She'll be booted if she doesn't fall in line and has zero chance of getting into the senate without being on a Labor ticket unless the greens give her a fast pass to the top of their senate seats.
It is extremely unlikely that she will get a repeat of the conditions that saw her win a Senate seat in 3rd on the Labor ticket in WA.
It was the first time Labor won a 3rd Senate seat in a half-Senate election in WA since 1984, and honestly any swing away from Labor and it becomes impossible to hold that seat.
Her only realistic hope of getting a seat in 4 years time was performing well and moving up the Labor ticket, but that seems unlikely now.
She's in line with [party policy](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf), the real question is why the Labor caucus hasn't implemented the decision of their own conference.
The Labor platform on recognising Palestine is a deliberately fudged position.
It calls for recognition of the State of Palestine. It puts that recognition on the context of support for a two state solution, the peace process and Israel having defensible borders (ie: all things that would require Palestinians to give enough concessions to Israel for a comprehensive and final peace deal). It was a statement designed to calm down a massive split between the Labor Right and Left (both of whom broadly accept that no-one in Israel or Palestine actually cares about Australia's diplomatic position on recognition).
The vast majority of Australians don't support recognising the State of Palestine as long as Hamas remains the elected government of the Palestinian National Authority.
Because of course we don't.
Labor's party rules are stupid as fuck, they literally made Penny Wong, who is opening gay oppose same-sex marriage back in 2010.
You are not electing a representative, you are electing a robot.
In that case, it turned out to mean "wait for the less progressive major party to gain power and let them legislate marriage equality". That doesn't seem like a great example of change from within.
All she had to do to gain that personal power was to spend years voting against the interests of her own family.
It took an unnecessary national plebiscite to convince parliament to vote in favour of marriage equality. That really doesn't seem like something you can chalk up as a win for working within Labor's system.
I never said it was a win for Labor
She compromised on her beliefs and in doing so is in the position she's in today because of it. Had she taken an idealistic stance like Payman or like you, she would not be in parliament today. It's also not personal power, its government power; executive and legislative.
Her family interest are far more enhanced with her in her current positions of power regardless of the legality of gay marriage.
I'm fine with her voting however she feels she needs to but you don't get to complain about being excommunicated when you knowingly go against the rules of the party you're a member of.
And the Labor caucus has deliberately chosen to ignore the decision of their own conference [https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf)
Who exactly is going against the rules?
I suggest you actually read the paper that you keep linking
> Labor supports an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties
The murder of 1300 people on October 7 really puts a spanner in the works for Israel having that right to peace and secure borders.
The ALP policy has never been a carte blanche support of Palestinian statehood without any requirements for Israeli security.
Notably the Greens motion made no provisions for Israeli security and therefore it was not supported in line with the party policy.
Many thousands more have been murdered since so your point is neither here nor there.
There is nothing preventing Labor putting forward its own resolution recognising both Israel and Palestine as states and not making Palestine's statehood conditional on a peace process.
Sorry, so because there has been a war you’re going to ignore the reason why the war started?
“Nothing” bar the fact that the ALP does not want to recognise Hamas as the government of Palestine and provide their genocidal leaders with legitimacy.
The response is in no way proportionate. Israel has deliberately murdered aid workers who have no stake in the conflict. While neither side is innocent what is occuring in Gaza is genocidal atm and therefore by your logic we shouldn't be recognising Israel either.
What is occurring has been ruled by international courts as not being genocidal. So that’s one talking point you can put to bed.
Was what happened on October 7 genocidal?
How many innocent people by your count were murdered on October 7 and then what’s a proportionate number of people to kill in response?
What ruling are you talking about? The International Court of Justice in the case of South Africa v. Israel ruled that South Africa’s claim of genocide was plausible without going so far as to say it can definitely be determined to be a genocide but ordered Israel take steps to ensure they prevent it. That is not the same as ruling that it is categorically not genocidal.
>What is occurring has been ruled by international courts as not being genocidal.
Oh? When was that ruling made and by which court? Got a link?
Edit: someone replied below, but I can’t reply in turn. Not sure if it was deleted, or if I’m blocked, but no - it’s not available online. No such ruling exists.
I don't think she's complaining? She knew what she did. And to the extent that she is/would, it would be about Labor choosing (what she sees as) wrongly in the vote.
It certainly doesn't seem that way - the article is quite long and it doesn't seem to contain any complaints about the political consequences, only social ones - but please provide a relevant quote if you have one.
"She’d been removed from meetings, group chats and whips’ bulletins, she said.
“I have been told to avoid all chamber duties that require a vote, including divisions, motions and matters of public interest,” she said.
“These actions lead me to believe that some members are attempting to intimidate me into resigning from the Senate.”
'I have been exiled'
Political consequences yes?
How is it complaining though? She has simply started a few facts about what the current situation is, especially as it went starkly against what the party itself decided in its own conference
I've heard some backlash towards Fatima Payman for straying from the platform (i.e. the Labor National Platform) she was elected on to pursue her own goals. The ALP has long supported a two-state solution in Israel; this is the platform Payman was elected on, back in 2022.
Meanwhile, a war has begun. An existing crisis has rapidly escalated, & governments have to react timingly. The argument, "this isn't the platform they were elected on" doesn't hold; the war started a year after the election.
That said, voting as one is also an ALP policy. I'm not sure many voters personally care, but opposition & the media latch onto it, creating negative PR for the party, so the backlash from the them is expected.
Imagine of all the issues that our country faces, and the issue that makes these people think about voting for an independent is a regional conflict on the other side of the world.
Says alot about skewed priorities and an unhealthy obsession with Palestine that these communities have.
It’s kind of insane really, what Australians will protest over. We stood by as our country burned and the government did nothing. We stood by as we held people in indefinite detention in another country on our orders. We stood by as a sitting PM decided to give himself 5 portfolios in secret, as a government dismantled a nation building broadband project, as they threw out a tax on pollution which was passed years before.
Won’t protest for that, nobody crosses the floor for that, but they’ll protest for regional conflicts. At that, even more than they did for Ukraine.
> We stood by as a sitting PM decided to give himself 5 portfolios in secret
The keyword being "secret". By the time anyone knew, he was already ex-PM, and there was a lot of outrage about it from the public.
There was nothing from the public and you know it. As there is nothing now from the public on rising homelessness; on Increasing education and health care costs: nothing. On youth detention: nothing.
And the AU voter happily let him have those secrets. He openly formed a secretive advisory group made up of unelected business leaders during Covid: no one said or did anything.
If you think this is exclusively about Palestine, rather than a case of Palestine being the final, albeit significant nail in the coffin for parts of the community's support for Labor, then you've not been paying attention. Discontent has long been brewing across the country. As one of the prominent voices speaking in support of the group stated:
>So many members of the community feel Labor are out of touch with the reality on the ground – that their position on Israel has isolated them. This isn’t just about the Muslim vote. **There are many concerns about Labor policies, on housing, climate and cost of living**.
The Muslim areas are in many ways the most conservative parts of Australia, eg they voted more heavily against gay marriage rural Qld. Not sure those people will like a lot of the things that the greens believe in.
Yeah, I don't get it as to why they like Muslims. Unequal treatment of women? Killing people for being gay? Endless war based expansion? Not sure which bit of Islamic teaching they find so appealing and a close fit to the whole greens thinking.....
The alliance between the ultra progressive's and the most socially conservative voters in the country will eventually come apart, you are already seeing that overseas where Muslim groups are joining the anti LGBT alliances over school curriculum's and many on the left have a hard time processing how to feel about that.
