Palestine. Or that Muslim refugees fleeing war don't deserve a safe place to live. I would say the same to about white Christians if they were persecuted or discriminated against.
Because muslims aren’t a monolith, in the same way barring all Christian’s is a stupid thing to suggest, Islam isn’t even a coherent ideology, the whole things about faiths in when it comes to peoples ideology and political beliefs, Individuals far more likely shape their religious belief to their own personal beliefs then the other way around, religions do have an influence and religious individuals can be more conservative but assuming this is the norm is a stupid way to operate because it’s so patently untrue.
Fatima is likely one of the most socially progressive and economic left leaning politicians in parliament, having had the opportunity to talk to her in person, i and other left leaning people supprot her because our ideologies are similar. I didn’t see her hijab and think well we agree on most points but she’s a Muslim so may as well tell her to tuck off. Fatima isn’t looking to abolish same sex marriage, she openly supported it and joined the caucus that pushed for it in internal party politics
As for the morality of the issue, I’m not here to make a moral ruling but I will put the argument forward that Labor uses which is that almost every single collapse of Labor government in its history has been due to party infighting. Labor has always been a broad coaltiion of democratic socialists, social democrats, progressives and economic left leaning social conservatives. Compromise is entrenched in its ability to function in government and deliver on some of its goals. Labor members therefore argue and debate and voice their opinions in their internal party caucuses and debates, something Fatima and Penny Wong did for their respective issues for years
Could they have walked and caused significant harm to their party? Absolutely but if labor politicians did that for every issue it’s likely the coalition would rule unopposed. Compromise isn’t pretty but it is sometimes justifiable.
Of course people are also opportunist, some will beret their ideals for power and one could argue the compromise serves just as often as a siphon for leftist and progressive ambitions as it does a guarantor of government. It’s likely a mix of both if I were to render my own verdict on this. I for example support Fatima in her actions here, what is happening is a genocide and toleration of it is fundamentally a line people shouldn’t cross for compromise. But I’m also not in her position and couldn’t say what I would do in this case
Except she didn't vote "no". Labor did, so in these circumstances she was voting with Labor. Granted, she didn't breakaway like she did for Palestine, but I'm not entirely sure whether using that is a good indicator of what she really thinks.
All we can say is that she definitely cares more about Palestine than LGBT rights because she didn't rebel then and did now.
> All we can say is that she definitely cares more about Palestine than LGBT rights because she didn't rebel then and did now.
Genocide trumps gay marriage, and I'm okay with that.
Yeah, this. But also voting how she wanted was not a losing scenario for her, because that third position on the WA ticket doesn't usually go to Labor. So there's ultimately nothing to discipline her with. And everyone knew it.
I think that's the wrong takeaway, [that seat usually goes to the liberals.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_senators_from_Western_Australia)
Unless she's preparing to tack to the right somehow, she'll be out of a job if she doesn't have the Labor brand behind her.
Yeah, that it goes to the liberals is precisely what I'm saying.
She was almost certainly out after this term anyway, because labor won't be getting the covid border boost they got last time.
That creates a context where deselection is no threat to her.
They're not saying she *wants* out, they're just pointing out that her odds of getting re-elected are about the same regardless of if she stays with Labor or not: slim to none. Since it won't really make a difference, it's not something they could hold over her head to keep her in line.
She has a term until 2028 and the other two Labor senators due up in that election are currently aged 70 and 63. So the prospect of moving up the ticket was theoretically there.
There is also the possibility that the parliament could be expanded before then.
That said, Labor senate picks are typically controlled by the unions and it’s not clear that she has a support base there. Very possible that she’d have been passed over in 2028 even if Sue Lines and/or Glenn Sterle depart at or before that election.
They are saying she would've been out of a job anyway when her term ends, because as you say, the third spot will revert to the libs. That's the spot she got in on.
I would say that is the worst thing about labor. They can make as many promises to the public, then when they get power to implement those changes, they renege due to internal party politics. Internal power-brokers end up having the most power and control. The environment, housing, political corruption, robodebt and whistleblowing are just a few of the examples of labor reneging. Their words, like the liberals, are worth less than shit.
That’s a pretty naive way of looking at it. Labor have their internal problems, but their biggest is they have to toe an extremely fine line lest they give ammunition to a rabidly conservative commercial media. Newscorp, Seven and Nine/Fairfax are all blatant LNP cheerleaders and will do their best to annihilate Labor in radio/print/broadcast if they present anything but the smallest target. And of course progressive voters are almost an enemy too, as they’ll criticise anything but the most direct and unflinching action on whatever the cause of the moment is too. Forever letting perfect be the enemy of good. So Labor is left to walk the narrowest tightrope, not exposing themselves on the right whilst still pandering to the unhinged fringe on the far left. The fact that they get anything done is miraculous.
> That’s a pretty naive way of looking at it. Labor have their internal problems, but their biggest is they have to toe an extremely fine line lest they give ammunition to a rabidly conservative commercial media.
Pretty naive to assume that commercial media aren't just going to make shit up anyway?
Once you're in office just go big or go home.
Labor have sort of tried that before though. They went medium, and the media sent them home for like a decade. And in the intervening time the LNP undid almost everything. It’s not like you can go big, get voted out and everything stays how you left it. If you do it wrong you hand a mandate to the LNP to not only undo *everything* you achieved but also go further and fuck up a bunch of shit that you then have to waste a term of government fixing.
Jeez I'm so sorry for bringing reality into your echo chamber. You've obviously seen this line of argument before, it's an age old problem. Would you like to share how and when it was solved? Like even a rough date when progressives in this country managed to take back control of the fourth estate? And hence why the above is apparently just an excuse for inaction, or as you so eloquently put it... "drivel".
Don't bother, people in r/australia don't remember what it was like before 2019, they don't remember they day in day out anti Labor headlines from 2010-2013 and how far the media in this country will go to boot Labor out of office.
Jesus the fact the news media of Australia was just an open megaphone for Abbott and his drivel should be taught and studied by anyone who studies journalism or media. Labor absolutely dropped the ball by knifing Rudd over *gasp* daring to tax mining resources appropriately. But the vitriol sent Gillard’s way by a complicit media was absolutely shameful. We saw a very ugly side of Australia. When people cite Australia’s DV statistics I often have how we treated our first female PM in the back of my mind.
If they make a promise to the public they generally keep it unless there are other things that drastically change that policy (ie a war breaking out). Just look at their promise tracker.
This system is actually far better at keeping promises because people (supposedly) have to vote with it or they’re shown the door
The Labor party chose to preselect Senator Payman. I cannot imagine that her opinions on the Middle East were unknown, nor the intensity of those beliefs. This outcome is entirely predictable and, in my opinion, something the Labor party should accept as a consequence of their own actions.
