[stevenjohns]

The Greens do not support civil liberties. Opposing a single piece of the puzzle (digital surveillance, for now) doesn't change the ongoing assaults that the Greens party has been carrying out since their inception. The whole coal dependence Australia has is a direct consequence of the Greens rejecting alternatives like nuclear[0].

The entire political position of the Greens starts and stops at the 'think of the children' line and regularly makes deals with the major parties even though they have hostile positions. This is most clearly demonstrated in the ongoing attacks on trivial things like recreational fishing and the extremist positions the Greens takes on firearms ownership. Keeping in mind that this position on firearms includes supporting draconian-level surveillance powers being given to police, which essentially vetos their at-face position against digital surveillance today.

Some of their other positions include wanting to tax fast food, additional taxes on alcohol and forceful reacquisition of private service providers. This goes as far as giving the UN powers over Australian legislation and directly reducing Australia's sovereignty -- even for military defence[1]. Again -- hardly interested in civil liberties.

[0] https://greens.org.au/policies/nuclear-and-uranium

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-28/lapkin---the-greens27...

[techdragon]

Given how little rights we are guaranteed in Australia by our constitution, I wouldn’t mind our government getting less sovereign and having higher powers to appeal to. The UN is a little dysfunctional at times with things like the rock paper scissor game of who on the security council will veto it this time, but the various UN departments tend to produce pretty decent stuff when it comes to “Human Rights” it’s not like we don’t have the lessons to learn after decades of watching the way the EU worksz