Booted from party, Greens co-founder vows to fight on
Drew Hutton, who helped found the Greens in 1991, was expelled from the party on Sunday in part for refusing to delete comments made by others on his Facebook page deemed to be transphobic.
Hutton, 78, told this masthead he was considering his legal options and urged new federal party leader Larissa Waters to intervene.
'She should be using her stature to say to the Australian Greens, no more expulsions, no more bullying of green people who have given sometimes decades to the party over this gender issue,' he said.
'And secondly, she should be calling for inquiry into all of the processes of the Greens and to ensure that the principle of democracy is embedded in them.
Loading
'Now she's got to show that she's got the character and the courage to do that – if she doesn't do it, the Greens risk becoming, in the view of most Australian electors, just weird and unlikable.'
Waters backed her party's processes, which she said showed 'nobody is above the rules'.
'Good governance means that people can put their case forward, including the right to appeal a decision. In this case the appeal was unsuccessful,' she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 minutes ago
- ABC News
As Torres Strait battles rising seas, Canberra has been put on notice
To the beat of ancient drums, in the language of their ancestors, dancers from Australia's northernmost islands share a modern story. Outside the federal court in Cairns, Torres Strait Islander dancers wear grass skirts and the traditional headdresses of their warriors; their movements depict the rising of the seas and the strengthening of the currents. It's the story of climate change. Across the globe, outside the world's highest court in the Netherlands, our Pacific Island neighbours shared a similar dance about their culture and traditions. Together, they send a message to the world of what stands to be lost if leaders don't take serious action on climate change. Last week, the federal court found Australia does not owe a duty of care to protect Torres Strait Islander people and their culture from the impacts of climate change. In its wake, the International Court of Justice declared that states do have a "duty to cooperate" on addressing climate change or they risk breaching international law. It raises the question — will the Australian government heed the warning? Not many get to visit Australia's northernmost islands, but as one of the lucky ones, I witnessed firsthand the devastating impacts climate change is having on these small island communities, their livelihood, and culture. It is not a distant threat; it's happening now. Their loved ones' gravestones have been destroyed, beaches once used for camping eroded, and food is unable to be grown due to salty earth. Lead applicants for the case, Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai, explained how the seasons have changed and the migration of traditional food sources, turtles and dugongs, has shifted — generations of passed-down knowledge are being lost. As some of the lowest emitters contributing to the global carbon footprint, they are also amongst the most vulnerable to the impacts of the imposing climate frontline. Sea levels in the Strait are estimated to be rising at about twice the global average. Scientists predict that in 25 years, the islands will be uninhabitable. This is the reality we face as a nation — the severing of our connection to some of the world's oldest traditions and culture. Justice Michael Wigney accepted these facts in court last week but found the case failed not because it had no merit but because negligence law doesn't apply to 'core government policy', nor does it acknowledge the loss of culture. While sympathetic, he ultimately determined it was up to parliament to make decisions on climate policy, not the courts. "Until the law in Australia changes … the only real avenue for those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders involves public advocacy and protest or ultimately recourse via the ballot box," Justice Wigney said. This is little comfort for First Nations people who have been protesting environmental degradation and heritage destruction for decades, and are a minority at the ballot box. Three thousand kilometres away from the Torres Strait in Canberra, where the impacts of climate change are arguably not so visible, our leaders make the decisions on how Australia will participate in its global responsibility to address climate change. As Justice Wigney noted, "perhaps still are some climate change doubters and deniers among the politicians and bureaucrats." The landmark case put under the microscope the government's willingness to address the impacts of climate change and found that in the past, it hadn't been doing enough. The Commonwealth argued Australia was not the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, at 1.3 per cent, and therefore has little impact on a global scale. But the Torres Strait Islanders argued Australia — a high-emitting country in per capita terms — was not contributing its fair share to the global effort to reduce emissions, based on the best available science. If you include exports, Australia accounts for 4.5 per cent of global fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions, with 80 per cent of those emissions from exports, according to the Climate Analytics Institute. Justice Wigney acknowledged the current Labor government has set "significantly higher and