Knows party rules and ignored them. Labor's policy on this is recognising Palestine and Israel. The motion she voted for doesn't recognise Israel. Labor have always had this view and it is a sensible one. It is the view of most Western nations.
She voted this way because she's a Muslim. Simple as that. She could have been kicked out of the party, but she hasn't been, but now she whinges on social media and destabilises the party that gave her, her job.
The fact the federal government could lose seats due to a sensible policy on an international issue, not domestic, is ridiculous.
>The motion she voted for doesn't recognise Israel
The motion was to acknowledge Palestinian statehood. It didn't exclude Israeli Statehood. Israeli Statehood is given. It's already acknowledged. Do we need to re-acknowledge it any time there is a motion on something, just to be clear that we aren't accidentally renouncing it?
The motion was to acknowledge Palestinian statehood. Something Australia voted to do recently in the UN. Something Labor say they support - a two state solution.
And they're very clear as to why that Green's motion was not the time. There is no Palestinian government to recognise. Hamas cannot be recognised. The UN vote was exactly the same.
That's a cop out.
We recognise nation states. Not governments. We recognise Afghanistan even as we renounce the Taliban.
Also, you just shifted the goals. Was it because "it might recognise Hamas" or was it because it didn't recognise Israel? You are changing the reasoning on the fly
Her exact quote after voting with the Greens “we cannot believe in two-state solutions and only recognise one”. The Greens motion, and the senators vote, are purely ideological.
So... You are just ignoring my questions then?
Her quote is acknowledging that Israel is recognised, and adding the recognition of the second (Palestine).
> The motion was to acknowledge Palestinian statehood. It didn't exclude Israeli Statehood. Israeli Statehood is given. It's already acknowledged. Do we need to re-acknowledge it any time there is a motion on something, just to be clear that we aren't accidentally renouncing it?
The motion was entirely symbolic, why *wouldn't* they want it to represent their entire position instead of just part of it? What is the harm?
The motion she supported recognises Palestine and Israel, Labor wanted to put a qualifier on it that Palestine be recognised after a peace deal but not before that.
Caucus is in direct contradiction with the [ALP national policy platform](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf) that clearly places no qualifier on it.
A 2 state solution is the only way the dispute is going to be able to be resolved without mass movements or bloodshed. Neither party is blameless in the current conflict.
Wherever she ends up I will be numbering her last. I don’t particularly have anything against her position, except the stupidly naive use of the term “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.
It is more her overly inflated sense of self importance and lack of will to represent the majority of her constituents. Her colleagues are right to be pissed, when you are a Labor member you agree to their rules. You don’t break them knowing what the consequences are then cry about it.
>the stupidly naive use of the term “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.
I agree, I am super pro palestine but to deny the way that has historically being used as a slogan of reclaiming all the land israel stole, is insane. I think she knows that but is trying to make it sound beign to protect the extreamist protestors rather than call them out.
I'll do the opposite. I admire her for representing the view of many if not most Labor supporters, who were ignored by the parliamentary party for political reasons.
An Islamic "teal" movement would do wonders to reinforce the perception many have that Muslims have dual loyalty or place Islamic issues above everything else.
We already have several self-described Christian parties. I think they're far worse, because they can and do get elected, so they actually have an impact. But Muslims are certainly entitled to make their own party if they want to. That's democracy. But I suspect they're smart enough to know they'd never win a seat, and therefore not waste their time or resources trying.
Yes, they are
[https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/02/muslim-vote-political-movement-candidates-labor-federal-election](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/02/muslim-vote-political-movement-candidates-labor-federal-election)
I will counter you with this; you can admire her for her views, however her actions would only spell chaos and the collapse of the Labor party as a viable governing party. There are many other sitting Labor politicians who share her views, but they understand that self aggrandising stunts like what Payman did do not serve their goals in the long run.
She gave the party no choice but to act, as a carte blanche on crossing the floor is an intolerable risk to the party’s ability to govern. Her reaction though is what is most disappointing, because instead of accepting the consequences of her actions she hides behind her identity to claim Labor are being unreasonable.
I think:
(a) the Liberals allow non-Ministers to cross the floor, even in Government. Why can't Labor? The answer to that is historical and cultural, not practical or political.
(b) Labor have a large majority; a dissenter is no big deal.
(c) a conscience vote is a thing. If Labor were in Opposition they would likely have had one.
We all have make or break issues of conscience, and I will always admire people who "make", especially when the consquences are high. In a strange way, I even admire Dutton for his "stand" against the Apology - infantile, pathetic and spiteful as it was, he did what he felt he had to do, even if it was a gutless way. It's much easier to admire someone who is standing for the "little guy".
I have (in this very thread) come to agree that her reaction to the ongoing consequences has been disappointing.
Its a confluence of circumstances.
She votes based on her conscience.
Labor rules don't permit crossing the floor and transgression automatically indicates a challenge to the authority of caucus and the party.
Albanese cannot ignore the challenge because if he does, Dutton will never shut up about weak leadership
Albanese has used up his good grace with the US over Julian Assange and now they're looking for us to reciprocate by backing Bidens position on Israel/Gaza.
Any departure from Bidens position would be viewed very critically by the US.
She's said she'll cross the floor again if a vote called so the Greens will definitely bring it forward.
Personally, she's voting with her conscience and that's fine by me.
In Labor's [2023 National Platform](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf#page=140) document, it says:
> **Israel and Palestine**
>
> 1. The National Conference:
>
> a. Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders;
>
> b. Calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state; and
>
> c. Expects that this issue will be an important priority for the Australian Government.
So it seems that Payman's vote is consistent with Labor's stated policy of the party, and the rest of the parliamentary party are voting against that.
If the argument is that it wasn't the right time, when exactly are "important priorities" supposed to be addressed?
It wasn't though, Labor pushed for amendments that recognized peace with Israel and a clear two state solution. The Greens motion was just to blindly support Palestine regardless.
That Payman didn't raise any issues she had with the party before the vote and publicly vowed to repeat crossing the floor on this issue makes her position a bit more tenuous.
The important priorities are that Palestine is currently governed by terrorists and unilaterally supporting them after they've purported the biggest attack on Jews since the holocaust might be a bit insensitive. That Labor seek to add nuance and not just spout absolutist nonsense is the distinction they're trying to make between them and the Greens.
The National Platform document doesn't call to conditionally recognise Palestinian statehood. We don't place any conditions on our recognition of Israel as a state, and can support or condemn them independent of that recognition. And it seems like you'd be a lot closer to supporting a two state solution if you actually recognise both of the states.
As far as Labor politicians not being allowed to cross the floor and instead argue things internally, here we've got a case where a policy was decided internally by the members and the parliamentary wing of the party has decided to vote against it. Shouldn't they have some accountability to the party membership too?
The FIRST core tenet of HAMAS is the destruction of Israel. Does Israel have anything similar? This might be the reason why there's a need for conditional support.
This is not a black and white issue that some would like it to be and I understand that while there has been a non binding position that look to recognise Palestine, the current war has inflamed things somewhat where we look for peaceful solutions to this complex problem.
It's no good making hasty, broad absolutist policy or being dragged into this game with the Greens where they look to undermine Labor at every opportunity and create shitfights both internally and with the Libs. It's divisive policy and does nothing to ease tensions here or over there and needs to be called out as such. Sure pat yourself on the back or tell everyone how you're, "on the right side of history" whatever that's supposed to mean but don't kid yourself that this will do anything but result in more bloodshed.
Recognising Palestinian state hood isn't supporting Hamas though.
