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
Sydney Morning Herald
7 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
In the current climate, the Coalition looks cooked
'We are in that situation with the Liberals,' with the electoral changeover to new generations of Australian voters, says Samaras. 'The Libs are extra vulnerable to takeover at the ballot box. If the teals can form a network or coalition or whatever you want to call it, they could be it. They could push the Liberals completely off the electoral map.' While there are fewer than 10 Liberal-held seats in the cities available for possible teal takeover, there are country seats that could be open to challenge by community independents like Helen Haines, who represents the predominantly rural Victorian seat of Indi. Rather than rage against climate realities and renewables investment, Haines is preoccupied with making the transition work for her constituents. She's proposed a 20 per cent share in the profits from big renewable projects for regional communities, for instance. Climate wasn't always a losing argument for the Coalition. It won some of the critical early battles of the climate wars. Barnaby Joyce was the original Coalition climate warrior. From the Nationals backbench, he illuminated the political pathway for Tony Abbott to follow. Climate scepticism worked for Tony 'climate change is crap' Abbott. It worked for Scott 'lump of coal' Morrison, until it did not. It did not work for Peter 'nuke 'em' Dutton. And it won't work for Sussan 'moderniser' Ley. If she goes there. But, thanks to the Nationals, it might not much matter. Because Barnaby, once again, is leading the Coalition into the rejection of climate change policy in all its manifestations. His current campaign is to abolish the Nationals' commitment to net zero. Which seems odd. Because he was the party's leader who signed on to net zero in a deal with then-prime minister Scott Morrison only four years ago. Even 'lump of coal' Morrison could see that Australia would be marooned, missing out on the global $US200 trillion ($311 trillion) renewables investment boom, unless it could commit to the bare minimum of plausible climate policy – net zero emissions by 2050. Such national responsibilities mean nothing to the rabble-rousing Joyce and company. The populist obscurantists in the Nats are more interested in incendiaries than investments. They only agreed to Morrison's net zero plan because he bribed them with some $30 billion in government spending promises plus an extra seat in the cabinet. But today there are no bribes on offer. Opposition parties have no access to the Treasury or seats in the cabinet. So Joyce is unchecked. He's been joined by his former rival for the Nationals leadership, Michael McCormack. They have enough internal support and momentum to succeed. The man supposed to be leading them, David Littleproud, is meekly following them. Not formally, not yet, but it seems inevitable that he will. His job is on the line otherwise. 'The Nats will be great,' says Samaras. 'They're not losing anything out of this. Their rural constituencies are older and their seats are safe.' Joyce & Co are fomenting a country-versus-city resentment – the countryside is being destroyed by toxic solar farms and fascist new power lines so that rich city investors can make money from them. But the Liberals? What do they do? They don't have a formal position at the moment. It's under review, and the party is divided. One argument is that they adopted net zero and lost anyway. So why not ditch it? The counter is that they didn't lose because of net zero, that it was overshadowed by an unpopular nuclear reactor plan. And that a party that aspires to government must have a credible climate and energy policy as a prerequisite to power. Loading But the Liberals face a wicked dilemma. With their junior Coalition partner exuberantly trampling climate change for the next three years, the Libs will have three options. One, join the Nats and suffer more electoral damage. The Liberals were all but driven out of the cities in the May election. Of the 88 seats classified by the Electoral Commission as metropolitan, Labor holds 71. The Liberals hold just nine. They can't aspire to government without a recovery in the cities. And if they embrace Barnaby's climate policy, they can pretty much forget about that. Two, the Libs can outline a separate policy and spend three years arguing with the Nats over it, which would be divisive and ugly. And how do you take two conflicting policies to an election? Three, the Libs can terminate the Coalition and go solo, much as Littleproud did by splitting with the Libs in the Eight-Day War in May. But that would be likely to mean being sentenced to permanent opposition – or oblivion – for both. The Libs don't have enough seats in their own right, and the Nationals don't have enough votes and rely on Liberal preferences. When Barnaby first launched the climate wars over a dozen years ago, they were directed against Labor. Today, the Nats' climate war is waged against the Liberals just as much. A war against the enemy has turned into a war against the supposed ally. It's not that Labor's renewables plan is rolling out smoothly. One of the gurus, Ross Garnaut, gave a damning speech this week calling the energy transition 'sick'. The entire national enterprise was 'on a path to comprehensive failure'. There is a big and rich political fight to be had. Not in raging against the reality of climate change or the advantages of energy transition, but in interrogating the government's execution of it. The smart course for the Coalition is not to attack Labor's goals but its incompetence in reaching them. A colleague of Kos Samaras, fellow Redbridge director and former Liberal campaign chief Tony Barry, sees the opportunity cost of the Nats' climate crusade: 'There are massive problems with the rollout for [Minister for Climate Change and Energy] Chris Bowen, and if Barnaby Joyce retired tomorrow he'd be beside himself. Barnaby keeps giving him a 'get out of jail' card.' Loading As the pollster for this masthead, Jim Reed of Resolve Strategic, puts it: 'The public debate about climate change is largely over, but the conversation about what to do about it, how urgently and at what cost still rages.' But a Coalition lost in delusion and distraction can't prosecute these real problems while it's caught up in ideological and irrelevant ones. 'The Liberals,' concludes Samaras, 'are in the killing zone'. It's just that, like the Black Knight, the Coalition seems unable to grasp the reality of its situation. As the victorious Arthur goes on his way, the Black Knight, now legless as well as armless, demands that the king come back and keep fighting. 'What are you going to do, bleed on me?' retorts Arthur.
