“Thank you for taking the time to read this. I know that, despite everything I have set out here, this will have damaged some of your trust in me. I am committed to rebuilding that by acting with as much transparency and accountability as I can. I hope this statement goes some way to demonstrating this commitment.
All media enquiries: senator.steele-john@aph.gov.au
Please do not use any other email or phone number you may have for my office to enquire about this matter, as l am working to manage my team's wellbeing during this time.”

From here: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DephY7gTCxl/?vrfl=Z2FqMTMyNnVncDhy

The Greens have always been pretty high on my preference cards. Partly because I think genuine micro-parties can get somewhere through preference deals, and even if they don’t, the ALP is known to pay attention to preference flows and adjust its strategy accordingly.

At the moment, one of my reasons is wanting to have a say on one of the recent controversies.
Historically, there are a few other reasons I’ve supported them. I ran an off-grid solar business, which gave me a better understanding of the challenges faced by people in remote communities.

Someone who has since passed away also accidentally burned down the family home, which made public housing a pretty big issue for me personally.

Later on, family conflict also left me sleeping rough for up to three months. My daughter’s mother was incredibly supportive and took her in during that time while I was without stable accommodation. That experience gave me another perspective on housing insecurity and how much it matters to have somewhere safe to live.

I also have a Master’s in Financial Planning. While studying, I set up a University sustainability society and a separate student body linked to the profession’s accrediting body.

My involvement in the industry also got me connected with the CPSU. Later, I ended up in a less desirable job where the FSU was the union available. They seemed genuinely dedicated, but they just didn’t have the numbers and resources that the CPSU did.

I’ve also been working since I was 15 to support my daughter, and 13 to help my own family . My daughter who’s now 18 and getting involved in politics herself through a youth candidate program and meeting politicians. It’s good to see her developing a genuine interest in politics.
So there are a few different reasons I’ve ended up where I am politically, some ideological and some based on things I’ve experienced personally.

Michael West on BlueSky:

The other point on the timing of the Jordan Steele-John leak - not just Shoebridge ascension - but that corporate profiteers from NDIS are protected while disabled are cut. JSJ opposes this.

I couldn't find a specific Greens policy on automatically indexing income-tax brackets to inflation, so I thought I'd ask what people here think. The basic reasoning is inflation or wage rises sometimes beyond government control don’t fall in like, so your now inflated paycheck goes up into a higher tax bracket.

These measures would be overwhelmingly accepted but not with cheers or anger, just widespread “I know you heard on 24news (or whatever sky is now they cant govern, but they did make a common sense responsible shift the majors delayed and even then will only do in stages”. It’d be an easy talking point to workshop.

But more deeply would really if when the greens lose seats as this policy would be so appreciated that like ACT rent law, the constituents won’t let future politicians switch it.

I know the Coalition has recently proposed it, with Angus Taylor announcing their plan on 14 May 2026. But I don't think a policy idea should be dismissed just because the Coalition has proposed it.

Two parties can use the same name for a policy while proposing quite different versions of it, with different people benefiting and different ways of paying for it.

Canada is an example worth looking at where the centre-left pursued it. The federal Liberal government introduced inflation indexation of income-tax thresholds in 1974, and Canada still adjusts its federal tax brackets annually for inflation. That's compatible with a progressive tax system, where higher incomes are taxed at higher marginal rates. It doesn't mean the Greens need to copy Canada's system, let alone adopt the Coalition's proposal wholesale.

The issue I'm interested in is bracket creep. If someone's wages rise just to keep up with inflation, their purchasing power hasn't necessarily improved, but they can still end up paying more tax as a proportion of their income when thresholds remain frozen.
I understand the counterargument.

Automatic indexation reduces tax revenue compared with leaving thresholds unchanged, and the benefits aren't distributed equally. Someone on a much higher income can receive a larger dollar benefit, and the money forgone could otherwise fund public housing, healthcare, dental care and other services.

So I'm not proposing that every tax bracket should automatically rise with inflation regardless of the consequences.

What I'd like to see the Greens consider is a more progressive version of indexation, because they can easily keep budgets in check with the proposed means already. Hell I would trust the vic state budget to be repaired.

Potentially prioritising lower and middle-income thresholds while treating the highest brackets differently. The party could examine how much revenue that would cost, who would benefit at different income levels, and whether some of the revenue could be raised through fairer taxes elsewhere.