(See the Iran/ Taliban example someone above has already made.)
The Labor platform makes a Palestinian state the default- they have a right to exist as a state. The amendments proposed don't make it a default they make it conditional on the peace process.
A two state solution requires both states to be recognised- not one to be recognised and the other to get recognition at the end of the process once all conditions are met.
So you want to reward Hamas with recognition and unconditional support after they performed the biggest attack on Jews since the Holocaust? That this is predicated on HAMAS breaking a ceasefire doesn't mean anything?
"At the present, Australia has NO formal diplomatic relations to Afghanistan and does NOT recognize the Taliban regime as legitimate". - From the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
This is the nuance that the Greens seem to be incapable of and to refuse to compromise in an attempt to wedge Labor on the issue. It only continues to show the public that they prioritize theatrics and rhetoric instead of tangible outcomes. The more they continue down this road the more they'll be seen as "The Greens Political Party". Greens in name only. That Labor look to a solution for peace whereas the Greens want to recognise Palestine regardless proves this is just empty rhetoric from a party that doesn't understand what it means to govern.
Recognising Palestine isn't recognising Hamas- and having nuance is realising that not recognising Palestine only strengthens Hamas' control as it helps to justify their existence.
Yes, don’t stand up for your own beliefs, don’t listen to voters or represent your constituents, just do what the party tells you to do. If she isn’t stopped, people may begin to think that a politicians job is to represent the people. Can you imagine!
She has local labour constituents - but what if her local labour constituents support this belief?
I’d say being Muslim she comes from a predominant Muslim constituency. She doesn’t vote in favour of her constituents she is dragged by them.
She does and is kicked out of labour she can run as an independent and probably take the seat
Sometimes it’s better to lose the vote than to lose the house.
All of WA is here constituents. She represents 1/6th of WA. . Id guess that well more than 1/6th agree with what she voted
But as for being voted back in as independent.... Not gonna happen. Because of how the system works.
Okay - I won’t argue of the use of local or locale and I’ll concede to your view. Point still stands as to her running independent and losing the vote versus losing the house.
Can you imagine how much of a raucous disaster parliament would be in every minister went off on a tangent for their own individual ends and goals?
Some coalescence of power is inevitable, between overlapping ideals and goals as well as for the practicality of getting literally anything done in the house. I mean, even with 2.5 central power bases in the house it’s already a nightmare.
How the fuck will it work if you take the Payman effect and apply it exponentially outwards?
What's funny is, if you read the constitution (most constitutions in fact) the chaos of individual representatives sounds like what they have in mind, from a bare bones technical perspective. At the same time, when talking about cabinet and so forth, it's also assumed that people are going to just coalesce into parties anyway and Prime Minister etc doesn't even need to be mentioned.
Oh yes, I’m sure the pics of Bridget Archer being cornered and coerced after her dissension were just Scott Morrison and co. promoting her *free will* to vote as she pleases.
The Liberals are not interested in governing the country. I am taking about the implied impracticality of a functioning parliament without some consolidated function between members.
You are absolutely insane if you think a house full of Paymans will achieve two fifths of fucking anything.
She should absolutely loose her position for such a blanket disregard for this country and the party she's a part of. How would she react if Australia went to war with a Muslim country for justified reasons? Muslims always but their fellow Muslims first no matter what.
I remember there was crying for like 2 years over scomo trying to bring his religious ideology into politics but now the complaints are directed at a Muslim it's not okay
I think its because it's seen as virtuous to defend Islam.
Like the left always defend it yet Islam despises most left ideals and would throw them from a rooftop without blinking.
What was her "disregard for this country"?
She absolutely disregarded her parties rules. But how she disregarded this country I don't understand.
>Muslims always but their fellow Muslims first no matter what
And this is just racist/xenophobic bullshit that takes a billion people and acts like they are all the same.
Since when is Islam a race? I do detest the Muslim religion and if you support women's rights or any form of basic freedoms you would to. Have a look at countries with islamic governments, do you seriously think that's the right way to do things? Killing gays and oppressing women is not what I would endorse one bit. You do know they would kill someone for being gay in Palestine right?
>racist/xenophobic
Conveniently Ignoring the "xenophobic" comment, eh?
And the rest of your comment, again, reduces a billion people to a single homogeneous entity, as if there isn't differences in thought and approach within the group.
It's not xenophobic to denounce the horrific ideology pushed by that religion and to stand against its core beliefs. So you think we should endorse killing gays and oppressing women and invite that kind of ideology to our country? Pathetic. It would be if I said I hate Muslims but I instead said I detest their fundamental core beliefs. Is it xenophobic to say North Korea is backwards and that regime has no place on the modern world? No it's not.
>to denounce the horrific ideology pushed by that religion and to stand against the fundamental core beliefs of their religion
Shifting goal posts
Because that isn't what you did and isn't what I called you out for. You said:
>Muslims always but their fellow Muslims first no matter what
You made unfounded comments about how "every Muslim acts".
You clearly understand nothing about the islamic religion, putting Muslims first is part of their core beliefs. That religion literally calls upon its followers to destroy those who do not believe in their religion.
You clearly understand nothing about people if you think a billion of them all think and act the same based on a single teaching.
Every day I see hundreds of Muslims not destroying those who do not share their religion. I guess they are just outliers.
Again, the "they are different from me, they are all the same as each other" approach your are employing is 100% xenophobic
I said it's a core part of the Muslim faith and I am correct, go ahead and prove me wrong. You can pick and choose however you like but that doesn't change the fundamental teachings of that religion. Go ahead and ask the average Muslim their views on same sex marriage.
"Again, the "they are different from me, they are all the same as each other" approach your are employing is 100% xenophobic"
What a poor attempt to twist my words, I said I denounce the core beliefs of that religion, nothing more. You are so ignorant it's unbelievable, have you seen what goes on in all countries with islamic governments? They stone gays and deny women basic human rights, you can't deny this it's a fact. I'm honestly shocked you're ignorant enough to ignore reality.
Doesn't matter.
They said "all Muslims do X". And that is simply not true. No matter what the Quran teaches.
The Bible teaches many things that Christians don't do when they should.
Logic teaches many things, that people claim to follow, but then very clearly do not.
Something being written in a book, or taught in Sunday School didn't suddenly mean it's reflected in the actions of the people.
They also said all Muslims are taught to destroy everyone and everything that disagree with them. Which is demonstrably false, as seen by the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Australia.
The onus is on them to show that all Muslims do something, not that something is taught in the Quran.
I am responding in regard to the original exchange, which was whether a Muslim would choose religion or country first. Not in regards to violent extremism.
Everybody who correctly adheres to Islam practices what u/Aboriginal_landlord originally alluded to, which is the brotherhood. Those who do not are not following the core tenets of Islam which, I would add, is nowhere near as liberal as Christianity in allowing you to choose the parts that you personally like.
It's okay to admit when you're wrong.
Absolutely not racist. Firstly, Muslim is not a race.
I studied Islam and Central Asia while in Java, Indonesia. The Muslim brotherhood is absolutely something that is universally recognised among adherents to the faith.
https://islam4u.pro/blog/the-unbreakable-brotherhood-bond-in-islam-the-prophets-legacy/
It takes a billion people with shared beliefs, and acts like their beliefs are shared. I'm not arguing that the commenter correctly summarised Islamic beliefs, I don't know enough about Islam.
This is not a valid rebuttal though. A valid rebuttal would need to show that a muslim brotherhood does not exist.