The Labor Party seems to want to have their cake and eat it too; they want to preselect diverse candidates but they also want them to not express diverse viewpoints. That’s not a realistic expectation.
>Gay senators Louise Pratt and Penny Wong didn't mince words on Ms Payman's decision to cross the floor this week and noted they had to vote against marriage equality in the years when Labor was against same-sex marriage.
>Senator Wong told the ABC that even though she disagreed with Labor's position on queer marriage for years, she had those arguments internally in what she described as "the right way to go about it".
I think the Party assumed that someone who agreed to Party rules and was elected entirely due to their affiliation with the party would keep their word, and express their diversity of opinions within party room.
> Senator Wong told the ABC that even though she disagreed with Labor's position on queer marriage for years, she had those arguments internally in what she described as "the right way to go about it".
That's a weird way to say she acted as a literal token pawn for them, so they could actively barrack against LGBT rights while pretending it was ok because they "had a gay friend".
> Gay senators Louise Pratt and Penny Wong didn't mince words on Ms Payman's decision to cross the floor this week and noted they had to vote against marriage equality in the years when Labor was against same-sex marriage.
So they have no actual morals or principals and are happy to sell out their fellow community members to try and appease the hegemonic group?
Not to mention, there was A) A point where Labor was already going to lose the election, and everybody knew it, so they might as well have tried, and B) It eventually fell to the Coalition to legalize gay marriage, as much as they may have dragged their feet on the matter. Wong's provided a great argument against her own point here.
Yep. Wong was ultimately entirely immaterial to gay marriage getting passed. She won’t feature anywhere near it when the history books are written. Who knows, maybe if she’d had a bit more courage, she could’ve been seen as the reason for it happening much earlier!
It's insane to me that people are trying to excuse it, as if Wong having to vote against her values was the right thing or against the wishes of her constituents just to fall in party lines.
I've voted Labor my entire life, I've volunteered and worked for them, I've turned down everything this year and will not be voting for them in the foreseeable future. Not even locally.
I'm trying my best to also make others in my community and family not fall down the *'right wing rabbit hole'*, the solution is never to go from Labor to voting Liberal.
That comment makes me think she doesn't know much about why equal marriage was so important. Queer people who would have wanted to marry their partner but legally could not dying \*was\* actually a huge part of the problem, because family could deny partners visitation in their last moments, as well as rights to their partner's things, etc. Legal arrangements that were supposed to provide legal protection without being a marriage were often ignored, as well. A lot of people did not live through those 10 years.
She's not wrong that Palestinians don't have 10 years to wait themselves, to be clear. Neither are issues that had/have a spare 10 years to wait around for change through a party's internal processes.
>Gay senators Louise Pratt and Penny Wong didn't mince words on Ms Payman's decision to cross the floor this week and noted they had to vote against marriage equality in the years when Labor was against same-sex marriage.
Pratt and Wong had to be moral cowards, why can't she?
Counterpoint - Senator Paymon would know the price of admission would be to swallow and tow the party line. I guarantee there's a huge range of opinions within the labor party on all issues, but the party belief is "We, before Me".
Senator Paymon has shown she is not willing to participate In that philosophy no matter how noble one may see her stance on the issue. As soon as you let one slide, what stops the next person taking a stand, soon enough you end up with rabble.
She got her chance to cross the floor and stay in she's on the outer now.
The Israel conflict had not broken out at the time of her preselection and I don’t think it’s fair to say the scale of what has happened was expected, not sure it’s totally fair to blame ALP for this
The government tried to amend the motion to actually reflect the platform, and explicitly recognising a two party solution is the way forward and the green party, together with the Libs, refused.
It makes no sense to say you support a two state solution but then refuse to recognise one of those two states ... Labor was just trying to play politics, and didn't want to actually vote on recognising Palestine because their two state solution policy is meaningless, and is just about winning votes.
Senator Payman knew this, and put Labor to the test. Labor failed the test, and is now suspending her for that reason.
No you're right it's the government amending motions to reflect their platform that's playing politics, not the green party putting procedural motions that don't change government foreign policy, and are never even put before the house, and playing them off as if they do
And if Greens did bring a motion in the house, do you think Labor would support it? If you really believe this, why hasn't Labor brought its own motion?
Because Labor is not actually interested in a two state solution. It's lip service while the West covers their eyes to the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
As I previously said - the government tried to amend the green party motion to be consistent with Labor's platform in support of a two state solution. The fact that the Greens voted against it is on them. Gotta pick up macnamarra and wills, yo
Labor's amendment is 'we will only recognise Palestine after it negotiates with Israel' I.e. indefinitely postpone the issue while Israel continues its genocide, settlements and ethnic cleansing.
That's not consistent with the two state solution.
The government is calling for a ceasefire and supports a two state solution, consistent with Labor's platform and the amendment that the green party voted against made that explicitly clear.
Stunt motions in the House aren't helping anyone on the ground except green party doorknockers.
For all the hilarious comments I’m reading from people saying Muslims will go to the Greens I have a bridge to sell you.
Muslims are traditionally so extremely conservative that any hint of progressiveness send them running to the next party. Not only did they play a hand in getting labor a shock loss in 2019, they also drove the hugely shocking lower nsw yes vote for gay marriage. https://theconversation.com/how-social-conservatism-among-ethnic-communities-drove-a-strong-no-vote-in-western-sydney-87509
Very few Muslims are voting greens. I don’t think you know voting patterns of ethnic groups. The largest voting block of the greens are young college educated and white. Ethnic groups tend to vote for the left mainstream parties like Labor
Yes that’s my point, Muslims tend to vote for Labor but if you don’t see yourself supported by the party you are voting for you start to look elsewhere.
They go to liberals. That’s traditionally what they have done https://theconversation.com/was-there-an-ethnic-vote-in-the-2019-election-and-did-it-make-a-difference-117911
Do u have a source for this? Some of the closest margin seats for Greens are in suburbs with high Muslim populations like Wills. The representatives in the Merri Bek council also has several socialist and Greens council members.
I am a young Muslim, and all my (young) friends vote Greens, followed by Labor. I suspect this will only continue, as Palestine is a serious issue for the community. Not to mention the droves of regular progressive and broadly left Aussies that are outraged over what’s happened but have kept traditional party allegiance with Labor.
EDIT: also because of our preferential voting system, voters can choose really any party they want, and still preference Labor over the Coalition. Pretending like Labor is the only choice Muslims have is wilfully ignorant, and will most certainly punish the party down the line.
