Latest news with #Bandt
The Age
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Age
Whip it good: ‘Devo' Bandt exits, but who will be the new Lord or Lady of the Crossbench?
As the final votes are recounted in Bradfield, and the Coalition parties promise to listen better and go to therapy after their brief separation, CBD's eyes are now turned to the latest position up for grabs in the upcoming 48th Parliament. We're talking about the semi-official role of crossbench whip, or the MP responsible for ensuring their crossbench colleagues all get their voices heard during the chaos of question time. In the past, this task fell to former Greens leader Adam Bandt, or rather, his office. And when the crossbench swelled to a record 16 MPs after the 2022 election, it took on an outsized role, particularly after Labor's leader of the house, Tony Burke, increased the amount of airtime crossbenchers got in question time. It made sense for Bandt to take on the role since, as leader of a designated political party, he had more staff. Unlike the teal independents, who were livid after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese slashed their staffing allocations after the 2022 election in a manner that made Scott Morrison seem like Santa. But then Bandt suffered a shock, losing his seat of Melbourne to Labor's Sarah Witty on what was a forgettable night for the Greens. So who will take on Bandt's old role as king (or queen) of the crossbench? Nationals leader David Littleproud's decision to come crawling back to the Coalition makes things a lot easier. And while Bob Katter, famed for his Homeric approach to question time, would be the most entertaining choice, we're not sure anyone else would ever get a word in edgeways. There's been some suggestion out of the teal universe that one of the posse who now occupy the Liberal Party's old leafy turf could step up, with Warringah MP Zali Steggall touted as a possibility. She's been around a bit longer, and has a sharp grasp of parliamentary procedure. But CBD understands that Steggall is yet to decide whether she wants to take on the role. Separately, there's been persistent chatter that some members of the teal movement would like to form a separate political party – perhaps headed up by Steggall – which would solve the staffing question, if anything. 'The notion of party has been thrown around but hasn't got beyond first base,' a teal source said.
Sydney Morning Herald
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Whips and wisecracks: Who will be the new Lord of the Crossbench?
As the final votes are recounted in Bradfield, and the Coalition parties promise to listen better and to go to therapy after their brief separation, CBD's eyes are now turned to the latest position up for grabs in the upcoming 48th parliament. We're talking about the semi-official role of crossbench whip, or the MP responsible for ensuring their crossbench colleagues all get their voices heard during the chaos of question time. In the past, this task had fallen to former Greens leader Adam Bandt, or rather, his office. And when the crossbench swelled to a record 16 MPs after the 2022 election, it took on an outsized role, particularly after Labor's leader of the house Tony Burke increased the amount of airtime crossbenchers got in question time. It made sense for Bandt to take on the role since, as leader of a designated political party, he had more staff. This put him in a different category than the teal independents, who were left livid when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese slashed their staffing allocations after the 2022 election in a manner that made Scott Morrison seem like Santa. But then Bandt suffered a shock, losing his seat of Melbourne to Labor's Sarah Witty on what was a forgettable night for the Greens. So who will take on Bandt's old role as king (or queen) of the crossbench? Nationals leader David Littleproud 's decision to come crawling back to the Coalition makes things a lot easier. And while Bob Katter, famed for his Homeric approach to question time, would be the banter choice, we're not sure anyone else would ever get a word in edgeways. There's been some suggestion out of the teal universe that one of the posse who now occupy the Liberal Party's old leafy turf could step up. Warringah MP Zali Steggall has been touted as a possibility. She's been around a bit longer, and she has a sharp grasp of parliamentary procedure. But CBD understands that Steggall is yet to decide whether she wants to take on the role. Separately, there's been persistent chatter that some members of the teal movement would like to form a separate political party – perhaps headed up by Steggall – which would solve the staffing question, if anything.