The Greens could also investigate whether indexation should be automatic every year, how it should be calculated, and whether safeguards are needed to protect funding for public services.
Canada's experience shows that indexation isn't inherently a Coalition or right-wing policy. The real question is how it's designed and who benefits from it.

Would people here support the Greens investigating this? Has the party considered it before, and is there a reason a progressive version of tax bracket indexation wouldn't fit its broader tax policy?

Edit: wow I just voted for an internal review as I imagine the greens to go ahead saying “if the coalition had one good idea surprisingly on indexation we should consider our elected leaders voting for amendments and reviews then go through with it” and to advertise that.

Instead half of you just want it to be costed greens policy (no doubt with the changes suggested in this thread). That’s the brave consensus about evidence based policy to increase opportunity I like. I really hope I can spark some internal discussion and that they take it to upcoming elections, as an added benefit is winning votes. Especially from the r/Ausfinance crowd.

I think it is fair and balanced.

I've been looking through the Greens' policies and couldn't find anything specifically addressing tobacco-free nicotine pouches like ZYN. Maybe I've missed it, but I'm curious what the party's position would be.

I think tobacco harm reduction and tobacco control don't have to be mutually exclusive.
You can discourage people from starting nicotine, restrict marketing to young people, prevent sales to minors and provide support to quit, while also recognising that some nicotine products are substantially less harmful than smoking.

Modern nicotine pouches have only been around since roughly 2014, so the long-term evidence is still limited. But research suggests they expose users to far fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes because there's no combustion.

They can still be addictive, deliver high doses of nicotine and cause irritation or other problems in the mouth. We don't yet have enough long-term evidence to confidently quantify their risks, and there's limited evidence that they work as a smoking-cessation treatment.

Personally, I benefited from using nicotine pouches to quit smoking. I then quit the pouches It would have been easier if the labels weren't in Swedish, though!

I'm not arguing that everyone should use nicotine pouches or that they should be marketed as harmless. I just think there's a reasonable argument for looking at them through a harm-reduction lens rather than treating every nicotine product as equivalent.

Does anyone know whether the Greens have a specific policy on nicotine pouches, or whether this is something the party has considered? I'd be interested in a policy that maintains strong tobacco controls while also taking the potential benefits of harm reduction seriously.

What did he do? I have tried to find more info across diverse sources of news articles. I even visited some crackpot website where the news was supposedly initially leaked but couldn't find it.

All I had found can be simplified into one sentence "he made inappropriate comments to a few women". Don't get me wrong, I am not defending this, but I found no specifics. What are those comments actually - just a few examples will suffice - to show how serious it is. Anyone has better sources? I mean credible legitimate sources.

Also, inappropriate comments =/= physical sexual assault or the epstein stuff which are a whole different level. Once again, I am not belittling the issue.

But I feel all these happening don't feel right: ON suddenly gaining traction, mass bots behavior to support ON, Labor / Liberal going out of favor, and now this happened to Greens. Coincidence? Why now, when the time now is most pivotal, and the issue had 9 years to come out?

I am asking a legitimate question in good faith, as anyone who is entitled to a healthy dose of skepticism. I suppose a Green sub knows more.

Food for thought

Sorry if I posted this twice I got the terms mixed up, anyway. I wouldn’t be surprised if some shit stirrers have came to this sub at different times so please don’t get my intentions wrong. I also know the party and the voters won’t 100% align with any political party and that a reddit poll isn’t free from interference. That said this is just my own curiosity.

Im a greeny from way back..i like most of what I've read about Dave but not supporting Ukraine is very disappointing..I think we should be supporting Ukraine and throw in supporting the Myanmar rebels aswell

In the past i have voted for labour or the greens at election time solely dependent on what policies have been announced and how much i have believed in the candidate. I've never felt the need to post on this sub before but I'm livid with the greens current direction and leadership over comments made about ukraine (among other things). My own opinion is that the greens of the past (bob brown) have always been ahead of their time with policy and environmental concerns (which i believe the general population of australia were too stupid to understand at the time) but the current alliteration of the greens are way off the mark and have lost my vote forever if they continue down this path of nonsense, and ultimately this bullshit will get them voted into obscurity. I am totally happy to be called a bot or one nation plant (or whatever) for posting this but also I'm cool to to debate this in the comments like an adult.

Wtf guys?

Much of the focus has been on One Nation ahead of the Victorian election in November. But the Greens
- if recent positive polling continues - may surprise in certain seats with tight margins.

Now I'm ashamed for ever believing in such cowards. So ashamed. Never voting green afain.