Muslims vote liberal or labor. Greens are pro gay marriage, far more progressive and the general Muslim population would never vote for them. You would be the so called progressive young Muslim voter which is a very very tiny minority. You also most probably would be too progressive to even be considered Muslim (sorry for the brutal honesty) The largely conservative Muslim population swing from labor to liberal. They tend to vote labor but if they get pissed off like anything pro gay or progressive they go to liberals. https://theconversation.com/was-there-an-ethnic-vote-in-the-2019-election-and-did-it-make-a-difference-117911
If you look at the voting booth data in Will's. There's a clear dividing line between Labor votes north of bell St ( which is where majority of their Muslim demographic resides), versus south of bell st, that has more Yuppies/greens voters. It's not the Muslims voting greens, it's the Yuppies increasingly
Wills has 4.7% speaking arabic at home in 2016 census. Compare this to say Blaxland that has 20.1% and 29.2% of the electorate is muslim. Greens vote in Blaxland at 2022 election? 6%.
Especially if we are talking immigrants. People don't realise that by international standards, Scott Morrison is a cuddly teddy bear with a heart of gold. I would be very surprised if 1st generation migrants made up a significant portion of greens votes at all.
Greens would love their first preferences, but big picture is whether labor or libs are preferenced higher. Anyone disenchanted with labor’s stance on Palestine isn’t about to hand their preferences to the libs
They might, but at large voters are too preoccupied with the cost of living to pay much attention to this… and they’ll punish ALP by voting LNP. The Greens have done better, but still not at critical mass.
Wills in particular in Melbourne is held by Peter Khalil. Includes coburg and was redistributed favourably to the Greens. Would be a surprise if doesn’t go Green next election.
Just so I'm clear, you think that the seat of Wills, which was won by Labor in the 2022 election, after rezoning, with a 2PP vote of nearly 60% will swing to the greens over the issue of Palestine?
Yep, huge muslim population, very left wing area and most of the local Labor branches are pro-Palestine and even originally did not want Khalil pre-selected. The Greens are pushing Samantha Ratnam hard who is a top tier player for them, with the recent re-zoning on top of that...
I know a ton of local Labor people who will be voting Greens over Labor here in Wills, everybody here knows they are in with a really high chance.
This next election is going to be so interesting. Greens have a very big opportunity to carry on the momentum from the previous election and I reckon they will.
I think you will find the greens have turned away people who have voted for them. All they care about is wedge issues, this Palestin vote is just more showboating.
The greens are an amazing contradiction, they are for unskilled immigration to increase and open boarders but are against climate change and want house prices to fall. I'm no scientist but more people means more emissions and higher house prices.
I'm at the stage where nobody represents me so time to draw a nice big donkey dick.
Every week there seems to be another little push from Labor that makes me wanna green up my vote a little. I'm still voting Labor at this stage, but it won't take much more for me to change.
The responsibility of your actions are yours alone. Don’t start with this nonsense. Like, I know plenty of people who have treated me like dogshit who share similar politics. I’m not changing my views because some people are assholes, that would be incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
I agree that antagonising you isn't helpful but I hope you can see the frustration here considering all the stuff Labor has done to prove they're Liberal light at this point that apparently, somehow isn't enough for people to even consider giving a little more power to the one party who wants to change things.
Not taking a stand against genocide is ok with them, Refusing to make real changes to fix the Housing crisis is ok with them, Hiding their commision into corruption was ok with them, Rejecting calls to properly inquire into our busted media landscape was ok with them, Refusing to slow down on massive mining projects in the face of climate collapse is ok with them, Refusing to fix the medicare imbalance thats driving bulk billing extinct is ok with them and refusing to fix our broken monopoly laws in the face of the insane gouging Coles and Woolworths are partaking in is ok with them.
Could you blame someone for wondering what possible issue would make you change your mind at this point?
Labor pushed me from being a Labor voter to a Greens a few years ago for similar reasons.
It's called [The Ratchet Effect](https://preview.redd.it/d09q0x9ekww11.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=5fffa752ae3dd9c8275681b09596ffa0cfdf7798) in the US. Instead of progressing and moving left, they allow everything to go further right.
>Labor Party rules do not permit members to vote against the caucus position and it was the first time a Labor politician has crossed the floor while Labor was in government since 1988.
They aren't going to change their longstanding rules (that Payman previously agreed to adhere to) on the fly for this, and nor should they.
Labor was born out of the collective stuggle of working class people and acts as a collective in parliament. To act independently as an individual fundamentally betrays Labor's foundation and tradition
Just to add to this point, despite the STV electoral system used for the senate, the vast majority of voters (typically around 80% according to Antony Green's Election Blog) choose to vote above the line - ie: vote for parties, not for candidates.
Regardless of whether you agree with her actions, what basis does Fatima to appeal to voters directly?
I think things would be different though if we had STV in the lower house (like Ireland and Tassie do), there would be a local constituency she could have appealed to and would have had to answer to at the next election.
It's been Labor policy for ages that you come to a position in the party room and you vote that way as a collective unit. Only L is for Payman realistically. She now has no backing of a major party.
The party room position is to recognise Palestine as part of a two state solution - which the government tried to amend the green motion to be clear on and be consistent with the platform. The Greens refused.
> which the government tried to amend the green motion to be clear on and be consistent with the platform.
Care to show us what exactly they tried to amend?
The government attempted to amend the green party motion to include "as part of a peace process in support of a two state solution and a just and enduring peace”, consistent with Labor's platform, and the Greens voted against it.
https://theconversation.com/senator-fatima-payman-defies-labor-solidarity-rule-to-cross-floor-on-pro-palestine-greens-motion-233223
Let's pretend every single MP and senator voted yes. Do you think Netanyahu will give a single shit? Why the fuck is parliament wasting time on stuff it cannot control regardless of the moral situation instead of things directly within its power such as economic policies?
Perhaps Instead of meaningless votes which weakens and divides the left and overall strengthens the right we can do some of that background diplomacy that got Assange back? I guess that doesn't offer the greens a way to geandstand
No they don't. The party room is a democratic process too. The members vote on the policies and platforms that the party will follow. Seems the most democratic way to be a united front with predicable stability, without compromising the electorate's individual candidate vote.
She voted, she lost. It's still recorded that she voted against it.
Did you look at the party at the time of those votes? Were majority old white men? Then yes, correct, possibly, if all the old white men were the ones that carried the vote for no.
Now the party is diverse in gender, culture and religion.
She wasn't expelled despite saying she would do it again, because the caucus voted for the lesser suspension.
This is not even a controversial issue globally, most nations have voiced support for a Palestinian state however it's the labor and LNP resisting any voice of support for this cause due to undying loyalty to the Americans and their Israeli handlers
She's a Senator who was 3rd on Labor's ballot. Her personal vote was 1,681 votes which was 0.11% of WA Senate voting.
[AEC Results](https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-27966-WA.htm)
Really gives cult-like vibes, don’t dissent or you’re out.