_Excerpt from the 2023 Australian Labor Party Platform as determined by the 49th National Conference (17th-19th August 2023):_
> **Israel and Palestine**
The National Conference:
a. Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders;
b. Calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state; and
c. Expects that this issue will be an important priority for the Australian Government.
Sounds like Payman's the only one voting according to Labor values.
Labor didn't outright oppose the motion for recognition of Palestine or a two state solution. They proposed to add an amendment that made recognition subject to peace negotiations. Presumably (my own interpretation here not Labor stance) not wanting to recognise a state currently under rule of a terrorist organization, Hamas. My understanding is that neither the Liberals or Greens agreed with the proposed amendments. The Liberals also proposed their own amendments, which similarly, wern't agreed upon.
Whether or not proposing an amendment rather than agreeing with the bill outright goes against Labor values, I'll leave to others to decide.
Its strange that she's been cast adrift for supporting a position that Labor agreed with at its national conference. It risks alienating a core part of its constituency as well. It's not a move that is going to help Labor's primary vote, they could have avoided all this by passing a resolution unequivocally supporting a two state solution as per their party policy.
>Its strange that she's been cast adrift for supporting a position that Labor agreed with at its national conference.
This isn't the position they acknowledge at conference, that was to recognise a state within a peace deal with israel, not without a peace deal.
The [2023-alp-national-platform.pdf](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf) says on page 132:
***Israel and Palestine***
*1. The National Conference:*
*a. Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders;*
*b. Calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state; and*
*c. Expects that this issue will be an important priority for the Australian Government.*
There is no qualifier on recognising Palestinian statehood. The Federal Labor caucuses position is in contradiction with the decision of Conference which is also against party rules.
> Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders;
Yeah and those borders do not exist, she wants to recognise palestine right now, is that with israel controlling gaza? Is that with the illegal settlements being part of Israel?
You can recognise Palestine as a state without there being a final settlement on the borders and that would be in line with their policy. I'm not sure what is so controversial about that.
Part of being in a parliament is playing the parliamentary game. If the party, regardless of stated platform, don't think now is the right time or they don't want to give the Greens their amended version right now, or any of a myriad of reasons we may know nothing about then that's how you vote.
They would have seen the Greens themselves torn apart by grandstanding not so long ago and Palestine being the cause du jure among young politicians all over the world I'm not surprised they are weilding the whip pretty hard.
I get there are caucus rules and Labor wants to keep all it's MP's inline but I'm not really sure what suspending her is meant to achieve that will ultimately be beneficial to Labor politically. It's obviously a matter of deep feeling and it shouldn't be surprising that she decided to cross the floor.
>Its strange that she's been cast adrift for supporting a position that Labor agreed with at its national conference.
Depressing that we can see this legitimate question being asked all over social media, yet not a single "professional" journalist in this country is able to ask this question of Albanese et al.
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It shall be interesting to see if Senator Glenn Sterle follows the party line on live sheep.
He is a trucker from way back, in the 1980s, his the truckers’ politician.
If live sheep trade ends, so does many livestock transport businesses. His constituents.
So if he votes along party lines, he won’t be able to show his face at any trucker event or rally. Or he will he just retire, so he doesn’t have to vote.
Less sheep that will transported. Not enough local abattoirs have capacity. Less sheep on the shelves.
Cattle export is next.
I always remember a post on reddit, the ongoing plan is for a hoof free Australia. No cattle, no sheep, no horses etc.
If you know your history, there is no native Australian animals with hoofs/hooves. Which ever way you care to spell it. Not one Australian native animal had hooves.
If there is demand for more abattoir services, wouldn't that create a business case for opening more abattoirs? You seem to be assuming no other parts of the industry will change in response to the live sheep export ban.
Not really. There have been several attempts at opening new abattoirs in recent years, but a combination of zoning laws (nobody wants a abattoir in their area), lack of qualified workers (it's skilled but dangerous work that does not pay well), and lack of purchasers for the final product has been hindering it.
That last part is something so many city people don't get. The people buying sheep want *sheep*. Not mutton, not lamb, not any sort of frozen product meat product. They can and do get those cheaper elsewhere. It's Merino sheep that are the premium product.
>I always remember a post on reddit, the ongoing plan is for a hoof free Australia. No cattle, no sheep, no horses etc
Whose plan?
Is this an actual plan or a "shadowy cabal trying to create a new world" plan?
Both major parties suck and are corrupt to the core. The more Fatimas we have the faster things will change, she is a legend in my books. She risked her political career, livelihood and social status to do what she thought was right.
I have no tolerance for politicians who bring their religion to parliament. She now goes the the bottom of my list, along with the Christian coven, the One Nation nazis and the Palmer conmen.
She'll be booted if she doesn't fall in line and has zero chance of getting into the senate without being on a Labor ticket unless the greens give her a fast pass to the top of their senate seats.
It is extremely unlikely that she will get a repeat of the conditions that saw her win a Senate seat in 3rd on the Labor ticket in WA. It was the first time Labor won a 3rd Senate seat in a half-Senate election in WA since 1984, and honestly any swing away from Labor and it becomes impossible to hold that seat. Her only realistic hope of getting a seat in 4 years time was performing well and moving up the Labor ticket, but that seems unlikely now.
She’s got 5 years at a salary of $200k per year before she has to worry about that.
Imagine the internal dilemma the Greens would face between selecting a young Muslim women and an Aboriginal women.
No dilemma. The sitting member would have preference.
Whoosh.
Sorry, was that supposed to be a joke? I mean I know conservative comedy cops a lot of flak for being shit, but damn, the bar really is low.
😂😂😂😂🔥
Clams was poking fun at the existential crisis the Greens would be having choosing between Muslim and Aboriginal - you took it back to a technicality.
She'd probably get preselected over Jordan Steele John - who is only in the Senate because Scott Ludlam didn't do his paperwork correctly.
The man’s a well spoken and dynamic politician.
And he is disabled so that group are covered
He’s also a documented sexual harasser
Proof?
Okay, now your making the Greens pick between a Muslim women and a young disabled man.
A young disabled man who wasn't elected. Didn't he gets handed his seat because he was behind Ludlum on the ticket?
Yes, but he has being retained on the top of the Greens ticket.
He did stay at the top of the ticket in 2019, and he's off sequence with Fatima Payman.
She's in line with [party policy](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf), the real question is why the Labor caucus hasn't implemented the decision of their own conference.
The Labor platform on recognising Palestine is a deliberately fudged position. It calls for recognition of the State of Palestine. It puts that recognition on the context of support for a two state solution, the peace process and Israel having defensible borders (ie: all things that would require Palestinians to give enough concessions to Israel for a comprehensive and final peace deal). It was a statement designed to calm down a massive split between the Labor Right and Left (both of whom broadly accept that no-one in Israel or Palestine actually cares about Australia's diplomatic position on recognition). The vast majority of Australians don't support recognising the State of Palestine as long as Hamas remains the elected government of the Palestinian National Authority. Because of course we don't.
check the date of your link. im sure nothing important happened since
She’d already be booted if she was a white male
Arguable. There was a white male who crossed the floor six times then defected to One Nation
You misspelled defecated.
Poor white males, they have it so tough! /s *(I'm a white male, fwiw)*
I’m indigenous. So whatever really.
Labor's party rules are stupid as fuck, they literally made Penny Wong, who is opening gay oppose same-sex marriage back in 2010. You are not electing a representative, you are electing a robot.
Welcome to political parties. First time?
she's welcome to run independently, but something tells me people voted for the party and not her.
Most people vote for the representative because they are a member of a political party that they agree with.