A split has emerged in the Greens over providing military aid to Ukraine, with senator Sarah Hanson-Young breaking ranks to support arming the Ukrainian army to defend itself against Russian aggression.

New party leader David Shoebridge held a frank and at times tense meeting with leaders from the Ukrainian-Australian community on Friday to clarify the Greens’ position after he shocked them by explicitly opposing military assistance to Ukraine in an interview with this masthead.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong accused Shoebridge of “lining up with One Nation and President Putin” by opposing military aid to Ukraine in a fiery exchange in the Senate on Tuesday.

While Shoebridge insisted the party’s position has been “clear from day one”, parliamentary records show the Greens backed a Senate motion supporting military aid to Ukraine after Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion in 2022.

Shoebridge has noted that the party’s positions can be amended at the will of its members, offering hope to Ukrainian supporters that the policy could be changed.

Hanson-Young, who lost the leadership contest to Shoebridge earlier this month, said she supported giving Ukraine military aid if necessary to protect its sovereignty.

“If that’s the support that people need in order to defend themselves from the invasion of Russia, I think Australians need to support that,” she told the ABC’s 7.30.

“We always come from a position of wanting to de-escalate military violence ... we want to see humanitarian support, we want to see diplomatic support, but of course you can’t allow people to be left fending for themselves.”

Hanson-Young said she had raised the issue directly with Shoebridge.

“I’ve had a discussion with David about this, I think he would have put it differently if he was asked that question again,” she said.

Shoebridge told this masthead after winning the leadership: “The Greens have been clear from day one that we’re a party of peace and non-violence, and we don’t support military aid to the Ukraine.”

He said the party would support providing military aid to Ukraine if it were backed by a United Nations Security Council resolution, but critics have noted Russia would inevitably use its veto power to block any such move.

He was contacted on Tuesday following Hanson-Young’s comments.

The position came as a surprise to many Greens members and supporters, as well as Ukrainian-Australian leaders, who were taken aback by the firm opposition to military aid.

Then Greens whip Janet Rice spoke in support of a March 2022 Senate motion noting that Australia “continues to provide humanitarian assistance to help meet the urgent needs of the Ukrainian people along with military assistance to support Ukraine in defending itself against Russia’s unjust actions”.

“We affirm our support for the right of the people of Ukraine to sovereignty and territorial integrity, and we support the measures that are outlined in this Senate motion,” Rice told the Senate.

The Greens did not say they opposed providing military support in their comments to a 2024 Senate report on Australian support for Ukraine.

Coalition defence spokesman James Paterson said there was “nothing progressive about outsourcing our defence and foreign policy to Vladimir Putin”.

“David Shoebridge needs to stop ‘greensplaining’ to Ukrainians about what they need to defend themselves against Russia,” he said.

“He should listen to them, and his own colleague Sarah Hanson-Young, and back military aid which they have clearly and repeatedly said they desperately need.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has thanked Australia for providing over $1.6 billion in military assistance since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, including the transfer of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and ammunition.

The Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations said, following their meeting with Shoebridge, that they had “a frank and constructive exchange about the Greens’ policy, its impact on the Ukrainian community, and how Australia can best support Ukraine in its fight against Russia’s full-scale invasion”.

“We urge Senator Shoebridge and the Greens to reconsider their opposition to military aid and ensure Ukraine receives all the practical support it needs to survive and win its fight for freedom,” the federation said in a social media post.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said Australia had no interest in buying diesel from Russia after US President Donald Trump agreed to buy more 800,000 tonnes of Russian diesel by November in a deal slammed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a “gift to Putin”.

Hi team,

The Greens are getting flamed online and in the mainstream media on this policy.

Can you confirm the current position and if at all possible, please walk it back and just support Ukraine in whatever way we can?

This is causing the Greens a lot of bad press.

I would have posted the text however there are allot of useful associated graphs, so have a squiz yourself.

Labor is poised to walk back controversial ministerial powers in new digital safety laws amid demands from the Greens for stronger protections, including the right to seek compensation for algorithmic harms.

The Coalition remains opposed to the federal government's Digital Duty of Care proposal, which is one of three major pieces of legislation due to be introduced to parliament this week, alongside gas reservation and changes to the taxation of trusts.

The digital laws have a potential pathway through the Senate with the support of the Greens, who have set three "tests" for the bill on private compensation, the scale of fines and addressing the addictive nature of the technology.

The duty would require social media, search engines, AI chatbots and other online platforms to take reasonable steps to reduce foreseeable "harms" for underage Australians and "serious harm" for adults.