Can you imagine being gay, in Labor, and 10 years ago having to vote against giving yourself rights like Penny did because that’s the party line and if not then kiss your career goodbye? Sorry I don’t like that. I have respect for Fatima for actually having a soul
The alp works as a collective. Going and acting individually like like fundamentally betrays Labor's foundation and tradition and undermines the party's strength.
There’s so many issues with this comment I don’t know where to start.
Firstly this is no longer a religious problem, it’s a humanitarian issue.
Secondly, she’s a representative of the people and :gasp: there is Muslim people in Australia.
Thirdly, it’s not just Muslim Australians who are outraged by this but Christian, agnostic, Hindu, atheist, etc etc.
As a Christian who stands firmly in favour of a secular Palestinian state I don't see why the fuck parliament is wasting it's time on something it literally has no control over. If every mp and senator voted yes it would change nothing.
I don't know. This is just how things get done. I know we are heading toward a more fractured parliament, and honestly, I'm dreading it. 4-5 distinct parties who hold varied ideals is great. It would allow actual democratic freedom. But a room of independent voices? No thanks.
Having a political party that is bound to a collective set of ideals is so important to start negotiations. A room full of singular voices representing their individual communities becomes nothing but corrupt or directionless.
Not a good look. Given how apathetic overall the Australian public is towards Israel/Palestine, this isn’t going to be too costly.
But Labor are facing flak from both the Muslim community, who are solid Labor, and the more activist left part of its voter base over the policy towards the war in Gaza. Letting the “disobedience” slide might have been the better option that what appears to be a punishment
I would qualify that by age. If you're over 40, imo, then yeah. And if you're not, you're pro-Israel. Under 30, then you're probably a bit more passionate, and sympathise heavily with Palestinians. But unlikely to actually literally want Israel destroyed.
I agree that younger people are more likely to be pro Palestine, but for most people it is still well down the priority list of issues. An Australian government could get away with a wide range of policy either pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, before they suffer a widespread backlash.
We are not South Africa or Ireland where historical circumstances leads to a significant level of sympathy for Palestine. Or the reverse like the US where a larger Jewish community and a big Evangelical community means that support for Israel is a priority for a larger group of voters.
The exception in Australia is the Jewish community, smaller here, and the Muslim and Arab communities, and the activist left where Palestine has always been a cause celebre. Outside of these groups it’s mostly apathy to a far away war, that has been going on for as long as they can remember.
While small in stature, Senator Payman has more courage and humanity than the entire Labor party. The bitterness and vitriol coming from them only emphasises that.
Accounts created after Oct 7th 2023 or with less than two months active participation in the sub may not participate in this thread. These accounts will be banned. Abuse, racism, bigotry and incitement to violence will also result in a permanent ban. Violations of these rules will result in the thread being locked. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Senator Payman's term doesn't expire until 30th June 2028. Interesting to see what happens.
It’s a shame as I suspect it will serve as a warning for selecting more young people to the senate ticket. Why risk with a potentially passionate unknown when you can choose a more proven (and predictable) Labor-aligned union worker?
Just suspended from caucus (i.e. she has no say in determining party policy or positions), not the party. She still sits as a Labor representative in the Senate until such time as she decides to leave or federal Labor expel her. So basically the same as her temp suspension last week, except open-ended.
Well, looks like we got ourselves a reader.
Surely she defects to sit as an independent or with the Greens after this right?
Without a doubt.. the labour party says to vote a certain way and you don’t them you are on the way out the door
Lidia's seat may have gone cold now, but she might as well take it anyway.
[удалено]
This is bizarrely stupid, everyone in the Labor senate voted against these policies, the entire fucking point with this controversy is how strict Labor caucus rules are. Penny Wong openly voted against legislation to protect gay people and is a lesbian, she did it because the Labor caucus didn’t support this. Picking Fatima out as a “Muslim” and that’s why is such a stretch of an attempt to push this bigoted agenda. As a member of the Labor Left faction she openly supported and endorsed pro lgbtq protections in party caucus in the same way the Labor Left are generally the internal advocates for Palestinian state recognition.
I'm intensely curious as to whether the public discourse would have been different if Penny Wong had defied Labor caucus rules over gay marriage; or if there's something different about this situation...
The political fallout would have been greater because Penny Wong was already a senior leader of the Labor Party. There is a good interview between a former Tory party politician named Rory Stewart and Ash Sarkar on YouTube where they talk about the ethics and practical considerations of party loyalty. Also this is an example of a Wedge issue for anyone interested in politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_issue .
Some things in this country will most likely never change.
Holy shit wtf? Wong did that? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills....
The Labor party has rules that you're not meant to go against the party line, or you'll likely get kicked out. Now, this does help keep the public perception of infighting down, but I feel it serves as a better argument for the idea that we shouldn't have two major parties, and pretty much all of our governments should be a coalition (not The Coalition) of smaller parties.
Totally agree with you. 'Democracy' in Australia loses a bit of its sheen when you bring out the microscope and take a closer look...
I don't think so, they're free to participate in any other org, they choose to join labor and adopt those rules.
It's much more practical than the other way. US does not have this for example and because each politician can vote however they want it leads to parties having to bribe them with pork to get them to vote for it's legislation or else they cannot pass anything. Far too easy for a few pols to hold the patry hostage.
The real reason the USA has such problems is because they have to have more than a majority of votes in the Senate to pass most things because they refuse to get rid of the Filibuster. If a simple 50 senators voted to get rid of that, then it would be a simple matter of who's got the majority. Don't get me wrong, their two party system sucks, but the specific problem you brought up was the filibuster.
Yes, Wong was even on Q&A in the early 2000s defending Labor's then anti-gay marriage stance. She also voted in 2004 to change the Marriage Act to effectively ban gay marriage. She and Labor have shown a total lack of leadership on many issues.
Source for these assertions? I’m not disagreeing with you because im well aware of the ALPs party policies. It’s just that Q&A wasn’t around until 2008 for one.
I think you missed my point. The fact that the Greens overlook the opinions of groups, who given the chance to govern, would almost certainly outlaw same sex relationships is ludicrous and I'll never understood why left or hard left leaning liberal groups and individuals actively support or protect groups that would destroy them if given a chance.
Well, left leaning people, support human rights for people, regardless of their personal beliefs. The greens aren't ignorant to the fact that the majority of Muslims are very conservative. But that doesn't mean Muslims deserve to be genocided in Palestine. Or that Muslim refugees fleeing war don't deserve a safe place to live. I would say the same to about white Christians if they were persecuted or discriminated against.