The Age
7 minutes ago
- The Age
In the current climate, the Coalition looks cooked
'We are in that situation with the Liberals,' with the electoral changeover to new generations of Australian voters, says Samaras. 'The Libs are extra vulnerable to takeover at the ballot box. If the teals can form a network or coalition or whatever you want to call it, they could be it. They could push the Liberals completely off the electoral map.' While there are fewer than 10 Liberal-held seats in the cities available for possible teal takeover, there are country seats that could be open to challenge by community independents like Helen Haines, who represents the predominantly rural Victorian seat of Indi. Rather than rage against climate realities and renewables investment, Haines is preoccupied with making the transition work for her constituents. She's proposed a 20 per cent share in the profits from big renewable projects for regional communities, for instance. Climate wasn't always a losing argument for the Coalition. It won some of the critical early battles of the climate wars. Barnaby Joyce was the original Coalition climate warrior. From the Nationals backbench, he illuminated the political pathway for Tony Abbott to follow. Climate scepticism worked for Tony 'climate change is crap' Abbott. It worked for Scott 'lump of coal' Morrison, until it did not. It did not work for Peter 'nuke 'em' Dutton. And it won't work for Sussan 'moderniser' Ley. If she goes there. But, thanks to the Nationals, it might not much matter. Because Barnaby, once again, is leading the Coalition into the rejection of climate change policy in all its manifestations. His current campaign is to abolish the Nationals' commitment to net zero. Which seems odd. Because he was the party's leader who signed on to net zero in a deal with then-prime minister Scott Morrison only four years ago. Even 'lump of coal' Morrison could see that Australia would be marooned, missing out on the global $US200 trillion ($311 trillion) renewables investment boom, unless it could commit to the bare minimum of plausible climate policy – net zero emissions by 2050. Such national responsibilities mean nothing to the rabble-rousing Joyce and company. The populist obscurantists in the Nats are more interested in incendiaries than investments. They only agreed to Morrison's net zero plan because he bribed them with some $30 billion in government spending promises plus an extra seat in the cabinet. But today there are no bribes on offer. Opposition parties have no access to the Treasury or seats in the cabinet. So Joyce is unchecked. He's been joined by his former rival for the Nationals leadership, Michael McCormack. They have enough internal support and momentum to succeed. The man supposed to be leading them, David Littleproud, is meekly following them. Not formally, not yet, but it seems inevitable that he will. His job is on the line otherwise. 'The Nats will be great,' says Samaras. 'They're not losing anything out of this. Their rural constituencies are older and their seats are safe.' Joyce & Co are fomenting a country-versus-city resentment – the countryside is being destroyed by toxic solar farms and fascist new power lines so that rich city investors can make money from them. But the Liberals? What do they do? They don't have a formal position at the moment. It's under review, and the party is divided. One argument is that they adopted net zero and lost anyway. So why not ditch it? The counter is that they didn't lose because of net zero, that it was overshadowed by an unpopular nuclear reactor plan. And that a party that aspires to government must have a credible climate and energy policy as a prerequisite to power. Loading But the Liberals face a wicked dilemma. With their junior Coalition partner exuberantly trampling climate change for the next three years, the Libs will have three options. One, join the Nats and suffer more electoral damage. The Liberals were all but driven out of the cities in the May election. Of the 88 seats classified by the Electoral Commission as metropolitan, Labor holds 71. The Liberals hold just nine. They can't aspire to government without a recovery in the cities. And if they embrace Barnaby's climate policy, they can pretty much forget about that. Two, the Libs can outline a separate policy and spend three years arguing with the Nats over it, which would be divisive and ugly. And how do you take two conflicting policies to an election? Three, the Libs can terminate the Coalition and go solo, much as Littleproud did by splitting with the Libs in the Eight-Day War in May. But that would be likely to mean being sentenced to permanent opposition – or oblivion – for both. The Libs don't have enough