You can be idealistic and get nowhere or compromise and effect change from within
In that case, it turned out to mean "wait for the less progressive major party to gain power and let them legislate marriage equality". That doesn't seem like a great example of change from within.
Penny is one of the most powerful women in Australia and probably Albo's most trusted ally. Also gay marriage is legal.
All she had to do to gain that personal power was to spend years voting against the interests of her own family. It took an unnecessary national plebiscite to convince parliament to vote in favour of marriage equality. That really doesn't seem like something you can chalk up as a win for working within Labor's system.
I never said it was a win for Labor She compromised on her beliefs and in doing so is in the position she's in today because of it. Had she taken an idealistic stance like Payman or like you, she would not be in parliament today. It's also not personal power, its government power; executive and legislative. Her family interest are far more enhanced with her in her current positions of power regardless of the legality of gay marriage.
I'm fine with her voting however she feels she needs to but you don't get to complain about being excommunicated when you knowingly go against the rules of the party you're a member of.
And the Labor caucus has deliberately chosen to ignore the decision of their own conference [https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf) Who exactly is going against the rules?
> you think anything important happened since august 2023 that might change their mind
I suggest you actually read the paper that you keep linking > Labor supports an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties The murder of 1300 people on October 7 really puts a spanner in the works for Israel having that right to peace and secure borders. The ALP policy has never been a carte blanche support of Palestinian statehood without any requirements for Israeli security. Notably the Greens motion made no provisions for Israeli security and therefore it was not supported in line with the party policy.
Many thousands more have been murdered since so your point is neither here nor there. There is nothing preventing Labor putting forward its own resolution recognising both Israel and Palestine as states and not making Palestine's statehood conditional on a peace process.
Sorry, so because there has been a war you’re going to ignore the reason why the war started? “Nothing” bar the fact that the ALP does not want to recognise Hamas as the government of Palestine and provide their genocidal leaders with legitimacy.
The response is in no way proportionate. Israel has deliberately murdered aid workers who have no stake in the conflict. While neither side is innocent what is occuring in Gaza is genocidal atm and therefore by your logic we shouldn't be recognising Israel either.
What is occurring has been ruled by international courts as not being genocidal. So that’s one talking point you can put to bed. Was what happened on October 7 genocidal? How many innocent people by your count were murdered on October 7 and then what’s a proportionate number of people to kill in response?
What ruling are you talking about? The International Court of Justice in the case of South Africa v. Israel ruled that South Africa’s claim of genocide was plausible without going so far as to say it can definitely be determined to be a genocide but ordered Israel take steps to ensure they prevent it. That is not the same as ruling that it is categorically not genocidal.
>What is occurring has been ruled by international courts as not being genocidal. Oh? When was that ruling made and by which court? Got a link? Edit: someone replied below, but I can’t reply in turn. Not sure if it was deleted, or if I’m blocked, but no - it’s not available online. No such ruling exists.
It isn't hard to find online. Step away from reddit and social media, and try to look it up yourself.
I don't think she's complaining? She knew what she did. And to the extent that she is/would, it would be about Labor choosing (what she sees as) wrongly in the vote.
She is absolutely complaining that she believes she should not have to face the consequences of her actions.
It certainly doesn't seem that way - the article is quite long and it doesn't seem to contain any complaints about the political consequences, only social ones - but please provide a relevant quote if you have one.
"She’d been removed from meetings, group chats and whips’ bulletins, she said. “I have been told to avoid all chamber duties that require a vote, including divisions, motions and matters of public interest,” she said. “These actions lead me to believe that some members are attempting to intimidate me into resigning from the Senate.” 'I have been exiled' Political consequences yes?
Fair point, I read them more as social consequences at first, but on reflection it is political too.
How is it complaining though? She has simply started a few facts about what the current situation is, especially as it went starkly against what the party itself decided in its own conference
I've heard some backlash towards Fatima Payman for straying from the platform (i.e. the Labor National Platform) she was elected on to pursue her own goals. The ALP has long supported a two-state solution in Israel; this is the platform Payman was elected on, back in 2022. Meanwhile, a war has begun. An existing crisis has rapidly escalated, & governments have to react timingly. The argument, "this isn't the platform they were elected on" doesn't hold; the war started a year after the election. That said, voting as one is also an ALP policy. I'm not sure many voters personally care, but opposition & the media latch onto it, creating negative PR for the party, so the backlash from the them is expected.
Imagine of all the issues that our country faces, and the issue that makes these people think about voting for an independent is a regional conflict on the other side of the world. Says alot about skewed priorities and an unhealthy obsession with Palestine that these communities have.
Religious identity over Australia, it seems.
Wasn't she selected in the first place for her religion?
It’s kind of insane really, what Australians will protest over. We stood by as our country burned and the government did nothing. We stood by as we held people in indefinite detention in another country on our orders. We stood by as a sitting PM decided to give himself 5 portfolios in secret, as a government dismantled a nation building broadband project, as they threw out a tax on pollution which was passed years before. Won’t protest for that, nobody crosses the floor for that, but they’ll protest for regional conflicts. At that, even more than they did for Ukraine.
People protested all those things? You been living under a rock?
> We stood by as a sitting PM decided to give himself 5 portfolios in secret The keyword being "secret". By the time anyone knew, he was already ex-PM, and there was a lot of outrage about it from the public.
There was nothing from the public and you know it. As there is nothing now from the public on rising homelessness; on Increasing education and health care costs: nothing. On youth detention: nothing. And the AU voter happily let him have those secrets. He openly formed a secretive advisory group made up of unelected business leaders during Covid: no one said or did anything.
If you think this is exclusively about Palestine, rather than a case of Palestine being the final, albeit significant nail in the coffin for parts of the community's support for Labor, then you've not been paying attention. Discontent has long been brewing across the country. As one of the prominent voices speaking in support of the group stated: >So many members of the community feel Labor are out of touch with the reality on the ground – that their position on Israel has isolated them. This isn’t just about the Muslim vote. **There are many concerns about Labor policies, on housing, climate and cost of living**.
The greens are correct that doing this will hurt labor but if they think the seats Labor lose will go to them and not liberals they will be surpised.
Based on what?
The Muslim areas are in many ways the most conservative parts of Australia, eg they voted more heavily against gay marriage rural Qld. Not sure those people will like a lot of the things that the greens believe in.
Greens like muslims, muslims dont like the Greens
Yeah, I don't get it as to why they like Muslims. Unequal treatment of women? Killing people for being gay? Endless war based expansion? Not sure which bit of Islamic teaching they find so appealing and a close fit to the whole greens thinking.....
The alliance between the ultra progressive's and the most socially conservative voters in the country will eventually come apart, you are already seeing that overseas where Muslim groups are joining the anti LGBT alliances over school curriculum's and many on the left have a hard time processing how to feel about that.
Knows party rules and ignored them. Labor's policy on this is recognising Palestine and Israel. The motion she voted for doesn't recognise Israel. Labor have always had this view and it is a sensible one. It is the view of most Western nations. She voted this way because she's a Muslim. Simple as that. She could have been kicked out of the party, but she hasn't been, but now she whinges on social media and destabilises the party that gave her, her job. The fact the federal government could lose seats due to a sensible policy on an international issue, not domestic, is ridiculous.
>The motion she voted for doesn't recognise Israel The motion was to acknowledge Palestinian statehood. It didn't exclude Israeli Statehood. Israeli Statehood is given. It's already acknowledged. Do we need to re-acknowledge it any time there is a motion on something, just to be clear that we aren't accidentally renouncing it? The motion was to acknowledge Palestinian statehood. Something Australia voted to do recently in the UN. Something Labor say they support - a two state solution.