Because muslims aren’t a monolith, in the same way barring all Christian’s is a stupid thing to suggest, Islam isn’t even a coherent ideology, the whole things about faiths in when it comes to peoples ideology and political beliefs, Individuals far more likely shape their religious belief to their own personal beliefs then the other way around, religions do have an influence and religious individuals can be more conservative but assuming this is the norm is a stupid way to operate because it’s so patently untrue. Fatima is likely one of the most socially progressive and economic left leaning politicians in parliament, having had the opportunity to talk to her in person, i and other left leaning people supprot her because our ideologies are similar. I didn’t see her hijab and think well we agree on most points but she’s a Muslim so may as well tell her to tuck off. Fatima isn’t looking to abolish same sex marriage, she openly supported it and joined the caucus that pushed for it in internal party politics
> she did it because the Labor caucus didn’t support this. She did it because she's a moral coward.
As for the morality of the issue, I’m not here to make a moral ruling but I will put the argument forward that Labor uses which is that almost every single collapse of Labor government in its history has been due to party infighting. Labor has always been a broad coaltiion of democratic socialists, social democrats, progressives and economic left leaning social conservatives. Compromise is entrenched in its ability to function in government and deliver on some of its goals. Labor members therefore argue and debate and voice their opinions in their internal party caucuses and debates, something Fatima and Penny Wong did for their respective issues for years Could they have walked and caused significant harm to their party? Absolutely but if labor politicians did that for every issue it’s likely the coalition would rule unopposed. Compromise isn’t pretty but it is sometimes justifiable. Of course people are also opportunist, some will beret their ideals for power and one could argue the compromise serves just as often as a siphon for leftist and progressive ambitions as it does a guarantor of government. It’s likely a mix of both if I were to render my own verdict on this. I for example support Fatima in her actions here, what is happening is a genocide and toleration of it is fundamentally a line people shouldn’t cross for compromise. But I’m also not in her position and couldn’t say what I would do in this case
Hey man, you realise we're in a thread ostensibly about how the Labor party kicks you out if you don't vote the way they want you to, right?
Except she didn't vote "no". Labor did, so in these circumstances she was voting with Labor. Granted, she didn't breakaway like she did for Palestine, but I'm not entirely sure whether using that is a good indicator of what she really thinks. All we can say is that she definitely cares more about Palestine than LGBT rights because she didn't rebel then and did now.
> All we can say is that she definitely cares more about Palestine than LGBT rights because she didn't rebel then and did now. Genocide trumps gay marriage, and I'm okay with that.
As a bi trans person, it absolutely does and I'd rather someone take a stance against genocide any day of the week.
Watch as the hardcore left among /r/australia twist themselves in knots to figure out how to address this lol
A large chunk of muslims are against gays so it shouldn’t be surprising.
Not un-expected, Federal Labor has been very disciplined about what its members are allowed to do regarding votes for decades.
Yeah, this. But also voting how she wanted was not a losing scenario for her, because that third position on the WA ticket doesn't usually go to Labor. So there's ultimately nothing to discipline her with. And everyone knew it.
She could have been endorsed for 2nd. Sue Lines is 70 and will probably retire in 2028.
I think that's the wrong takeaway, [that seat usually goes to the liberals.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_senators_from_Western_Australia) Unless she's preparing to tack to the right somehow, she'll be out of a job if she doesn't have the Labor brand behind her.
Yeah, that it goes to the liberals is precisely what I'm saying. She was almost certainly out after this term anyway, because labor won't be getting the covid border boost they got last time. That creates a context where deselection is no threat to her.
No one in politics ever wants to leave politics though. Its a gravy train for even the most outwardly enlightened of them.
They're not saying she *wants* out, they're just pointing out that her odds of getting re-elected are about the same regardless of if she stays with Labor or not: slim to none. Since it won't really make a difference, it's not something they could hold over her head to keep her in line.
She has a term until 2028 and the other two Labor senators due up in that election are currently aged 70 and 63. So the prospect of moving up the ticket was theoretically there. There is also the possibility that the parliament could be expanded before then. That said, Labor senate picks are typically controlled by the unions and it’s not clear that she has a support base there. Very possible that she’d have been passed over in 2028 even if Sue Lines and/or Glenn Sterle depart at or before that election.
Sue Lines and Fatima Payman are with UWU.
Pretty sure she's with United Workers who support her position.
As a Senator she has a secure job paying over $210k per year until the 2028 election....
They are saying she would've been out of a job anyway when her term ends, because as you say, the third spot will revert to the libs. That's the spot she got in on.
I would say that is the worst thing about labor. They can make as many promises to the public, then when they get power to implement those changes, they renege due to internal party politics. Internal power-brokers end up having the most power and control. The environment, housing, political corruption, robodebt and whistleblowing are just a few of the examples of labor reneging. Their words, like the liberals, are worth less than shit.
That’s a pretty naive way of looking at it. Labor have their internal problems, but their biggest is they have to toe an extremely fine line lest they give ammunition to a rabidly conservative commercial media. Newscorp, Seven and Nine/Fairfax are all blatant LNP cheerleaders and will do their best to annihilate Labor in radio/print/broadcast if they present anything but the smallest target. And of course progressive voters are almost an enemy too, as they’ll criticise anything but the most direct and unflinching action on whatever the cause of the moment is too. Forever letting perfect be the enemy of good. So Labor is left to walk the narrowest tightrope, not exposing themselves on the right whilst still pandering to the unhinged fringe on the far left. The fact that they get anything done is miraculous.
> That’s a pretty naive way of looking at it. Labor have their internal problems, but their biggest is they have to toe an extremely fine line lest they give ammunition to a rabidly conservative commercial media. Pretty naive to assume that commercial media aren't just going to make shit up anyway? Once you're in office just go big or go home.
Labor have sort of tried that before though. They went medium, and the media sent them home for like a decade. And in the intervening time the LNP undid almost everything. It’s not like you can go big, get voted out and everything stays how you left it. If you do it wrong you hand a mandate to the LNP to not only undo *everything* you achieved but also go further and fuck up a bunch of shit that you then have to waste a term of government fixing.
Thank you for regurgitating the regular rusted-on drivel
Jeez I'm so sorry for bringing reality into your echo chamber. You've obviously seen this line of argument before, it's an age old problem. Would you like to share how and when it was solved? Like even a rough date when progressives in this country managed to take back control of the fourth estate? And hence why the above is apparently just an excuse for inaction, or as you so eloquently put it... "drivel".
Don't bother, people in r/australia don't remember what it was like before 2019, they don't remember they day in day out anti Labor headlines from 2010-2013 and how far the media in this country will go to boot Labor out of office.
Jesus the fact the news media of Australia was just an open megaphone for Abbott and his drivel should be taught and studied by anyone who studies journalism or media. Labor absolutely dropped the ball by knifing Rudd over *gasp* daring to tax mining resources appropriately. But the vitriol sent Gillard’s way by a complicit media was absolutely shameful. We saw a very ugly side of Australia. When people cite Australia’s DV statistics I often have how we treated our first female PM in the back of my mind.
What did they renege on? Can you please list some? This sounds like a rant that could be directed at anyone.
