David Shoebridge says not vying for Greens leader, praises ‘brave' Mehreen Faruqi
David Shoebridge has ruled out contesting the Greens leadership after last week's federal election bloodbath unseated Adam Bandt and left the minor party leaderless.
The NSW senator on Sunday was tight-lipped when quizzed on possible contenders to replace Mr Bandt, whom he said the Greens were 'gutted about losing'.
But he did praise fellow NSW senator Mehreen Faruqi as 'a brave and courageous campaigner' against the conflict in Gaza and played down her regularly donning a pro-Palestinian headdress in the upper house.
'I think senators should be entitled to wear things that express their political values in their workplace,' Senator Shoebridge told Sky News.
'I think when people went to vote at this election, one of the key things they were voting on was not what someone was wearing in the Senate.
'What they were voting on was a rejection of Peter Dutton and far right politics, or a rejection of Trumpian style politics.
'That saw a collapse in the coalition and that saw a surge towards the Labor Party.'
The loss of Mr Bandt and one-termers Max Chandler-Mather and Stephen Bates reduced the Greens' numbers to just one in the lower house.
Faruqi and South Australia senator Sarah Hanson-Young are the frontrunners in the shallow pool of candidates to replace Mr Bandt as leader.
Queensland senator Larissa Waters has also been urged put her hat in the ring.
Senator Shoebridge said nominations had not been finalised yet, but that it was time for a woman to lead the Greens.
'I'm not going to give you a running commentary on who I would be supporting as leader, or whose nominating leader,' he said.
'It's decided by the elected representatives we have in the party room — it'll be 12 people making that decision.
'My hope is that we … will come together as collegiately as we can, and first of all, try and make a consensus decision.
'And if we can't, those 12 members — of which I am one — will, I hope, make a decision.'
He added that there were 'big shoes to fill'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
40 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘Beyond sick of it': Abbie Chatfield fires back at critics
Abbie Chatfield has addressed the controversies that erupted following her decision to speak out ahead of this year's federal election — and how she is 'often a scapegoat' to the 'demeaning' and 'deeply damaging' effects of being targeted by fellow feminists and far-right trolls. Chatfield used her platform to speak out about politics and the recent federal election in May. An Australian Electoral Commission inquiry was raised after collaborative social media posts between Chatfield and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, as well as former Greens leader Adam Bandt, were queried by Liberal Senator Jane Hume. The AEC ultimately concluded that Chatfield's posts did not require authorisation under electoral law. Listen to the full interview with Abbie Chatfield on Something To Talk About: Speaking to the Stellar podcast, Something To Talk About, Chatfield said: 'The AEC stuff was a whole other level of, I believe, discrediting smaller voices, but also discrediting outspoken young women'. 'It seems that when women do more than one thing, they're deemed as inept at all the things they do,' Chatfield told Something To Talk About, in a new episode released today. 'But when men do more than one thing it's like, wow, he's a footy player and he can read an autocue. 'The AEC thing made me feel really targeted. I feel I'm often a scapegoat because of how the media portrays me as being the spokesperson on things, and they go, 'Oh, she's talking again…'' Chatfield also addressed recent criticisms lobbed at her by prominent writer and feminist Clementine Ford, who accused her of 'profiting from the performance of being politically engaged' following an interview that Chatfield conducted with Albanese on her podcast. 'I feel like I'm in the middle of stories like that all the time. So it's kind of, unfortunately, my norm,' Chatfield told Something To Talk About. 'But it's never enjoyable or pleasant. This idea that because I'm not doing things perfectly, that I'm an idiotic narcissist, I don't know anything, I'm brain dead, I'm a deeply basic thinker – they're just insults. 'It's not actually critiquing my work. For more from Abbie Chatfield, listen to the full interview on Something To Talk About: 'It was really hurtful because then after that, the right-wing comments came in saying, 'Nothing better than a cat fight. Two feminists fighting. You can't even agree with each other!' 'And it's very demeaning. And that isn't Clementine's fault, but it is something that she should have considered, and that I have considered when I haven't called her out for things that I would say are deeply damaging.' In the Stellar cover story and podcast episode released today, Chatfield also opens up about her personal life and relationship with boyfriend Adam Hyde, and why she is in a better place when it comes to her life outside of work She issues a warning to women, saying they 'shouldn't date Trump supporters'.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
As the planet warms and liberal democracy is attacked, does the government care?