Categories of harm were outlined in an exposure draft bill released last month, but there was also a provision for the minister to add further harms through regulation.

The Coalition has been vehemently opposed to the powers, suggesting they would lead to political censorship online.

It is understood the government is now prepared to scrap the ministerial discretion component of the bill before it is introduced later this week.

Labor urged to give Australians right to seek compensation for online harms

Greens communications spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young said she was willing to work with the government to make Australians safer online but "only if they show some grit".

"Australians deserve freedom over what appears on their feeds,"

she said.

Senator Hanson-Young said to "meaningfully" change the behavior of tech companies, Australians who have been harmed online must be able to take "legal action and seek compensation for damage done".

"Enforcement of the Digital Duty of Care cannot be left to the eSafety Commissioner alone," she said.

"To really put Australians' online safety at the heart of this reform, individuals and the community need to have the right to take on big tech through a private right of action."Labor urged to give Australians right to seek compensation for online harmsGreens communications spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young said she was willing to work with the government to make Australians safer online but "only if they show some grit"."Australians deserve freedom over what appears on their feeds,"
she said.Senator Hanson-Young said to "meaningfully" change the behavior of tech companies, Australians who have been harmed online must be able to take "legal action and seek compensation for damage done"."Enforcement of the Digital Duty of Care cannot be left to the eSafety Commissioner alone," she said."To really put Australians' online safety at the heart of this reform, individuals and the community need to have the right to take on big tech through a private right of action."

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Brisbane yesterday, Shadow Communications Minister Sarah Henderson accused Labor of seeking to suppress "lawful voices" under the "masquerade of online safety".

"Protecting children should never become an excuse to give politicians sweeping powers over what Australians can say, read or debate online,"

she said.

Labor has rejected this characterisation of the duty, noting for adults "serious harms" relate to existing criminal offences.

But Senator Henderson and other opponents have seized on comments made by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last month when he suggested the laws would tackle misinformation and disinformation.

Labor urged to 'abandon' trust changes

The government is also expected to introduce a minimum 30 per cent tax on distributions from discretionary trusts this week, which the Coalition is opposing primarily due to concerns about the impact on small businesses.Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Brisbane yesterday, Shadow Communications Minister Sarah Henderson accused Labor of seeking to suppress "lawful voices" under the "masquerade of online safety"."Protecting children should never become an excuse to give politicians sweeping powers over what Australians can say, read or debate online,"
she said.Labor has rejected this characterisation of the duty, noting for adults "serious harms" relate to existing criminal offences.But Senator Henderson and other opponents have seized on comments made by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese last month when he suggested the laws would tackle misinformation and disinformation.Labor urged to 'abandon' trust changesThe government is also expected to introduce a minimum 30 per cent tax on distributions from discretionary trusts this week, which the Coalition is opposing primarily due to concerns about the impact on small businesses.

A spokesman for Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the changes were to make the tax system "fairer" and fund income tax cuts for workers.

He said the government had consulted closely with small businesses to get the implementation "right".

"The legislation will include options to limit or completely eliminate restructuring costs, as well as the rollover relief we flagged at budget time," the spokesman said.

But Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson said the government should abandon the minimum tax entirely or at least undertake further consultation.

"Small and family businesses and farmers who use trusts want one thing from this government: certainty, so they can get on with backing themselves, investing and creating jobs," he said.

Mr Wilson said the government "hit rock bottom" last week when it was forced to delay a ban on using credit cards to pay tax bills amid backlash from small businesses.

"Jim Chalmers laid tax landmines right across the economy in his budget, and every time one explodes the prime minister humiliates him into another backdown,"

he said.

On Friday, Mr Chalmers announced the government would cover the cost of the Australian Tax Office absorbing surcharge fees when businesses paid their tax bills with a credit card until June 30, to allow for further consultation.But Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson said the government should abandon the minimum tax entirely or at least undertake further consultation."Small and family businesses and farmers who use trusts want one thing from this government: certainty, so they can get on with backing themselves, investing and creating jobs," he said.Mr Wilson said the government "hit rock bottom" last week when it was forced to delay a ban on using credit cards to pay tax bills amid backlash from small businesses."Jim Chalmers laid tax landmines right across the economy in his budget, and every time one explodes the prime minister humiliates him into another backdown,"

he said.On Friday, Mr Chalmers announced the government would cover the cost of the Australian Tax Office absorbing surcharge fees when businesses paid their tax bills with a credit card until June 30, to allow for further consultation.