If they make a promise to the public they generally keep it unless there are other things that drastically change that policy (ie a war breaking out). Just look at their promise tracker. This system is actually far better at keeping promises because people (supposedly) have to vote with it or they’re shown the door
The Labor party chose to preselect Senator Payman. I cannot imagine that her opinions on the Middle East were unknown, nor the intensity of those beliefs. This outcome is entirely predictable and, in my opinion, something the Labor party should accept as a consequence of their own actions. The Labor Party seems to want to have their cake and eat it too; they want to preselect diverse candidates but they also want them to not express diverse viewpoints. That’s not a realistic expectation.
>they want to preselect diverse candidates but they also want them to not express diverse viewpoints. Centre-Left parties in a nutshell
>Gay senators Louise Pratt and Penny Wong didn't mince words on Ms Payman's decision to cross the floor this week and noted they had to vote against marriage equality in the years when Labor was against same-sex marriage. >Senator Wong told the ABC that even though she disagreed with Labor's position on queer marriage for years, she had those arguments internally in what she described as "the right way to go about it". I think the Party assumed that someone who agreed to Party rules and was elected entirely due to their affiliation with the party would keep their word, and express their diversity of opinions within party room.
> Senator Wong told the ABC that even though she disagreed with Labor's position on queer marriage for years, she had those arguments internally in what she described as "the right way to go about it". That's a weird way to say she acted as a literal token pawn for them, so they could actively barrack against LGBT rights while pretending it was ok because they "had a gay friend". > Gay senators Louise Pratt and Penny Wong didn't mince words on Ms Payman's decision to cross the floor this week and noted they had to vote against marriage equality in the years when Labor was against same-sex marriage. So they have no actual morals or principals and are happy to sell out their fellow community members to try and appease the hegemonic group?
Also the ALP was more than happy to kowtow to its conservative members and let them vote against the bill when it happened!
She's referenced that. She noted it took 10 years to get gay marriage through, and Palestinians don't have 10 years. She's right.
Not to mention, there was A) A point where Labor was already going to lose the election, and everybody knew it, so they might as well have tried, and B) It eventually fell to the Coalition to legalize gay marriage, as much as they may have dragged their feet on the matter. Wong's provided a great argument against her own point here.
Yep. Wong was ultimately entirely immaterial to gay marriage getting passed. She won’t feature anywhere near it when the history books are written. Who knows, maybe if she’d had a bit more courage, she could’ve been seen as the reason for it happening much earlier!
Absolutely unhinged that this is a controversial opinion. God damn.
It's insane to me that people are trying to excuse it, as if Wong having to vote against her values was the right thing or against the wishes of her constituents just to fall in party lines. I've voted Labor my entire life, I've volunteered and worked for them, I've turned down everything this year and will not be voting for them in the foreseeable future. Not even locally. I'm trying my best to also make others in my community and family not fall down the *'right wing rabbit hole'*, the solution is never to go from Labor to voting Liberal.
That comment makes me think she doesn't know much about why equal marriage was so important. Queer people who would have wanted to marry their partner but legally could not dying \*was\* actually a huge part of the problem, because family could deny partners visitation in their last moments, as well as rights to their partner's things, etc. Legal arrangements that were supposed to provide legal protection without being a marriage were often ignored, as well. A lot of people did not live through those 10 years. She's not wrong that Palestinians don't have 10 years to wait themselves, to be clear. Neither are issues that had/have a spare 10 years to wait around for change through a party's internal processes.
>Gay senators Louise Pratt and Penny Wong didn't mince words on Ms Payman's decision to cross the floor this week and noted they had to vote against marriage equality in the years when Labor was against same-sex marriage. Pratt and Wong had to be moral cowards, why can't she?
That’s the ALP way
Counterpoint - Senator Paymon would know the price of admission would be to swallow and tow the party line. I guarantee there's a huge range of opinions within the labor party on all issues, but the party belief is "We, before Me". Senator Paymon has shown she is not willing to participate In that philosophy no matter how noble one may see her stance on the issue. As soon as you let one slide, what stops the next person taking a stand, soon enough you end up with rabble. She got her chance to cross the floor and stay in she's on the outer now.
> tow the party line toe the party line.
The Israel conflict had not broken out at the time of her preselection and I don’t think it’s fair to say the scale of what has happened was expected, not sure it’s totally fair to blame ALP for this
Suspended for voting based on the Labor party position on the two state solution? The irony.
The government tried to amend the motion to actually reflect the platform, and explicitly recognising a two party solution is the way forward and the green party, together with the Libs, refused.
It makes no sense to say you support a two state solution but then refuse to recognise one of those two states ... Labor was just trying to play politics, and didn't want to actually vote on recognising Palestine because their two state solution policy is meaningless, and is just about winning votes. Senator Payman knew this, and put Labor to the test. Labor failed the test, and is now suspending her for that reason.
No you're right it's the government amending motions to reflect their platform that's playing politics, not the green party putting procedural motions that don't change government foreign policy, and are never even put before the house, and playing them off as if they do
And if Greens did bring a motion in the house, do you think Labor would support it? If you really believe this, why hasn't Labor brought its own motion? Because Labor is not actually interested in a two state solution. It's lip service while the West covers their eyes to the genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
As I previously said - the government tried to amend the green party motion to be consistent with Labor's platform in support of a two state solution. The fact that the Greens voted against it is on them. Gotta pick up macnamarra and wills, yo
Labor's amendment is 'we will only recognise Palestine after it negotiates with Israel' I.e. indefinitely postpone the issue while Israel continues its genocide, settlements and ethnic cleansing. That's not consistent with the two state solution.
The government is calling for a ceasefire and supports a two state solution, consistent with Labor's platform and the amendment that the green party voted against made that explicitly clear. Stunt motions in the House aren't helping anyone on the ground except green party doorknockers.
For all the hilarious comments I’m reading from people saying Muslims will go to the Greens I have a bridge to sell you. Muslims are traditionally so extremely conservative that any hint of progressiveness send them running to the next party. Not only did they play a hand in getting labor a shock loss in 2019, they also drove the hugely shocking lower nsw yes vote for gay marriage. https://theconversation.com/how-social-conservatism-among-ethnic-communities-drove-a-strong-no-vote-in-western-sydney-87509
Labor ran on recognising Palestine. Now they refuse to do it. Seems that she is the one standing by what Labor said they would do.
I don't think this is a net win for Labor. They'll lose more votes from suspending her than they would from just moving on.
No they won’t, the general public won’t swap votes over this.
Muslim voters might. There’s some seats where the Greens would be licking their lips at the prospect of Labor getting the Muslim community offside.
Very few Muslims are voting greens. I don’t think you know voting patterns of ethnic groups. The largest voting block of the greens are young college educated and white. Ethnic groups tend to vote for the left mainstream parties like Labor
Yes that’s my point, Muslims tend to vote for Labor but if you don’t see yourself supported by the party you are voting for you start to look elsewhere.