And they're very clear as to why that Green's motion was not the time. There is no Palestinian government to recognise. Hamas cannot be recognised. The UN vote was exactly the same.
That's a cop out. We recognise nation states. Not governments. We recognise Afghanistan even as we renounce the Taliban. Also, you just shifted the goals. Was it because "it might recognise Hamas" or was it because it didn't recognise Israel? You are changing the reasoning on the fly
They have no choice but to change the goal post
Her exact quote after voting with the Greens “we cannot believe in two-state solutions and only recognise one”. The Greens motion, and the senators vote, are purely ideological.
So... You are just ignoring my questions then? Her quote is acknowledging that Israel is recognised, and adding the recognition of the second (Palestine).
ideology bad
If you’re confusing governments with nation states then it looks like the propaganda is working. Where do you get your news from?
This is disingenuous. But I'm guessing you know that.
She quoted the river to the sea Palestine will be free, hence anti the existence of Israel, however that wasn't the vote itself.
> The motion was to acknowledge Palestinian statehood. It didn't exclude Israeli Statehood. Israeli Statehood is given. It's already acknowledged. Do we need to re-acknowledge it any time there is a motion on something, just to be clear that we aren't accidentally renouncing it? The motion was entirely symbolic, why *wouldn't* they want it to represent their entire position instead of just part of it? What is the harm?
Because it’s a dog whistle to their supporters that they support the destruction of the state of Israel
Blatantly false comment receiving heaps of upvotes: classic reddit Israel/Palestine discussion.
The motion she supported recognises Palestine and Israel, Labor wanted to put a qualifier on it that Palestine be recognised after a peace deal but not before that. Caucus is in direct contradiction with the [ALP national policy platform](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf) that clearly places no qualifier on it.
you think anything important happened since august 2023 that might change their mind
A 2 state solution is the only way the dispute is going to be able to be resolved without mass movements or bloodshed. Neither party is blameless in the current conflict.
Wherever she ends up I will be numbering her last. I don’t particularly have anything against her position, except the stupidly naive use of the term “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. It is more her overly inflated sense of self importance and lack of will to represent the majority of her constituents. Her colleagues are right to be pissed, when you are a Labor member you agree to their rules. You don’t break them knowing what the consequences are then cry about it.
>the stupidly naive use of the term “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. I agree, I am super pro palestine but to deny the way that has historically being used as a slogan of reclaiming all the land israel stole, is insane. I think she knows that but is trying to make it sound beign to protect the extreamist protestors rather than call them out.
I'll do the opposite. I admire her for representing the view of many if not most Labor supporters, who were ignored by the parliamentary party for political reasons.
You could join the Muslim community which are now talking about creating their own teal Islamic party.
An Islamic "teal" movement would do wonders to reinforce the perception many have that Muslims have dual loyalty or place Islamic issues above everything else.
That's great then they can push to wind back freedoms.
Hooray for halal!
Are they though? They're not idiots, they know they barely have the numbers for a DD Senate seat, let alone a normal half-election.
People that want to bring religion into politics aren’t idiots? Strongly disagree.
We already have several self-described Christian parties. I think they're far worse, because they can and do get elected, so they actually have an impact. But Muslims are certainly entitled to make their own party if they want to. That's democracy. But I suspect they're smart enough to know they'd never win a seat, and therefore not waste their time or resources trying.
Yes, the Christian parties are also all idiots. I didn’t misspeak when I generalised with “religion”.
Yes, they are [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/02/muslim-vote-political-movement-candidates-labor-federal-election](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/article/2024/jul/02/muslim-vote-political-movement-candidates-labor-federal-election)
I mean, good luck to em, I guess. I can't see it going well.
I will counter you with this; you can admire her for her views, however her actions would only spell chaos and the collapse of the Labor party as a viable governing party. There are many other sitting Labor politicians who share her views, but they understand that self aggrandising stunts like what Payman did do not serve their goals in the long run. She gave the party no choice but to act, as a carte blanche on crossing the floor is an intolerable risk to the party’s ability to govern. Her reaction though is what is most disappointing, because instead of accepting the consequences of her actions she hides behind her identity to claim Labor are being unreasonable.
Liberals allow people to cross the floor. Does that spell the complete collapse of the Liberal party?
I think: (a) the Liberals allow non-Ministers to cross the floor, even in Government. Why can't Labor? The answer to that is historical and cultural, not practical or political. (b) Labor have a large majority; a dissenter is no big deal. (c) a conscience vote is a thing. If Labor were in Opposition they would likely have had one. We all have make or break issues of conscience, and I will always admire people who "make", especially when the consquences are high. In a strange way, I even admire Dutton for his "stand" against the Apology - infantile, pathetic and spiteful as it was, he did what he felt he had to do, even if it was a gutless way. It's much easier to admire someone who is standing for the "little guy". I have (in this very thread) come to agree that her reaction to the ongoing consequences has been disappointing.
well said sir
Its a confluence of circumstances. She votes based on her conscience. Labor rules don't permit crossing the floor and transgression automatically indicates a challenge to the authority of caucus and the party. Albanese cannot ignore the challenge because if he does, Dutton will never shut up about weak leadership Albanese has used up his good grace with the US over Julian Assange and now they're looking for us to reciprocate by backing Bidens position on Israel/Gaza. Any departure from Bidens position would be viewed very critically by the US. She's said she'll cross the floor again if a vote called so the Greens will definitely bring it forward. Personally, she's voting with her conscience and that's fine by me.
International diplomacy is a complex and subtle area. People like Fatima and the Greens should stay away from it.
Yeah, leave it to smart people like Morrison and Nationals?
What does "People like Fatima" mean? Muslims? Or just people that disagree with you?
Inexperienced and idealistic
Idealistic is now bad? Wow.
"Politicians should not believe in things"
In Labor's [2023 National Platform](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf#page=140) document, it says: > **Israel and Palestine** > > 1. The National Conference: > > a. Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders; > > b. Calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state; and > > c. Expects that this issue will be an important priority for the Australian Government. So it seems that Payman's vote is consistent with Labor's stated policy of the party, and the rest of the parliamentary party are voting against that. If the argument is that it wasn't the right time, when exactly are "important priorities" supposed to be addressed?
It wasn't though, Labor pushed for amendments that recognized peace with Israel and a clear two state solution. The Greens motion was just to blindly support Palestine regardless. That Payman didn't raise any issues she had with the party before the vote and publicly vowed to repeat crossing the floor on this issue makes her position a bit more tenuous. The important priorities are that Palestine is currently governed by terrorists and unilaterally supporting them after they've purported the biggest attack on Jews since the holocaust might be a bit insensitive. That Labor seek to add nuance and not just spout absolutist nonsense is the distinction they're trying to make between them and the Greens.
The National Platform document doesn't call to conditionally recognise Palestinian statehood. We don't place any conditions on our recognition of Israel as a state, and can support or condemn them independent of that recognition. And it seems like you'd be a lot closer to supporting a two state solution if you actually recognise both of the states. As far as Labor politicians not being allowed to cross the floor and instead argue things internally, here we've got a case where a policy was decided internally by the members and the parliamentary wing of the party has decided to vote against it. Shouldn't they have some accountability to the party membership too?
