|
|
|
|
|
by conz
1754 days ago
|
|
For the record, the Greens are the only major party to oppose this overreach. (Major in the sense that they are the 3rd largest party outside of the ALP and the Liberal parties, and larger than the National party.[*]) From the article: Green Senator Lidia Thorpe described the bill as “terribly flawed” and “problematic”, cited comments in the Richardson review that existing powers were adequate, and criticised the lack of time to consider the government’s amendments.
“Unsurprisingly, the two major parties are in complete lockstep with each other and they are leading us down the road to a surveillance state,” she said.
[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_of_Australia |
|
The entire political position of the Greens starts and stops at the 'think of the children' line and regularly makes deals with the major parties even though they have hostile positions. This is most clearly demonstrated in the ongoing attacks on trivial things like recreational fishing and the extremist positions the Greens takes on firearms ownership. Keeping in mind that this position on firearms includes supporting draconian-level surveillance powers being given to police, which essentially vetos their at-face position against digital surveillance today.
Some of their other positions include wanting to tax fast food, additional taxes on alcohol and forceful reacquisition of private service providers. This goes as far as giving the UN powers over Australian legislation and directly reducing Australia's sovereignty -- even for military defence[1]. Again -- hardly interested in civil liberties.
[0] https://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-and-uranium
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-28/lapkin---the-greens27...