And that party is not greens
Where do you think they'll go?
They go to liberals. That’s traditionally what they have done https://theconversation.com/was-there-an-ethnic-vote-in-the-2019-election-and-did-it-make-a-difference-117911
Do you think Muslims believe the Liberals have a more progressive policy on Palestine than Labor?
With 2 main parties they don’t have a choice. In any case, their voting pattern is if they get pissed off they go to the other party.
Liberals or Independents. More likely than voting against core values like religious freedoms and financial independence.
Do u have a source for this? Some of the closest margin seats for Greens are in suburbs with high Muslim populations like Wills. The representatives in the Merri Bek council also has several socialist and Greens council members. I am a young Muslim, and all my (young) friends vote Greens, followed by Labor. I suspect this will only continue, as Palestine is a serious issue for the community. Not to mention the droves of regular progressive and broadly left Aussies that are outraged over what’s happened but have kept traditional party allegiance with Labor. EDIT: also because of our preferential voting system, voters can choose really any party they want, and still preference Labor over the Coalition. Pretending like Labor is the only choice Muslims have is wilfully ignorant, and will most certainly punish the party down the line.
Muslims vote liberal or labor. Greens are pro gay marriage, far more progressive and the general Muslim population would never vote for them. You would be the so called progressive young Muslim voter which is a very very tiny minority. You also most probably would be too progressive to even be considered Muslim (sorry for the brutal honesty) The largely conservative Muslim population swing from labor to liberal. They tend to vote labor but if they get pissed off like anything pro gay or progressive they go to liberals. https://theconversation.com/was-there-an-ethnic-vote-in-the-2019-election-and-did-it-make-a-difference-117911
If you look at the voting booth data in Will's. There's a clear dividing line between Labor votes north of bell St ( which is where majority of their Muslim demographic resides), versus south of bell st, that has more Yuppies/greens voters. It's not the Muslims voting greens, it's the Yuppies increasingly
Wills has 4.7% speaking arabic at home in 2016 census. Compare this to say Blaxland that has 20.1% and 29.2% of the electorate is muslim. Greens vote in Blaxland at 2022 election? 6%.
Especially if we are talking immigrants. People don't realise that by international standards, Scott Morrison is a cuddly teddy bear with a heart of gold. I would be very surprised if 1st generation migrants made up a significant portion of greens votes at all.
Exactly, I’m really surprised some people are saying that the most conservative group in australia will ever come near the greens.
Greens would love their first preferences, but big picture is whether labor or libs are preferenced higher. Anyone disenchanted with labor’s stance on Palestine isn’t about to hand their preferences to the libs
You must live near a crazy progressive Muslim community if you think they’re going further left.
They might, but at large voters are too preoccupied with the cost of living to pay much attention to this… and they’ll punish ALP by voting LNP. The Greens have done better, but still not at critical mass.
Which seats exactly?
Wills in particular in Melbourne is held by Peter Khalil. Includes coburg and was redistributed favourably to the Greens. Would be a surprise if doesn’t go Green next election.
Just so I'm clear, you think that the seat of Wills, which was won by Labor in the 2022 election, after rezoning, with a 2PP vote of nearly 60% will swing to the greens over the issue of Palestine?
Yep, huge muslim population, very left wing area and most of the local Labor branches are pro-Palestine and even originally did not want Khalil pre-selected. The Greens are pushing Samantha Ratnam hard who is a top tier player for them, with the recent re-zoning on top of that... I know a ton of local Labor people who will be voting Greens over Labor here in Wills, everybody here knows they are in with a really high chance.
If the Greens run Ratnam in Wills they may as well just gift wrap it to Labor.
Wills is held by Peter Khalil, Melbourne is held by Adam Brandt (Greens).
This next election is going to be so interesting. Greens have a very big opportunity to carry on the momentum from the previous election and I reckon they will.
I'm not so sure. I don't think they gain much more ground really. I'd expect the big swings to be to independents and the coalition.
I think you will find the greens have turned away people who have voted for them. All they care about is wedge issues, this Palestin vote is just more showboating. The greens are an amazing contradiction, they are for unskilled immigration to increase and open boarders but are against climate change and want house prices to fall. I'm no scientist but more people means more emissions and higher house prices. I'm at the stage where nobody represents me so time to draw a nice big donkey dick.
Every week there seems to be another little push from Labor that makes me wanna green up my vote a little. I'm still voting Labor at this stage, but it won't take much more for me to change.
If all of the bullshit they've pulled up to this point hasn't convinced you, just be honest that you're a dyed in the wool rusted on labor voter.
Let's pretend you're right, do you think antagonising is the way to make me change my vote?
The responsibility of your actions are yours alone. Don’t start with this nonsense. Like, I know plenty of people who have treated me like dogshit who share similar politics. I’m not changing my views because some people are assholes, that would be incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
I agree that antagonising you isn't helpful but I hope you can see the frustration here considering all the stuff Labor has done to prove they're Liberal light at this point that apparently, somehow isn't enough for people to even consider giving a little more power to the one party who wants to change things. Not taking a stand against genocide is ok with them, Refusing to make real changes to fix the Housing crisis is ok with them, Hiding their commision into corruption was ok with them, Rejecting calls to properly inquire into our busted media landscape was ok with them, Refusing to slow down on massive mining projects in the face of climate collapse is ok with them, Refusing to fix the medicare imbalance thats driving bulk billing extinct is ok with them and refusing to fix our broken monopoly laws in the face of the insane gouging Coles and Woolworths are partaking in is ok with them. Could you blame someone for wondering what possible issue would make you change your mind at this point?
Labor pushed me from being a Labor voter to a Greens a few years ago for similar reasons. It's called [The Ratchet Effect](https://preview.redd.it/d09q0x9ekww11.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=5fffa752ae3dd9c8275681b09596ffa0cfdf7798) in the US. Instead of progressing and moving left, they allow everything to go further right.
>Labor Party rules do not permit members to vote against the caucus position and it was the first time a Labor politician has crossed the floor while Labor was in government since 1988. They aren't going to change their longstanding rules (that Payman previously agreed to adhere to) on the fly for this, and nor should they.
Maybe it's time they look at this longstanding rule. It doesn't sound very democratic.
Labor was born out of the collective stuggle of working class people and acts as a collective in parliament. To act independently as an individual fundamentally betrays Labor's foundation and tradition
She's free to do whatever she wants - just not as a member of a political party. Absolutely nothing curtailing democracy here chief
Just to add to this point, despite the STV electoral system used for the senate, the vast majority of voters (typically around 80% according to Antony Green's Election Blog) choose to vote above the line - ie: vote for parties, not for candidates. Regardless of whether you agree with her actions, what basis does Fatima to appeal to voters directly? I think things would be different though if we had STV in the lower house (like Ireland and Tassie do), there would be a local constituency she could have appealed to and would have had to answer to at the next election.