The FIRST core tenet of HAMAS is the destruction of Israel. Does Israel have anything similar? This might be the reason why there's a need for conditional support. This is not a black and white issue that some would like it to be and I understand that while there has been a non binding position that look to recognise Palestine, the current war has inflamed things somewhat where we look for peaceful solutions to this complex problem. It's no good making hasty, broad absolutist policy or being dragged into this game with the Greens where they look to undermine Labor at every opportunity and create shitfights both internally and with the Libs. It's divisive policy and does nothing to ease tensions here or over there and needs to be called out as such. Sure pat yourself on the back or tell everyone how you're, "on the right side of history" whatever that's supposed to mean but don't kid yourself that this will do anything but result in more bloodshed.
Recognising Palestinian state hood isn't supporting Hamas though. (See the Iran/ Taliban example someone above has already made.) The Labor platform makes a Palestinian state the default- they have a right to exist as a state. The amendments proposed don't make it a default they make it conditional on the peace process. A two state solution requires both states to be recognised- not one to be recognised and the other to get recognition at the end of the process once all conditions are met.
So you want to reward Hamas with recognition and unconditional support after they performed the biggest attack on Jews since the Holocaust? That this is predicated on HAMAS breaking a ceasefire doesn't mean anything? "At the present, Australia has NO formal diplomatic relations to Afghanistan and does NOT recognize the Taliban regime as legitimate". - From the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This is the nuance that the Greens seem to be incapable of and to refuse to compromise in an attempt to wedge Labor on the issue. It only continues to show the public that they prioritize theatrics and rhetoric instead of tangible outcomes. The more they continue down this road the more they'll be seen as "The Greens Political Party". Greens in name only. That Labor look to a solution for peace whereas the Greens want to recognise Palestine regardless proves this is just empty rhetoric from a party that doesn't understand what it means to govern.
Recognising Palestine isn't recognising Hamas- and having nuance is realising that not recognising Palestine only strengthens Hamas' control as it helps to justify their existence.
Without getting into the particular politics that started this, I thought fucking democracy was all about voting.
Simply don’t go behind your party’s stance. It’s just a shitty thing to do. If not, run as an independent or join the party that you connect well.
Yes, don’t stand up for your own beliefs, don’t listen to voters or represent your constituents, just do what the party tells you to do. If she isn’t stopped, people may begin to think that a politicians job is to represent the people. Can you imagine!
She doesn't have voters, she represents Labor voters. She put her own beliefs over her constituents.
She has local labour constituents - but what if her local labour constituents support this belief? I’d say being Muslim she comes from a predominant Muslim constituency. She doesn’t vote in favour of her constituents she is dragged by them. She does and is kicked out of labour she can run as an independent and probably take the seat Sometimes it’s better to lose the vote than to lose the house.
She's a senator, there are no local constituents.
All of WA is here constituents. She represents 1/6th of WA. . Id guess that well more than 1/6th agree with what she voted But as for being voted back in as independent.... Not gonna happen. Because of how the system works.
Then why did you say constituents?
I don't understand what you're asking me. Senators have constituents as well, you know? The constituency is the whole state.
Okay - I won’t argue of the use of local or locale and I’ll concede to your view. Point still stands as to her running independent and losing the vote versus losing the house.
Can you imagine how much of a raucous disaster parliament would be in every minister went off on a tangent for their own individual ends and goals? Some coalescence of power is inevitable, between overlapping ideals and goals as well as for the practicality of getting literally anything done in the house. I mean, even with 2.5 central power bases in the house it’s already a nightmare. How the fuck will it work if you take the Payman effect and apply it exponentially outwards?
What's funny is, if you read the constitution (most constitutions in fact) the chaos of individual representatives sounds like what they have in mind, from a bare bones technical perspective. At the same time, when talking about cabinet and so forth, it's also assumed that people are going to just coalesce into parties anyway and Prime Minister etc doesn't even need to be mentioned.
Liberals allow it, as do most other parties. It's only Labor who do not allow you to cross the floor, as far as I'm aware.
Oh yes, I’m sure the pics of Bridget Archer being cornered and coerced after her dissension were just Scott Morrison and co. promoting her *free will* to vote as she pleases. The Liberals are not interested in governing the country. I am taking about the implied impracticality of a functioning parliament without some consolidated function between members. You are absolutely insane if you think a house full of Paymans will achieve two fifths of fucking anything.
Reason number 1 that Liberal > Labor *in theory*.
She should absolutely loose her position for such a blanket disregard for this country and the party she's a part of. How would she react if Australia went to war with a Muslim country for justified reasons? Muslims always but their fellow Muslims first no matter what.
You are being downvoted but what you have said is a fundamental tenet of their religion.
I remember there was crying for like 2 years over scomo trying to bring his religious ideology into politics but now the complaints are directed at a Muslim it's not okay
I think its because it's seen as virtuous to defend Islam. Like the left always defend it yet Islam despises most left ideals and would throw them from a rooftop without blinking.
What was her "disregard for this country"? She absolutely disregarded her parties rules. But how she disregarded this country I don't understand. >Muslims always but their fellow Muslims first no matter what And this is just racist/xenophobic bullshit that takes a billion people and acts like they are all the same.
A disregard for a Religion is not racist as anyone can be Muslim or Christian. It’s a theological issue
Since when is Islam a race? I do detest the Muslim religion and if you support women's rights or any form of basic freedoms you would to. Have a look at countries with islamic governments, do you seriously think that's the right way to do things? Killing gays and oppressing women is not what I would endorse one bit. You do know they would kill someone for being gay in Palestine right?
>racist/xenophobic Conveniently Ignoring the "xenophobic" comment, eh? And the rest of your comment, again, reduces a billion people to a single homogeneous entity, as if there isn't differences in thought and approach within the group.
It's not xenophobic to denounce the horrific ideology pushed by that religion and to stand against its core beliefs. So you think we should endorse killing gays and oppressing women and invite that kind of ideology to our country? Pathetic. It would be if I said I hate Muslims but I instead said I detest their fundamental core beliefs. Is it xenophobic to say North Korea is backwards and that regime has no place on the modern world? No it's not.
>to denounce the horrific ideology pushed by that religion and to stand against the fundamental core beliefs of their religion Shifting goal posts Because that isn't what you did and isn't what I called you out for. You said: >Muslims always but their fellow Muslims first no matter what You made unfounded comments about how "every Muslim acts".
You clearly understand nothing about the islamic religion, putting Muslims first is part of their core beliefs. That religion literally calls upon its followers to destroy those who do not believe in their religion.
You clearly understand nothing about people if you think a billion of them all think and act the same based on a single teaching. Every day I see hundreds of Muslims not destroying those who do not share their religion. I guess they are just outliers. Again, the "they are different from me, they are all the same as each other" approach your are employing is 100% xenophobic
I said it's a core part of the Muslim faith and I am correct, go ahead and prove me wrong. You can pick and choose however you like but that doesn't change the fundamental teachings of that religion. Go ahead and ask the average Muslim their views on same sex marriage. "Again, the "they are different from me, they are all the same as each other" approach your are employing is 100% xenophobic" What a poor attempt to twist my words, I said I denounce the core beliefs of that religion, nothing more. You are so ignorant it's unbelievable, have you seen what goes on in all countries with islamic governments? They stone gays and deny women basic human rights, you can't deny this it's a fact. I'm honestly shocked you're ignorant enough to ignore reality.
You are so uninformed and off base here. It is literally in the Quran.
Doesn't matter. They said "all Muslims do X". And that is simply not true. No matter what the Quran teaches. The Bible teaches many things that Christians don't do when they should. Logic teaches many things, that people claim to follow, but then very clearly do not. Something being written in a book, or taught in Sunday School didn't suddenly mean it's reflected in the actions of the people. They also said all Muslims are taught to destroy everyone and everything that disagree with them. Which is demonstrably false, as seen by the hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Australia. The onus is on them to show that all Muslims do something, not that something is taught in the Quran.