The Advertiser
15-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Greens to choose leader and reflect on election lessons
It's not easy being Green after losing several seats and a party leader at the federal election. But those who remain are preparing to choose a replacement and reflect on lessons from the campaign. Adam Bandt, who had led the minor party since 2020, lost his seat of Melbourne on May 3. The shock defeat ended Mr Bandt's 15-year career in federal parliament. His colleagues will meet in the Victorian capital on Thursday as they begin to pick up the pieces. South Australian senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Mehreen Faruqi from NSW are expected to contest the Greens leadership. Queensland senator Larissa Waters has not ruled out a tilt. The Greens lost three lower house seats and failed to pick up any extras at the election. However, they are confident of wielding influence in the Senate, where the party holds the balance of power. Tim Read, who represents the Greens in the Victorian parliament, wants to focus on the positives. He was encouraged by a close result in the seat of Wills, which the Greens tried to snatch from Labor. "That gives me confidence that there is growing support for the Greens," he told AAP. "I'm also impressed by our increased Senate vote. "The fact that the Greens senators have proven to retain their popularity and increased it, shows we'll do well whoever is chosen." The Greens are left with the Queensland seat of Ryan and 11 senators following the election. Labor has at least 28 seats in the Senate and with the support of the Greens has the numbers to get legislation through the upper house. It's not easy being Green after losing several seats and a party leader at the federal election. But those who remain are preparing to choose a replacement and reflect on lessons from the campaign. Adam Bandt, who had led the minor party since 2020, lost his seat of Melbourne on May 3. The shock defeat ended Mr Bandt's 15-year career in federal parliament. His colleagues will meet in the Victorian capital on Thursday as they begin to pick up the pieces. South Australian senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Mehreen Faruqi from NSW are expected to contest the Greens leadership. Queensland senator Larissa Waters has not ruled out a tilt. The Greens lost three lower house seats and failed to pick up any extras at the election. However, they are confident of wielding influence in the Senate, where the party holds the balance of power. Tim Read, who represents the Greens in the Victorian parliament, wants to focus on the positives. He was encouraged by a close result in the seat of Wills, which the Greens tried to snatch from Labor. "That gives me confidence that there is growing support for the Greens," he told AAP. "I'm also impressed by our increased Senate vote. "The fact that the Greens senators have proven to retain their popularity and increased it, shows we'll do well whoever is chosen." The Greens are left with the Queensland seat of Ryan and 11 senators following the election. Labor has at least 28 seats in the Senate and with the support of the Greens has the numbers to get legislation through the upper house. It's not easy being Green after losing several seats and a party leader at the federal election. But those who remain are preparing to choose a replacement and reflect on lessons from the campaign. Adam Bandt, who had led the minor party since 2020, lost his seat of Melbourne on May 3. The shock defeat ended Mr Bandt's 15-year career in federal parliament. His colleagues will meet in the Victorian capital on Thursday as they begin to pick up the pieces. South Australian senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Mehreen Faruqi from NSW are expected to contest the Greens leadership. Queensland senator Larissa Waters has not ruled out a tilt. The Greens lost three lower house seats and failed to pick up any extras at the election. However, they are confident of wielding influence in the Senate, where the party holds the balance of power. Tim Read, who represents the Greens in the Victorian parliament, wants to focus on the positives. He was encouraged by a close result in the seat of Wills, which the Greens tried to snatch from Labor. "That gives me confidence that there is growing support for the Greens," he told AAP. "I'm also impressed by our increased Senate vote. "The fact that the Greens senators have proven to retain their popularity and increased it, shows we'll do well whoever is chosen." The Greens are left with the Queensland seat of Ryan and 11 senators following the election. Labor has at least 28 seats in the Senate and with the support of the Greens has the numbers to get legislation through the upper house. It's not easy being Green after losing several seats and a party leader at the federal election. But those who remain are preparing to choose a replacement and reflect on lessons from the campaign. Adam Bandt, who had led the minor party since 2020, lost his seat of Melbourne on May 3. The shock defeat ended Mr Bandt's 15-year career in federal parliament. His colleagues will meet in the Victorian capital on Thursday as they begin to pick up the pieces. South Australian senator Sarah Hanson-Young and Mehreen Faruqi from NSW are expected to contest the Greens leadership. Queensland senator Larissa Waters has not ruled out a tilt. The Greens lost three lower house seats and failed to pick up any extras at the election. However, they are confident of wielding influence in the Senate, where the party holds the balance of power. Tim Read, who represents the Greens in the Victorian parliament, wants to focus on the positives. He was encouraged by a close result in the seat of Wills, which the Greens tried to snatch from Labor. "That gives me confidence that there is growing support for the Greens," he told AAP. "I'm also impressed by our increased Senate vote. "The fact that the Greens senators have proven to retain their popularity and increased it, shows we'll do well whoever is chosen." The Greens are left with the Queensland seat of Ryan and 11 senators following the election. Labor has at least 28 seats in the Senate and with the support of the Greens has the numbers to get legislation through the upper house.