seats in their own right, and the Nationals don't have enough votes and rely on Liberal preferences. When Barnaby first launched the climate wars over a dozen years ago, they were directed against Labor. Today, the Nats' climate war is waged against the Liberals just as much. A war against the enemy has turned into a war against the supposed ally. It's not that Labor's renewables plan is rolling out smoothly. One of the gurus, Ross Garnaut, gave a damning speech this week calling the energy transition 'sick'. The entire national enterprise was 'on a path to comprehensive failure'. There is a big and rich political fight to be had. Not in raging against the reality of climate change or the advantages of energy transition, but in interrogating the government's execution of it. The smart course for the Coalition is not to attack Labor's goals but its incompetence in reaching them. A colleague of Kos Samaras, fellow Redbridge director and former Liberal campaign chief Tony Barry, sees the opportunity cost of the Nats' climate crusade: 'There are massive problems with the rollout for [Minister for Climate Change and Energy] Chris Bowen, and if Barnaby Joyce retired tomorrow he'd be beside himself. Barnaby keeps giving him a 'get out of jail' card.' Loading As the pollster for this masthead, Jim Reed of Resolve Strategic, puts it: 'The public debate about climate change is largely over, but the conversation about what to do about it, how urgently and at what cost still rages.' But a Coalition lost in delusion and distraction can't prosecute these real problems while it's caught up in ideological and irrelevant ones. 'The Liberals,' concludes Samaras, 'are in the killing zone'. It's just that, like the Black Knight, the Coalition seems unable to grasp the reality of its situation. As the victorious Arthur goes on his way, the Black Knight, now legless as well as armless, demands that the king come back and keep fighting. 'What are you going to do, bleed on me?' retorts Arthur.
Sky News AU
7 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
'Wake up call': Securty expert says Australians must take security more seriously following ASIO boss' espionage warning
Strategic Analysis Australia founder and Director Peter Jennings told Sky News host Steve Price that comments made by the boss of ASIO should be a wake-up call to all Australians on the threat foreign espionage poses. ASIO chief Mike Burgess at a conference in Adelaide revealed foreign espionage was costing the Australian economy $12.5 billion a year as he unveiled the inaugural cost of espionage report. Reacting on Sky News on Friday, Mr Jennings told host Steve Price that it was not surprising. 'This is industrial level espionage and intellectual property theft," he said. 'And of course it's being directed against Australia because we're a high technology country with very significant alliance relations with the United States and other developed economies, and it will be happening all the time.' Mr Jennings said that Australia needed to be taking steps to protect its military and economy from people who were looking to take advantage of the situation, adding that businesses needed to be aware of the risks they are facing. 'Mike Burgess touches on this in his speech as well, how naive Australians are to imagine that it couldn't possibly happen here or it wouldn't happen to my business,' he said. 'And Mike actually quotes Australian officials saying, oh, well, no one would be interested in going after my information. This is industrial level espionage and intellectual property theft' Mr Burgess on Thursday said "Many entities do not know their secrets have been stolen, or do not realise they've been stolen by espionage, or do not report the theft.' He also said that there were many countries that were committing this espionage. 'The obvious candidates are very active – I've previously named China, Russia and Iran – but many other countries are also targeting anyone and anything that could give them a strategic or tactical advantage, including sensitive but unclassified information.' Mr Burgess also said that he could not understand why some people were mentioning on social media that they carried a security clearance. "On just one professional networking site, the profiles of more than 35,000 Australians indicate they have access to sensitive and potentially classified information. Around 7,000 reference their work in the defence sector, including the specific project they are working on, the team they are working in, and the critical technologies they are working with," he said. "Close to 400 explicitly say they work on AUKUS, and the figure rises above 2,000 if you include broader references to 'submarines' and 'nuclear'.