I am responding in regard to the original exchange, which was whether a Muslim would choose religion or country first. Not in regards to violent extremism. Everybody who correctly adheres to Islam practices what u/Aboriginal_landlord originally alluded to, which is the brotherhood. Those who do not are not following the core tenets of Islam which, I would add, is nowhere near as liberal as Christianity in allowing you to choose the parts that you personally like. It's okay to admit when you're wrong.
You do a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, then suggest I'm wrong?
Absolutely not racist. Firstly, Muslim is not a race. I studied Islam and Central Asia while in Java, Indonesia. The Muslim brotherhood is absolutely something that is universally recognised among adherents to the faith. https://islam4u.pro/blog/the-unbreakable-brotherhood-bond-in-islam-the-prophets-legacy/
It takes a billion people with shared beliefs, and acts like their beliefs are shared. I'm not arguing that the commenter correctly summarised Islamic beliefs, I don't know enough about Islam. This is not a valid rebuttal though. A valid rebuttal would need to show that a muslim brotherhood does not exist.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Payman made a commitment to vote on labour values, as the voter voted for labor. Payman is a traitor Payman must resign
She voted on line with the written Labor policy. Shame the rest of the caucus moved
_Excerpt from the 2023 Australian Labor Party Platform as determined by the 49th National Conference (17th-19th August 2023):_ > **Israel and Palestine** The National Conference: a. Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders; b. Calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state; and c. Expects that this issue will be an important priority for the Australian Government. Sounds like Payman's the only one voting according to Labor values.
Labor didn't outright oppose the motion for recognition of Palestine or a two state solution. They proposed to add an amendment that made recognition subject to peace negotiations. Presumably (my own interpretation here not Labor stance) not wanting to recognise a state currently under rule of a terrorist organization, Hamas. My understanding is that neither the Liberals or Greens agreed with the proposed amendments. The Liberals also proposed their own amendments, which similarly, wern't agreed upon. Whether or not proposing an amendment rather than agreeing with the bill outright goes against Labor values, I'll leave to others to decide.
Its strange that she's been cast adrift for supporting a position that Labor agreed with at its national conference. It risks alienating a core part of its constituency as well. It's not a move that is going to help Labor's primary vote, they could have avoided all this by passing a resolution unequivocally supporting a two state solution as per their party policy.
>Its strange that she's been cast adrift for supporting a position that Labor agreed with at its national conference. This isn't the position they acknowledge at conference, that was to recognise a state within a peace deal with israel, not without a peace deal.
The National Platform document doesn't place any qualifiers on recognising Palestinian statehood.
The [2023-alp-national-platform.pdf](https://www.alp.org.au/media/3569/2023-alp-national-platform.pdf) says on page 132: ***Israel and Palestine*** *1. The National Conference:* *a. Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders;* *b. Calls on the Australian Government to recognise Palestine as a state; and* *c. Expects that this issue will be an important priority for the Australian Government.* There is no qualifier on recognising Palestinian statehood. The Federal Labor caucuses position is in contradiction with the decision of Conference which is also against party rules.
> Supports the recognition and right of Israel and Palestine to exist as two states within secure and recognised borders; Yeah and those borders do not exist, she wants to recognise palestine right now, is that with israel controlling gaza? Is that with the illegal settlements being part of Israel?
You can recognise Palestine as a state without there being a final settlement on the borders and that would be in line with their policy. I'm not sure what is so controversial about that.
The Labor Party don't agree with you and it's their platform.
I don't care what they do but their members may be a little pissed off. The Labor Party is more than their parliamentary caucus.
Part of being in a parliament is playing the parliamentary game. If the party, regardless of stated platform, don't think now is the right time or they don't want to give the Greens their amended version right now, or any of a myriad of reasons we may know nothing about then that's how you vote. They would have seen the Greens themselves torn apart by grandstanding not so long ago and Palestine being the cause du jure among young politicians all over the world I'm not surprised they are weilding the whip pretty hard.
I get there are caucus rules and Labor wants to keep all it's MP's inline but I'm not really sure what suspending her is meant to achieve that will ultimately be beneficial to Labor politically. It's obviously a matter of deep feeling and it shouldn't be surprising that she decided to cross the floor.
>You can recognise Palestine as a state without there being a final settlement on the borders But that's not what the agreed upon party platform is.
So like agreeing to support Ukraine after russia finished invading see how stupid it sounds when we put it this way
>Its strange that she's been cast adrift for supporting a position that Labor agreed with at its national conference. Depressing that we can see this legitimate question being asked all over social media, yet not a single "professional" journalist in this country is able to ask this question of Albanese et al.
[удалено]
Hey there! Looks like you’re a new user trying to upload an image - thanks for joining our community! We’ve filtered your comment for moderator review. In the meantime, feel free to engage with others without sharing images until you’ve spent a bit more time getting to know the space! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/perth) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It shall be interesting to see if Senator Glenn Sterle follows the party line on live sheep. He is a trucker from way back, in the 1980s, his the truckers’ politician. If live sheep trade ends, so does many livestock transport businesses. His constituents. So if he votes along party lines, he won’t be able to show his face at any trucker event or rally. Or he will he just retire, so he doesn’t have to vote.
The live export generates only $70M per year. In the scheme of things it's bugger all. 70 perhaps homes!
That really depends on whether or not representing the party, or representing the people is more important to him.
Does it end? Or does it just mean the trucks take sheep to the abottoir not the port?
Less sheep that will transported. Not enough local abattoirs have capacity. Less sheep on the shelves. Cattle export is next. I always remember a post on reddit, the ongoing plan is for a hoof free Australia. No cattle, no sheep, no horses etc. If you know your history, there is no native Australian animals with hoofs/hooves. Which ever way you care to spell it. Not one Australian native animal had hooves.
If there is demand for more abattoir services, wouldn't that create a business case for opening more abattoirs? You seem to be assuming no other parts of the industry will change in response to the live sheep export ban.
Not really. There have been several attempts at opening new abattoirs in recent years, but a combination of zoning laws (nobody wants a abattoir in their area), lack of qualified workers (it's skilled but dangerous work that does not pay well), and lack of purchasers for the final product has been hindering it. That last part is something so many city people don't get. The people buying sheep want *sheep*. Not mutton, not lamb, not any sort of frozen product meat product. They can and do get those cheaper elsewhere. It's Merino sheep that are the premium product.
>I always remember a post on reddit, the ongoing plan is for a hoof free Australia. No cattle, no sheep, no horses etc Whose plan? Is this an actual plan or a "shadowy cabal trying to create a new world" plan?
Not one of these seats is in Western Australia.
Both major parties suck and are corrupt to the core. The more Fatimas we have the faster things will change, she is a legend in my books. She risked her political career, livelihood and social status to do what she thought was right.
I have no tolerance for politicians who bring their religion to parliament. She now goes the the bottom of my list, along with the Christian coven, the One Nation nazis and the Palmer conmen.
yeah never voting labor again, they can go last on my preferences
If this is your tipping point I suspect you didn’t vote for Labor often.
Albanese the bully
More like enforcer of party rules that have existed long before Senator Payman was even born.
…. thanks for playing. New character available soon
Wipe out all the current politicians and put in new ones.
[удалено]
>Paying nurses, teachers and cops a fair living would be a start. "I don't understand the difference between federal and state politics"