This warning was published in 1762: "As soon as man can disobey with impunity, his disobedience becomes legitimate." It comes from The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Rousseau's words inspired the French Revolution, and the American revolutionary war, and influenced the political and moral philosophy we call liberalism, on which modern Australian political society is based. The message contained in that warning is extremely important. If we want to live in a world in which individual human and civil rights mean anything, certain groups in society must not be allowed to behave with impunity. Why? Because if some groups can behave with impunity, and everyone else is forced to stand back and watch, it has a deeply corrosive effect on human culture. If they can behave with impunity, they'll keep pushing the boundaries of what they can get away with (who's going to stop them?), and their outrageous behaviour will become the new low "standard" for others to follow. It's obvious what that downward spiral in morality and ethics means for everyone. Do we believe freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, the right to protest, and the media's right to tell the truth, are essential for a free society? If we do, then we can't allow privileged groups to dismantle those things in their effort to protect their "prerogative" to behave with impunity. When we let anyone hack away at those pillars of liberalism — and make it increasingly dangerous for individuals to tell the truth, to speak up, and to protest the abuse of power — what will happen to our "free society"? It will see illiberalism flourish. In some ways, the battle to protect important elements of liberal society has already been lost. In the 21st century, the right to privacy, which is essential to an individual's ability to speak freely in their own home, has been destroyed. The internet, which held so much promise in the 1990s, has been turned against us. It's become a tool to crush political dissent and compile lists of suspect individuals and their personal networks. The weaponisation of our data and AI technology is driving a rapid evolution in dystopian predictive policing and warfare. Some private companies operating at the frontier of this technology, like Palantir, are profiting from these developments. And we need to understand everything is connected. Take the environment, the very thing that sustains life on this planet. In December last year, researchers at the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom released a study that showed Australian police are world leaders at arresting climate and environment protesters. It found more than 20 per cent of all climate and environment protests in Australia involved arrests, more than three times the global average. It showed Australia's political leaders had joined the "rapid escalation" of global efforts to criminalise and repress climate and environmental protest in recent years, while sovereign states globally were failing to meet their emissions targets and international agreements. It complemented other reports (here and here) that illuminated the links between political donations and lobbying from fossil fuel companies, governments writing harsher laws and penalties for activists, policing agencies being used to enforce the new laws, and legal systems and courts bedding the laws down. Think about how that phenomenon is connected to the global economic system. Specifically, consider the role the "price mechanism" is supposed to play in industrialised society. At the moment, we're watching a nasty global battle over an attempt by scientists and environmentalists to have the true costs of fossil fuels properly reflected in the market prices of the products fossil fuel companies sell to the world. If the true environmental, climate, and planetary costs of fossil fuels were really reflected in their prices, the price of petrol, gas and coal would be many multitudes higher than today's suppressed "market" prices. So the global fossil fuel industry is using every lever it can — political influence, legal systems, police forces, private security services, national armies, extra-judicial harassment and intimidation — to stop the true cost of their products being reflected in the market prices of their products. And climate and environmental activists and scientists are using every lever they can — research, letters to politicians, the legal system, protests, civil disobedience, and blockades — to have the true climate and planetary costs of fossil fuels reflected in their prices. Do we have a right to an inhabitable planet? It's not difficult to see how the battle over the price mechanism is deeply connected to the struggle to protect the rights of Indigenous peoples globally (including land rights, the right to cultural preservation, and participation in decision-making processes). Everything is connected. Last week, the climate analyst Ketan Joshi wrote a fiery article in Crikey that touched on many of these issues. It's really worth reading. Mr Joshi said the Albanese government's recent controversial decision to allow Woodside's North West Shelf gas project to continue operating until 2070 was a major blow to the climate movement and signified something sinister. He argued Labor was not a climate denier, it was something "far worse". He said if anyone in 2025 could work to worsen fossil fuel reliance in full acceptance of the consequences, without any willingness to work to prevent them, they were "far scarier" than climate deniers. "There isn't a great name for this, but we can call it "tactical fatalism": the intentional, weaponised insistence that a worse future is the only future (from those who benefit the most from whatever makes it bad)," he wrote. "The climate movement is ill-equipped to deal with a threat that looks like this. The easy binary of deniers vs believers died last decade. Any fantasy we had of a global moral pact of good intentions is dead. "This decade we are realising how much damage and death can be caused openly, without any shame. Genocidal countries know it, and the fossil fuel industry knows it, too. "A half-decade of wars, invasions, energy crises and a really nasty pandemic haven't been easy on our movement, and the tactical fatalist predators are circling." How do these sad political developments fit with the principles of "liberalism," where the right to speak freely, to tell the truth, and protest are supposed to be sacrosanct? In The Social Contract, Rousseau said when privileged groups can act with impunity we exist in a world where might is right. "And as the strongest is always right, the only problem is how to become the strongest," he wrote. Is that really the world we want to live in? Is that what younger Australians voted for?