The Advertiser
12-05-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Swings, preferences, landslides and everything else that was wrong with the election
There has been far too much talk of a "Labor landslide", a "Liberal demolition", and a "Green wipe-out". In fact, fairly modest swings were hugely magnified and amplified by the electoral system to result in very large swings in the number of seats for those three parties. Single-member electorates and the preferential system, particularly the way the Liberal Party directed its preferences, conspired to make the 2025 election look like a seismic change, which it was not. And anyone who imagines that this is the beginning of a long period of Labor ascendancy should look at the figures. Labor got a swing towards it of just 2 per cent but got a seat swing of more than 20 per cent, on present projections. The Coalition got a swing against it of just under 3 per cent but got a seat loss of around 30 per cent. The Greens got a tiny swing of less than half a per cent against them but a massive loss of 75 per cent of their seats. Greens leader Adam Bandt lost his seat because of a deadly combination of boundary changes and the Liberal Party essentially directing its preferences to Labor. Bandt's seat of Melbourne was one of up to half a dozen on present projections that was won by Labor on Liberal Party preferences. Others (independents and minor parties) got a small swing towards them, but their seat count went backwards a little. Overall, a roughly equal three-way split between Labor, the Coalition, and others resulted in a seat split of more than 63 per cent to Labor, 28 per cent to the Coalition and 9 per cent to others. Late counting might change this a bit, but not by much. Perhaps one of the most important lessons of this election, especially for the Liberal Party, is to take care with the allocation of preferences on the how-to-vote card. Sure, somewhere between a fifth and a half of voters do not follow the cards, depending on the electorate. But in elections where seats are won or lost on a few per cent, the 50 to 80 per cent who do are decisive. As the primary vote for the major parties continues to leach away, preferences will become even more important. The Coalition's move to preference Labor over Greens and all minors and independents (bar One Nation) resulted only in an increased Labor seat count this election, but in the future, it could decide whether it is a minority or majority government. Minority government is logistically better for an opposition. Further, the Coalition's disgraceful preferencing of One Nation could easily cost Jacqui Lambie her Tasmanian Senate seat with Liberal preferences going to Pauline Hanson's daughter, Lee. Lambie speaks sense quite a bit of the time; One Nation senators almost never do. Staying on the theme of the importance of preferences, the new Parliament should revisit the Senate voting rules. The present system is disenfranchising a significant number of votes from deciding who gets the last Senate seat in each state. At present, voters are told to either vote above the line (where just the parties are listed), numbering at least six preferences, or to vote below the line (where all the candidates are listed under their party banner), numbering at least 12 preferences. From our own voting experience (including watching in the queue) and talking to people who work at polling booths, it is apparent that the vast majority of voters want the process to be as simple as possible. Most conclude that numbering one to six above the line is the go and that below-the-line voting is too hard. But the trouble with just numbering one to six is that there is a good chance your vote will have been exhausted by the time it comes to deciding the last seat. The number of above-the-line boxes this Senate election was between 12 and 25 - say an average of 18. If you only number six, the average voter leaves 12 blanks. Once five seats have been taken you have to have one "live" box to stay in the franchise for the last seat. In Tasmania,for example, many voters would not have selected Jacqui Lambie Network or One Nation among their six boxes. Yet the last seat could well be a contest between those two and their ballot paper would sit lifeless in the "exhausted" pile. MORE CRISPIN HULL: The new Parliament should abolish below-the-line voting and have full preferential voting for the parties and independents. The same instruction to voters to fill out all the boxes would apply to the Senate ballot paper in the same way as the House of Representatives paper. The only reason that anyone would want to vote below the line is to change the order of candidates within a party list. Perhaps your Aunt Mary is No. 4 on the Labor list or your Uncle Tom is No. 5 on the Coalition list. Even then, it is not going to affect the result. No state has ever elected a senator outside the party order since the present system was introduced a decade ago. So, abolishing below-the-line voting would disenfranchise no one. It would then allow for full preferential voting of what are now above the line parties and independents without having too much complication or large ballot papers which attract derision from a lot of voters. The unnecessary and ineffectual pandering to political junkies and friends and relatives of candidates low on their party's list is worth sacrificing for the enfranchisement of more voters by having a "number-all-the-boxes" system in the Senate, just like the House of Representatives. There has been far too much talk of a "Labor landslide", a "Liberal demolition", and a "Green wipe-out". In fact, fairly modest swings were hugely magnified and amplified by the electoral system to result in very large swings in the number of seats for those three parties. Single-member electorates and the preferential system, particularly the way the Liberal Party directed its preferences, conspired to make the 2025 election look like a seismic change, which it was not. And anyone who imagines that this is the beginning of a long period of Labor ascendancy should look at the figures. Labor got a swing towards it of just 2 per cent but got a seat swing of more than 20 per cent, on present projections. The Coalition got a swing against it of just under 3 per cent but got a seat loss of around 30 per cent. The Greens got a tiny swing of less than half a per cent against them but a massive loss of 75 per cent of their seats. Greens leader Adam Bandt lost his seat because of a deadly combination of boundary changes and the Liberal Party essentially directing its preferences to Labor. Bandt's seat of Melbourne was one of up to half a dozen on present projections that was won by Labor on Liberal Party preferences. Others (independents and minor parties) got a small swing towards them, but their seat count went backwards a little. Overall, a roughly equal three-way split between Labor, the Coalition, and others resulted in a seat split of more than 63 per cent to Labor, 28 per cent to the Coalition and 9 per cent to others. Late counting might change this a bit, but not by much. Perhaps one of the most important lessons of this election, especially for the Liberal Party, is to take care with the allocation of preferences on the how-to-vote card. Sure, somewhere between a fifth and a half of voters do not follow the cards, depending on the electorate. But in elections where seats are won or lost on a few per cent, the 50 to 80 per cent who do are decisive. As the primary vote for the major parties continues to leach away, preferences will become even more important. The Coalition's move to preference Labor over Greens and all minors and independents (bar One Nation) resulted only in an increased Labor seat count this election, but in the future, it could decide whether it is a minority or majority government. Minority government is logistically better for an opposition. Further, the Coalition's disgraceful preferencing of One Nation could easily cost Jacqui Lambie her Tasmanian Senate seat with Liberal preferences going to Pauline Hanson's daughter, Lee. Lambie speaks sense quite a bit of the time; One Nation senators almost never do. Staying on the theme of the importance of preferences, the new Parliament should revisit the Senate voting rules. The present system is disenfranchising a significant number of votes from deciding who gets the last Senate seat in each state. At present, voters are told to either vote above the line (where just the parties are listed), numbering at least six preferences, or to vote below the line (where all the candidates are listed under their party banner), numbering at least 12 preferences. From our own voting experience (including watching in the queue) and talking to people who work at polling booths, it is apparent that the vast majority of voters want the process to be as simple as possible. Most conclude that numbering one to six above the line is the go and that below-the-line voting is too hard. But the trouble with just numbering one to six is that there is a good chance your vote will have been exhausted by the time it comes to deciding the last seat. The number of above-the-line boxes this Senate election was between 12 and 25 - say an average of 18. If you only number six, the average voter leaves 12 blanks. Once five seats have been taken you have to have one "live" box to stay in the franchise for the last seat. In Tasmania,for example, many voters would not have selected Jacqui Lambie Network or One Nation among their six boxes. Yet the last seat could well be a contest between those two and their ballot paper would sit lifeless in the "exhausted" pile. MORE CRISPIN HULL: The new Parliament should abolish below-the-line voting and have full preferential voting for the parties and independents. The same instruction to voters to fill out all the boxes would apply to the Senate ballot paper in the same way as the House of Representatives paper. The only reason that anyone would want to vote below the line is to change the order of candidates within a party list. Perhaps your Aunt Mary is No. 4 on the Labor list or your Uncle Tom is No. 5 on the Coalition list. Even then, it is not going to affect the result. No state has ever elected a senator outside the party order since the present system was introduced a decade ago. So, abolishing below-the-line voting would disenfranchise no one. It would then allow for full preferential voting of what are now above the line parties and independents without having too much complication or large ballot papers which attract derision from a lot of voters. The unnecessary and ineffectual pandering to political junkies and friends and relatives of candidates low on their party's list is worth sacrificing for the enfranchisement of more voters by having a "number-all-the-boxes" system in the Senate, just like the House of Representatives. There has been far too much talk of a "Labor landslide", a "Liberal demolition", and a "Green wipe-out". In fact, fairly modest swings were hugely magnified and amplified by the electoral system to result in very large swings in the number of seats for those three parties. Single-member