Well you see you put the pill testing in and then surround it by police so no one wants to use. That way you can point out how ineffective it is and can it.
spiffmeister
joined 2 years ago
Pretty disappointed in the Greens tbh. What they got for guillotining debate seems poultry also,
$500m for social housing energy upgrades and commitments against fossil fuel investment.
Those better be some amazing commitments that Labor definitely won't just not act on.
Don't you just love being able to rewrite history in official government releases.
It then law is written loosely enough they may just try to apply it however is politically convenient at the time. Don't like people using signal? Guess signal is social media lmao.
That's not to say the original intent is to harass software they don't like, but a law written ambiguously can be used for other things if desired.
Nevermind then. I wasn't giving them much credit but it was still too much it seems.
Thanks Bill! Really saving the taxpayer there.
The legislation does note that some services are “excluded”, but does not name specific platforms. For example, while services providing “online social interaction” would be included in the ban, this would not include “online business interaction”.
Looking forward to watching Facebook claim it's all a business interaction because they're selling the user data or something. Also surely this includes any and all online forums.
If they were rushing through the bill then any amendments in the senate would require the bill to go back to the house. Partially explains the reluctance to consider amendments (though why bother with debate then).
Depressingly
The ban is, however, backed by 77% of Australians, according to a new poll.
Most of whom probably don't care how it was passed or details on the amendments.
It also clears the government from legal recourse for negligent decisions, making them immune from civil lawsuits in relation to the removal of a person or their treatment in a third country.
Surely this can't stand up in courts? The government can just pass a law effectively saying it's above the law?
Senator Birmingham criticised the Greens, saying their failure to vote for the motion cut against cross-party efforts to improve parliamentary culture.
Yeah don't suspend Pauline for being a racist though dw about it.
Keep Peter Dutton out? The Greens? Consider the seats the Bandt has explicitly said the Greens will target at the next election: Sydney, Macnamara, Wills, Cooper, Richmond. All Labor seats.
This is true.
I wouldn't say they're cannibalizing the nationally left party though, Labor is centre left at best and we don't have a purely 2 party system like the US so a left wing party could easily run in coalition. Otherwise you could also make the case that the nats cannibalise the libs.
which it makes it easier for the right-wing party to become the largest grouping in Parliament and thus best-placed to form government
If neither major party has the numbers to form majority government next election then they will deal with a minor/independent to form government, the Green's obtaining more seats means if Labor is serious about forming government they would have to deal with them.
I like how during the 10 years of lnp government it felt like we heard "we're cleaning up their mess!" what felt like all the time. But I don't recall this government saying it beyond the first few weeks. Are their political strategists dumb? Maybe.