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
Canberra Liberals leader Leanne Castley's plea for coercive control legislation is personal
For Leanne Castley, the push to criminalise coercive control in the ACT has always been personal. Growing up, the Canberra Liberals leader watched the insidious form of abuse strip power, freedom and independence from the two women closest to her. Warning: This story contains details of domestic violence and sexual assault. It was her mum Lorraine Castley's second husband who wreaked havoc on her childhood home. "Mum married him when I was in year six," Ms Castley said. "He drank a lot and was violent. It was awful. It was such a tense home. Ms Castley described hiding in the bathroom as she heard his car driving up the street, waiting to see what kind of mood he was in. "If he was in a good mood, it would all be okay, but if he'd been drinking and they were having a big blue, I knew to lay low," she said. Ms Castley said her mum endured the abuse for years; the stigma of a second failed marriage weighing heavily. Then one night, everything changed. "He came home and it was just on for young and old," Ms Castley recalled. Ms Castley's Aunt Lou is also a survivor of unimaginable trauma. Her third husband controlled her every move and isolated her from family and friends. "I didn't know until years later that he would put sleeping tablets in her coffee at night and rape her." Ms Castley said her aunt eventually left the relationship but found her husband difficult to escape. "She would change her route and within three days, he would realise and hop on the other road — or he'd just park in her street and sit and watch her." It was with her mum and aunt in mind, that Ms Castley offered the ACT Legislative Assembly a raw and rare glimpse into her childhood earlier this year, detailing the impact of intimate partner violence on her family. "This is no way for families to exist," she told the Assembly. On the day of her speech, the Assembly passed a motion making a commitment to legislate on coercive control — a move the politician had pushed in the last term of government. "We've got to take action sooner rather than later," she said. Coercive control is a pattern of behaviour used to entrap someone in a relationship, creating fear and denying a person of freedom and independence. It can involve financial control, isolation from friends and family, monitoring, humiliation, constant criticism and dictating aspects of a person's life, such as where they go, what they wear or when they sleep. It causes serious harm on its own but is also a factor in almost all intimate partner homicides. Every day in Canberra, police are called to 11 family violence incidents, on average. Under the current legal framework in the ACT, police do not have the power to arrest or charge a perpetrator unless there is evidence of physical violence. Detective Acting Inspector Sam Norman is the officer in charge of ACT Policing's Domestic and Family Violence Investigation Unit. He said criminalising coercive control would mean officers could step in before a situation escalates. If you need help immediately call emergency services on triple-0 "That would be with coercive control itself as opposed to the violence that might arise from it." Acting Assistant Commissioner Paula Hudson said the force supported the move, even if it resulted in more work for officers. "Absolutely, because family violence thrives in silence and the most powerful thing we can do as a community is to speak up," Acting Assistant Commissioner Hudson said. A critical piece of the puzzle for ACT Policing is ensuring all officers are adequately trained to handle coercive control cases. "Given the complexity of the crime type and the type of investigation that would be required and the nuance of that crime type, it's going to be really important that police are appropriately trained," Detective Acting Inspector Norman said. The ACT government launched a coercive control education campaign across social media, radio and in public places last month. It included posters that state: "Coercive control is a web of abuse" as well as radio advertising highlighting the behaviours commonly associated with coercive control. A progress report on the work being done in preparation for legislative change is due by September. When asked how she would describe the government's progress, Frances Crimmins does not hesitate. "I would call it a little bit frustratingly slow," the chief executive of women's advocacy organisation YWCA Canberra said. "Women are being murdered and coercive control is present in 95 per cent of cases. "This is why we need to start taking action now." YWCA Canberra has a specialist domestic violence support team working with victim-survivors and coercive control is a factor in the vast majority of their cases. "One woman has recently described to her case manager that she is controlled in all aspects of her life," Ms Crimmins said. "When she can use the telephone. When she can leave the house. How long she can shower. Her sleep is monitored. "When she does go out, she's given time limits. She's told how much she can spend on groceries. What she can wear in public. "And if she doesn't meet any of these targets set for her, she's punished." Ms Crimmins acknowledged that criminalisation of coercive control would not solve the family violence crisis but said the current approach in the ACT was clearly inadequate. "We need the laws to help support women," she said. "Even if it doesn't end up with an immediate prosecution, it's giving a woman confidence to come forward and that's what we're seeing in New South Wales and Queensland." Coercive control has been a standalone offence in New South Wales since 2022, with a similar law coming into effect in Queensland just last month. Dr Hayley Boxall, a criminologist who has been studying family violence for more than a decade, is cautiously supportive of criminalisation but said it shouldn't be rushed. "I think having a really close look at how New South Wales and Queensland go with this legislation and understanding some of the strengths of the wording would be really, really useful in the ACT, particularly around resourcing," she said. "A lot of the conversations that we're having about the legislation of coercive control have been around educating lawyers, magistrates, the court professionals and the police. "The question is, what happens when it goes to court? How will the courts be adequately resourced to consider this entirely new offence, which requires quite a lot of evidence to substantiate it?" Dr Boxall said there was not yet enough evidence to say with confidence that criminalising coercive control would prevent intimate partner violence or homicide. But she said there was power in legislating and that it would send a message to victim-survivors, perpetrators and the broader community.