Party discipline is justifiable, but this should have been a conscience vote.
My main takeaway from this is Penny Wong has no integrity.
Liberal are corrupt and incompetent but holy shit is Labor taking L after L with this stupid thing. Good luck with then building trust in the future.
It's been Labor policy for ages that you come to a position in the party room and you vote that way as a collective unit. Only L is for Payman realistically. She now has no backing of a major party.
She was going to be out at the next election regardless.
The party room position is to recognise Palestine, so she's in line with that.
The party room position is to recognise Palestine as part of a two state solution - which the government tried to amend the green motion to be clear on and be consistent with the platform. The Greens refused.
> which the government tried to amend the green motion to be clear on and be consistent with the platform. Care to show us what exactly they tried to amend?
The government attempted to amend the green party motion to include "as part of a peace process in support of a two state solution and a just and enduring peace”, consistent with Labor's platform, and the Greens voted against it. https://theconversation.com/senator-fatima-payman-defies-labor-solidarity-rule-to-cross-floor-on-pro-palestine-greens-motion-233223
Pretty stupid to vote against this then
It has propelled the issue into the news, so props to her for that.
Let's pretend every single MP and senator voted yes. Do you think Netanyahu will give a single shit? Why the fuck is parliament wasting time on stuff it cannot control regardless of the moral situation instead of things directly within its power such as economic policies?
I guess we should all just give up and go home then.
Perhaps Instead of meaningless votes which weakens and divides the left and overall strengthens the right we can do some of that background diplomacy that got Assange back? I guess that doesn't offer the greens a way to geandstand
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No they don't. The party room is a democratic process too. The members vote on the policies and platforms that the party will follow. Seems the most democratic way to be a united front with predicable stability, without compromising the electorate's individual candidate vote. She voted, she lost. It's still recorded that she voted against it.
> No they don't. I guess they just voted against gay marriage for a decade because they totally don't vote like old white men, right?
Did you look at the party at the time of those votes? Were majority old white men? Then yes, correct, possibly, if all the old white men were the ones that carried the vote for no. Now the party is diverse in gender, culture and religion. She wasn't expelled despite saying she would do it again, because the caucus voted for the lesser suspension.
This is not even a controversial issue globally, most nations have voiced support for a Palestinian state however it's the labor and LNP resisting any voice of support for this cause due to undying loyalty to the Americans and their Israeli handlers
Everyone would be much happier if she was an independent
What about the Australian people?
Them especially
She’s a member of parliament representing her own electorate; are her motives based on the collective view of her electorate, or her own?
She's a Senator who was 3rd on Labor's ballot. Her personal vote was 1,681 votes which was 0.11% of WA Senate voting. [AEC Results](https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/SenateStateFirstPrefs-27966-WA.htm)
Really gives cult-like vibes, don’t dissent or you’re out. Can you imagine being gay, in Labor, and 10 years ago having to vote against giving yourself rights like Penny did because that’s the party line and if not then kiss your career goodbye? Sorry I don’t like that. I have respect for Fatima for actually having a soul
The alp works as a collective. Going and acting individually like like fundamentally betrays Labor's foundation and tradition and undermines the party's strength.
Maybe don't preselect strongly religious people next time, or do and risk problems like this
Like Kevin Rudd?
There’s so many issues with this comment I don’t know where to start. Firstly this is no longer a religious problem, it’s a humanitarian issue. Secondly, she’s a representative of the people and :gasp: there is Muslim people in Australia. Thirdly, it’s not just Muslim Australians who are outraged by this but Christian, agnostic, Hindu, atheist, etc etc.
As a Christian who stands firmly in favour of a secular Palestinian state I don't see why the fuck parliament is wasting it's time on something it literally has no control over. If every mp and senator voted yes it would change nothing.
Shame on the Labor Party
The Australian Labor party does not support nations who are in concert with/support theocratic terrorist organisations. That’s fine imo.
Sigh
[удалено]
[удалено]
Feel like she just needs to run for another country's elections
silly sausages care more about party politics than human rights :’)
Just walk back in tomorrow as an independent. Any politician who tows the party line above all else is untrustworthy.
I don't know. This is just how things get done. I know we are heading toward a more fractured parliament, and honestly, I'm dreading it. 4-5 distinct parties who hold varied ideals is great. It would allow actual democratic freedom. But a room of independent voices? No thanks. Having a political party that is bound to a collective set of ideals is so important to start negotiations. A room full of singular voices representing their individual communities becomes nothing but corrupt or directionless.
Fuck you labor, and here I was stupidly thinking they had a pinch of moral fibre and backbone. We are becoming the United States.
Labor prefer to handle their shit internally and present a united front externally. Good or bad that's how they've operated for a very long time.
But they handled their shit when they made recognising Palestine as part of the party platform.
They suspended her for defecting. It could have been any issue and this would have been the outcome.
Not a good look. Given how apathetic overall the Australian public is towards Israel/Palestine, this isn’t going to be too costly. But Labor are facing flak from both the Muslim community, who are solid Labor, and the more activist left part of its voter base over the policy towards the war in Gaza. Letting the “disobedience” slide might have been the better option that what appears to be a punishment
I would qualify that by age. If you're over 40, imo, then yeah. And if you're not, you're pro-Israel. Under 30, then you're probably a bit more passionate, and sympathise heavily with Palestinians. But unlikely to actually literally want Israel destroyed.
I agree that younger people are more likely to be pro Palestine, but for most people it is still well down the priority list of issues. An Australian government could get away with a wide range of policy either pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, before they suffer a widespread backlash. We are not South Africa or Ireland where historical circumstances leads to a significant level of sympathy for Palestine. Or the reverse like the US where a larger Jewish community and a big Evangelical community means that support for Israel is a priority for a larger group of voters. The exception in Australia is the Jewish community, smaller here, and the Muslim and Arab communities, and the activist left where Palestine has always been a cause celebre. Outside of these groups it’s mostly apathy to a far away war, that has been going on for as long as they can remember.
Stench of party politics. Who does it serve save corrupt bureaucrats and the lobbyists and donors that fund them?
Strong agree. Too bad those Duopoly member shills keep downvoting you for it 😭
Labor not being dogshit challenge (impossible)
While small in stature, Senator Payman has more courage and humanity than the entire Labor party. The bitterness and vitriol coming from them only emphasises that.
Marles and Albanese have gravely misunderstood that people are horrified by the murder of babies.
Ok and voting in parliament will do what? Are we going to bomb Israel?
This is the right call by the PM given the long standing party rules. Let’s hope it doesn’t escalate tensions with the Palestinians