electorates and the preferential system, particularly the way the Liberal Party directed its preferences, conspired to make the 2025 election look like a seismic change, which it was not. And anyone who imagines that this is the beginning of a long period of Labor ascendancy should look at the figures. Labor got a swing towards it of just 2 per cent but got a seat swing of more than 20 per cent, on present projections. The Coalition got a swing against it of just under 3 per cent but got a seat loss of around 30 per cent. The Greens got a tiny swing of less than half a per cent against them but a massive loss of 75 per cent of their seats. Greens leader Adam Bandt lost his seat because of a deadly combination of boundary changes and the Liberal Party essentially directing its preferences to Labor. Bandt's seat of Melbourne was one of up to half a dozen on present projections that was won by Labor on Liberal Party preferences. Others (independents and minor parties) got a small swing towards them, but their seat count went backwards a little. Overall, a roughly equal three-way split between Labor, the Coalition, and others resulted in a seat split of more than 63 per cent to Labor, 28 per cent to the Coalition and 9 per cent to others. Late counting might change this a bit, but not by much. Perhaps one of the most important lessons of this election, especially for the Liberal Party, is to take care with the allocation of preferences on the how-to-vote card. Sure, somewhere between a fifth and a half of voters do not follow the cards, depending on the electorate. But in elections where seats are won or lost on a few per cent, the 50 to 80 per cent who do are decisive. As the primary vote for the major parties continues to leach away, preferences will become even more important. The Coalition's move to preference Labor over Greens and all minors and independents (bar One Nation) resulted only in an increased Labor seat count this election, but in the future, it could decide whether it is a minority or majority government. Minority government is logistically better for an opposition. Further, the Coalition's disgraceful preferencing of One Nation could easily cost Jacqui Lambie her Tasmanian Senate seat with Liberal preferences going to Pauline Hanson's daughter, Lee. Lambie speaks sense quite a bit of the time; One Nation senators almost never do. Staying on the theme of the importance of preferences, the new Parliament should revisit the Senate voting rules. The present system is disenfranchising a significant number of votes from deciding who gets the last Senate seat in each state. At present, voters are told to either vote above the line (where just the parties are listed), numbering at least six preferences, or to vote below the line (where all the candidates are listed under their party banner), numbering at least 12 preferences. From our own voting experience (including watching in the queue) and talking to people who work at polling booths, it is apparent that the vast majority of voters want the process to be as simple as possible. Most conclude that numbering one to six above the line is the go and that below-the-line voting is too hard. But the trouble with just numbering one to six is that there is a good chance your vote will have been exhausted by the time it comes to deciding the last seat. The number of above-the-line boxes this Senate election was between 12 and 25 - say an average of 18. If you only number six, the average voter leaves 12 blanks. Once five seats have been taken you have to have one "live" box to stay in the franchise for the last seat. In Tasmania,for example, many voters would not have selected Jacqui Lambie Network or One Nation among their six boxes. Yet the last seat could well be a contest between those two and their ballot paper would sit lifeless in the "exhausted" pile. MORE CRISPIN HULL: The new Parliament should abolish below-the-line voting and have full preferential voting for the parties and independents. The same instruction to voters to fill out all the boxes would apply to the Senate ballot paper in the same way as the House of Representatives paper. The only reason that anyone would want to vote below the line is to change the order of candidates within a party list. Perhaps your Aunt Mary is No. 4 on the Labor list or your Uncle Tom is No. 5 on the Coalition list. Even then, it is not going to affect the result. No state has ever elected a senator outside the party order since the present system was introduced a decade ago. So, abolishing below-the-line voting would disenfranchise no one. It would then allow for full preferential voting of what are now above the line parties and independents without having too much complication or large ballot papers which attract derision from a lot of voters. The unnecessary and ineffectual pandering to political junkies and friends and relatives of candidates low on their party's list is worth sacrificing for the enfranchisement of more voters by having a "number-all-the-boxes" system in the Senate, just like the House of Representatives. There has been far too much talk of a "Labor landslide", a "Liberal demolition", and a "Green wipe-out". In fact, fairly modest swings were hugely magnified and amplified by the electoral system to result in very large swings in the number of seats for those three parties. Single-member electorates and the preferential system, particularly the way the Liberal Party directed its preferences, conspired to make the 2025 election look like a seismic change, which it was not. And anyone who imagines that