Comment on France to sue Australian platform Kick for 'negligence' after livestream death
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks agoThe Greens’ behaviour on the HAFF was pretty objectively good policy. HAFF is a long-term project, not a quick win for homeless. The Greens stalled something that won’t pay off for years by a couple of months in order to make it better. And make it better they did. Including in the shorter term, by requiring it pay out a minimum amount.
By stalling it a couple of months, the HAFF was made better in both the short and long terms.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Many NGO’s were prepared to hit the ground running with the HAFF funding, by blocking the HAFF the Greens screwed up the prepared contracts. They delayed much needed housing for people genuinely in need by years just so they could get brownie points with renters.
On the minimum payout, Labor conceded on that point immediately. The Greens were not voting against it on those grounds.
And before you say Labor should’ve made concessions, the Greens unlike Labor don’t actually face any electoral pressures since they have less than zero chance of forming government and basically zero chance of losing senate seats. The Greens, for good reason, have become politically toxic to deal with because they think acting like whiny children makes them charismatic. If Labor met the Greens $10 billion spending demands, it would’ve been used as a campaign point in this year’s election and Labor would’ve lost to the LNP who would’ve then cut the HAFF.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
They said they did. Then they presented the original version to Parliament again.
Tenderizer@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
Source? Not that I really care. It barely matters.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 weeks ago
I found it out when I was talking to a Greens member and I shared exactly the same viewpoint you expressed in your earlier comment. You can verify it by looking at the timeframe of the bill’s passage through Parliament.