more ambitious goals" than the previous government. But Traditional Owners, environmental groups, and scientists were dismayed when it green-lit the controversial expansion of Woodside's Northwest Shelf gas project until 2070, despite their continued protests about the degradation of 50,000-year-old sacred rock art as well as its impact on emissions. Like the Torres Strait, our Pacific Island neighbours maintain ancient traditions and a deep connection to the land and sea. They are also on the climate change frontline. This week, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that states have a legal obligation to address climate change, and if they don't, it may constitute "an internationally wrongful act". It was a campaign started in 2019 by students and youth organisations from Vanuatu, which is amongst the nations that are most vulnerable to climate change impacts. The 500-page opinion is not legally binding, but advocates and lawyers hope the world's highest court will hold some weight amongst the largest carbon emitters. Australia was one of 132 member states that requested the opinion in 2023, but in hearings, it argued that nations have no legal obligations on climate change beyond those in existing pacts like the Paris Agreement. This diverged from the views of the Pacific Islands and put into question Australia's role and responsibility as a key strategic partner in the Pacific. Could and should Australia be doing more to encourage other nations to do more to stop our neighbours from sinking beneath the tide? The historic ruling could pave the way for reparations for nations harmed by climate change and create a moral responsibility for Australia to take more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But, as determined in the uncles' climate case, it will be up to the Commonwealth to decide whether it will listen to the international court, its Pacific neighbours, and its own people to do more. Uncle Paul Kabai and Uncle Pabai Pabai fear their people will become Australia's first 'climate refugees', and it's a fear shared by Tuvaluans. Australia has already made a resettlement agreement with Tuvalu to take in their people as the seas rise. Tuvalu's former prime minister criticised the agreement as a way to "buy Tuvalu's silence over Australia's coal exports" in an opinion piece published by Radio New Zealand in 2023. In other words, planning for the worst rather than working to prevent it. Last year at Garma, I sat in the audience as Tuvalu's Minister for Climate Change Mania Talia spoke of the devastation his island nation faces from the rising seas. Something that stuck with me was his final comment expressing his admiration for the strength and resilience of First Nations people. "Despite all the difficulties, the problem that you're facing, you are able to dance and dancing in the face of despair is literally telling us that we have hope in the future," he said. "That's the message I'm going to take and tomorrow we'll also continue to dance our fidelity, our traditional dance, despite climate change." As the prime minister next week heads back to Garma, one of the country's largest Indigenous gatherings, will climate policy be on the agenda? The international court has made its decision, and vulnerable communities have made their plea, but will Australia act?
The Advertiser
33 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Risk of higher US tariffs looms despite beef deal
Australia's move to lift restrictions on US beef is unlikely to shift the dial on tariff negotiations, as the nation's products face the possibility of even steeper duties. The Albanese government will allow access to US beef that has been raised in Canada or Mexico but processed in America, following a safety review. Australia is subject to a baseline 10 per cent tariff applied by the Trump administration and has been keeping an eye on the trade negotiations of other countries. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said Donald Trump's flagged higher tariffs might include the nation's exports. "The risk for Australia is that we may be lucky to hang on to 10 per cent, which could actually turn out to be higher," he told AAP. "This (beef decision) might help us hang on to 10 per cent or avoid a worse outcome, but I don't think there's any guarantees of that." American beef was banned from Australia almost two decades ago following an outbreak of mad cow disease. Mr Trump has pressured the government to ease restrictions as Labor argues for an exemption from the tariffs as part of the US president's deepening trade war. Former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said while biosecurity investigations can take a while to finalise, it was a "sensible outcome". "The challenge here is it doesn't look like we're putting together a package deal," he said. "It'd be better if there was a package approach to this if we're seeking to gather an overall trade outcome with the US." Australian Farm Institute executive director Katie McRobert said the cattle industry has been "extremely nervous" about biosecurity traceability from different parts of the north and South America regions. "We wouldn't expect a significant impact on Australian producers from the potential to import American beef ... because we already produce far more beef in Australia than we can possibly eat," she said. Trade Minister Don Farrell said he didn't have any meetings scheduled with American counterparts after last meeting US trade representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of an OECD ministerial meeting in Paris in June. Senator Farrell said Mr Greer didn't raise beef concerns at that meeting. "We believe that America should lift those tariffs on Australia, there's no justification whatsoever for the United States to apply tariffs to Australia," he told reporters in Canberra on Thursday. "We have a free trade agreement, that agreement makes it very clear that it's a tariff free arrangement." Senator Farrell also denied the move was to create a bargaining chip. The Philippines and Japan recently struck agreements with the US to lower their tariff rates, but both are still above the 10 per cent baseline. Australia's move to lift restrictions on US beef is unlikely to shift the dial on tariff negotiations, as the nation's products face the possibility of even steeper duties. The Albanese government will allow access to US beef that has been raised in Canada or Mexico but processed in America, following a safety review. Australia is subject to a baseline 10 per cent tariff applied by the Trump administration and has been keeping an eye on the trade negotiations of other countries. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said Donald Trump's flagged higher tariffs might include the nation's exports. "The risk for Australia is that we may be lucky to hang on to 10 per cent, which could actually turn out to be higher," he told AAP. "This (beef decision) might help us hang on to 10 per cent or avoid a worse outcome, but I don't think there's any guarantees of that." American beef was banned from Australia almost two decades ago following an outbreak of mad cow disease. Mr Trump has pressured the government to ease restrictions as Labor argues for an exemption from the tariffs as part of the US president's deepening trade war. Former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said while biosecurity investigations can take a while to finalise, it was a "sensible outcome". "The challenge here is it doesn't look like we're putting together a package deal," he said. "It'd be better if there was a package approach to this if we're seeking to gather an overall trade outcome with the US." Australian Farm Institute executive director Katie McRobert said the cattle industry has been "extremely nervous" about biosecurity traceability from different parts of the north and South America regions. "We wouldn't expect a significant impact on Australian producers from the potential to import American beef ... because we already produce far more beef in Australia than we can possibly eat," she said. Trade Minister Don Farrell said he didn't have any meetings scheduled with American counterparts after last meeting US trade representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of an OECD ministerial meeting in Paris in June. Senator Farrell said Mr Greer didn't raise beef concerns at that meeting. "We believe that America should lift those tariffs on Australia, there's no justification whatsoever for the United States to apply tariffs to Australia," he told reporters in Canberra on Thursday. "We have a free trade agreement, that agreement makes it very clear that it's a tariff free arrangement." Senator Farrell also denied the move was to create a bargaining chip. The Philippines and Japan recently struck agreements with the US to lower their tariff rates, but both are still above the 10 per cent baseline. Australia's move to lift restrictions on US beef is unlikely to shift the dial on tariff negotiations, as the nation's products face the possibility of even steeper duties. The Albanese government will allow access to US beef that has been raised in Canada or Mexico but processed in America, following a safety review. Australia is subject to a baseline 10 per cent tariff applied by the Trump administration and has been keeping an eye on the trade negotiations of other countries. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said Donald Trump's flagged higher tariffs might include the nation's exports. "The risk for Australia is that we may be lucky to hang on to 10 per cent, which could actually turn out to be higher," he told AAP. "This (beef decision) might help us hang on to 10 per cent or avoid a worse outcome, but I don't think there's any guarantees of that." American beef was banned from Australia almost two decades ago following an outbreak of mad cow disease. Mr Trump has pressured the government to ease restrictions as Labor argues for an exemption from the tariffs as part of the US president's deepening trade war. Former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said while biosecurity investigations can take a while to finalise, it was a "sensible outcome". "The challenge here is it doesn't look like we're putting together a package deal," he said. "It'd be better if there was a package approach to this if we're seeking to gather an overall trade outcome with the US." Australian Farm Institute executive director Katie McRobert said the cattle industry has been "extremely nervous" about biosecurity traceability from different parts of the north and South America regions. "We wouldn't expect a significant impact on Australian producers from the potential to import American beef ... because we already produce far more beef in Australia than we can possibly eat," she said. Trade Minister Don Farrell said he didn't have any meetings scheduled with American counterparts after last meeting US trade representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of an OECD ministerial meeting in Paris in June. Senator Farrell said Mr Greer didn't raise beef concerns at that meeting. "We believe that America should lift those tariffs on Australia, there's no justification whatsoever for the United States to apply tariffs to Australia," he told reporters in Canberra on Thursday. "We have a free trade agreement, that agreement makes it very clear that it's a tariff free arrangement." Senator Farrell also denied the move was to create a bargaining chip. The Philippines and Japan recently struck agreements with the US to lower their tariff rates, but both are still above the 10 per cent baseline. Australia's move to lift restrictions on US beef is unlikely to shift the dial on tariff negotiations, as the nation's products face the possibility of even steeper duties. The Albanese government will allow access to US beef that has been raised in Canada or Mexico but processed in America, following a safety review. Australia is subject to a baseline 10 per cent tariff applied by the Trump administration and has been keeping an eye on the trade negotiations of other countries. AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said Donald Trump's flagged higher tariffs might include the nation's exports. "The risk for Australia is that we may be lucky to hang on to 10 per cent, which could actually turn out to be higher," he told AAP. "This (beef decision) might help us hang on to 10 per cent or avoid a worse outcome, but I don't think there's any guarantees of that." American beef was banned from Australia almost two decades ago following an outbreak of mad cow disease. Mr Trump has pressured the government to ease restrictions as Labor argues for an exemption from the tariffs as part of the US president's deepening trade war. Former ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said while biosecurity investigations can take a while to finalise, it was a "sensible outcome". "The challenge here is it doesn't look like we're putting together a package deal," he said. "It'd be better if there was a package approach to this if we're seeking to gather an overall trade outcome with the US." Australian Farm Institute executive director Katie McRobert said the cattle industry has been "extremely nervous" about biosecurity traceability from different parts of the north and South America regions. "We wouldn't expect a significant impact on Australian producers from the potential to import American beef ... because we already produce far more beef in Australia than we can possibly eat," she said. Trade Minister Don Farrell said he didn't have any meetings scheduled with American counterparts after last meeting US trade representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of an OECD ministerial meeting in Paris in June. Senator Farrell said Mr Greer didn't raise beef concerns at that meeting. "We believe that America should lift those tariffs on Australia, there's no justification whatsoever for the United States to apply tariffs to Australia," he told reporters in Canberra on Thursday. "We have a free trade agreement, that agreement makes it very clear that it's a tariff free arrangement." Senator Farrell also denied the move was to create a bargaining chip. The Philippines and Japan recently struck agreements with the US to lower their tariff rates, but both are still above the 10 per cent baseline.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Australia faces ‘inescapable' legal risk after historic climate ruling
Countries besieged by the effects of climate change can legally pursue their neighbours for reparations if they fail to uphold their obligations to curb global emissions, in a ruling that could have far-reaching implications for fossil fuel-exporting nations such as Australia. The International Court of Justice handed down the historic advisory ruling, paving the way for massive compensation claims in a case brought by a group of law students from Vanuatu. In a case that drew unprecedented international involvement, including from 96 states and 11 international organisations, The Hague-based court's advisory opinion found countries were bound to uphold international treaties such as the Paris Agreement, a commitment to prevent global temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. 'Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from greenhouse gas emissions – including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies – may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State,' the ruling said. Any breach of its obligations meant the country could be liable to pay 'full reparation to injured States in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction'. The Australian government was among several countries that argued that complying with climate treaties such as the Paris Agreement was all that international law required and there were no relevant obligations when it came to fossil fuel exports. The court found 'the argument according to which the climate change treaties constitute the only relevant applicable law cannot be upheld'. Relevant international laws included a 'customary duty to prevent significant harm to the environment and the duty to co-operate for the protection of the environment, and international human rights law'. Australian Conservation Foundation general counsel Adam Beeson said this meant the Australian government would need to properly assess the consequences of exporting fossil fuels.