this is the beginning of a long period of Labor ascendancy should look at the figures. Labor got a swing towards it of just 2 per cent but got a seat swing of more than 20 per cent, on present projections. The Coalition got a swing against it of just under 3 per cent but got a seat loss of around 30 per cent. The Greens got a tiny swing of less than half a per cent against them but a massive loss of 75 per cent of their seats. Greens leader Adam Bandt lost his seat because of a deadly combination of boundary changes and the Liberal Party essentially directing its preferences to Labor. Bandt's seat of Melbourne was one of up to half a dozen on present projections that was won by Labor on Liberal Party preferences. Others (independents and minor parties) got a small swing towards them, but their seat count went backwards a little. Overall, a roughly equal three-way split between Labor, the Coalition, and others resulted in a seat split of more than 63 per cent to Labor, 28 per cent to the Coalition and 9 per cent to others. Late counting might change this a bit, but not by much. Perhaps one of the most important lessons of this election, especially for the Liberal Party, is to take care with the allocation of preferences on the how-to-vote card. Sure, somewhere between a fifth and a half of voters do not follow the cards, depending on the electorate. But in elections where seats are won or lost on a few per cent, the 50 to 80 per cent who do are decisive. As the primary vote for the major parties continues to leach away, preferences will become even more important. The Coalition's move to preference Labor over Greens and all minors and independents (bar One Nation) resulted only in an increased Labor seat count this election, but in the future, it could decide whether it is a minority or majority government. Minority government is logistically better for an opposition. Further, the Coalition's disgraceful preferencing of One Nation could easily cost Jacqui Lambie her Tasmanian Senate seat with Liberal preferences going to Pauline Hanson's daughter, Lee. Lambie speaks sense quite a bit of the time; One Nation senators almost never do. Staying on the theme of the importance of preferences, the new Parliament should revisit the Senate voting rules. The present system is disenfranchising a significant number of votes from deciding who gets the last Senate seat in each state. At present, voters are told to either vote above the line (where just the parties are listed), numbering at least six preferences, or to vote below the line (where all the candidates are listed under their party banner), numbering at least 12 preferences. From our own voting experience (including watching in the queue) and talking to people who work at polling booths, it is apparent that the vast majority of voters want the process to be as simple as possible. Most conclude that numbering one to six above the line is the go and that below-the-line voting is too hard. But the trouble with just numbering one to six is that there is a good chance your vote will have been exhausted by the time it comes to deciding the last seat. The number of above-the-line boxes this Senate election was between 12 and 25 - say an average of 18. If you only number six, the average voter leaves 12 blanks. Once five seats have been taken you have to have one "live" box to stay in the franchise for the last seat. In Tasmania,for example, many voters would not have selected Jacqui Lambie Network or One Nation among their six boxes. Yet the last seat could well be a contest between those two and their ballot paper would sit lifeless in the "exhausted" pile. MORE CRISPIN HULL: The new Parliament should abolish below-the-line voting and have full preferential voting for the parties and independents. The same instruction to voters to fill out all the boxes would apply to the Senate ballot paper in the same way as the House of Representatives paper. The only reason that anyone would want to vote below the line is to change the order of candidates within a party list. Perhaps your Aunt Mary is No. 4 on the Labor list or your Uncle Tom is No. 5 on the Coalition list. Even then, it is not going to affect the result. No state has ever elected a senator outside the party order since the present system was introduced a decade ago. So, abolishing below-the-line voting would disenfranchise no one. It would then allow for full preferential voting of what are now above the line parties and independents without having too much complication or large ballot papers which attract derision from a lot of voters. The unnecessary and ineffectual pandering to political junkies and friends and relatives of candidates low on their party's list is worth sacrificing for the enfranchisement of more voters by having a "number-all-the-boxes" system in the Senate, just like the House of Representatives.
Perth Now
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Perth Now
Greens senator's big hint on party's future
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'. Greens senator David Shoebridge says he will not run for his party's leadership. NewsWire / Monique Harmer Credit: News Corp Australia 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.' Senator Mehreen Faruqi is a top contender for the Greens leadership. NewsWire / Damian Shaw Credit: News Corp Australia 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. Adam Bandt lost his seat of Melbourne to Labor's Sarah Witty. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia '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'. More to come.
