The Greens

[Sphynx]

Of the 227 sitting MPs and senators, only 12 declared no property ownership.

This group includes Greens housing spokesperson Max Chandler-Mather, who often uses his status as one of parliament’s few renters to draw a contrast with others in the parliament.

His Greens colleague Stephen Bates, the parliament’s youngest MP, joins him in rare company, as does Labor’s Josh Burns, who recently sold a house he had co-owned with a partner.

Several senators are on the list, although we cannot be sure this provides an exhaustive picture because the property holdings of senators’ spouses are not published.

And in any case, we can’t be sure how many of the 11 are renters — only that they don’t own properties in their own names.

Some in this group declared a financial interest in trusts but were not required to disclose any property held in those trusts.

And the United Australia Party’s Ralph Babet has not declared any properties owned in his own name but owns a share of a real estate company called Babet Brothers.

He appears with his brother, Matt, in advertising materials for Babet Brothers that state the pair “live and breathe real estate” as an “obsession”, and that they have acquired “multiple investment properties of their own”.

Queensland MP Bob Katter declared part ownership of a rental property but added a handwritten note stating the property had been sold.

Mr Katter noted his wife “has at times bought and sold some investment properties” but that “she regards this as her private business”.

He also declared his ownership of 100 heifers in Cape York and a mining investment — “nothing definite at this stage but I intend to take up old mining tenements discovered by myself prior to going into Parliament,” he clarified.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/104477056

As the PM's 'clifftop' home raises eyebrows, explore the property portfolios of all federal politicians

The prime minister's seaside property purchase raised eyebrows, but many politicians have larger property holdings.

www.abc.net.au

Did chuckle at this bit, so pretty much all of them own property, unsurprisingly.

Most of them publicly declare no property ownership, despite owning it inside of a trust.

Who knows how many more would be on this numbers if companies and trusts and spousal ownership amounts were counted,

Compare this to the Amelia Hamer "scandal". Makes it an even more of a laughable beat up.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I dont get to vote as I don't live in Aus anymore, but when I did I always put them 1. I'm sure I have a ton of post history on here saying as such too so I'm not making shit up.

But I will never, wver do that again once I move back. They ****ed up the ETS, and this time around they ****ed up public housing. If I wanted a party who would shut down any landmark social or environmental progressiveness, then I'd vote One Nation. At least they aren't pretending they give a shit about it.

Never, ever again.

Only problem with your narrative is that after rejecting the ETS because Treasury's own figures showed it wouldn't result in any reduction in emissions whatsoever for the first 25 years of its operation, the Greens then negotiated a price on carbon with Rudd's successor Julia Gillard, which came into law and was already starting to reduce emissions when Abbott got in and of course cancelled it because we can't have that, can we.

Secondly, Labor's risible initial policy offering on public housing was also shown to be useless, until the Greens held out on it and Labor finally came back with extra (still vastly inadequate) funding.

So either get your facts straight or don't post rubbish like this.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Did chuckle at this bit, so pretty much all of them own property, unsurprisingly.

Most of them publicly declare no property ownership, despite owning it inside of a trust.

Who knows how many more would be on this numbers if companies and trusts and spousal ownership amounts were counted,

Compare this to the Amelia Hamer "scandal". Makes it an even more of a laughable beat up.

It's not a "scandal". It's not a "beat up". You've had it explained to you multiple times elsewhere. If she rents out of choice yet expects to be seen as empathising with people who rent out of necessity, she's going to cop scrutiny.

Come on mate, you're better than this.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This is only if you see education as a means to employment in a specific field.

If you want higher education to include more well-rounded education in general and not just job training, then it should be approached differently.

Capitalism sees it that way. Employers don't care if you have a more well-rounded education unless it makes them more money.

 

[evolved2]

Greens are on the nose.

Bandt ‘unlikeable’ as Greens’ support at nine-month low

Support for the Federal Greens has fallen to its lowest level since February, with leader Adam Bandt now ranked the third most unlikeable federal politician.

thenightly.com.au

 

[Gralin]

More old news

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Greens are on the nose.

Bandt ‘unlikeable’ as Greens’ support at nine-month low

Support for the Federal Greens has fallen to its lowest level since February, with leader Adam Bandt now ranked the third most unlikeable federal politician.

thenightly.com.au

Give me three good reasons why I shouldn't change the date on this post back to Nov 12, 2024?

 

[evolved2]

Give me three good reasons why I shouldn't change the date on this post back to Nov 12, 2024?

The Greens will probably fall into the abyss. Hopefully.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

The Greens will probably fall into the abyss. Hopefully.

How often do you read Gina's propaganda rag?

 

[Borough Blood]

Compare this to the Amelia Hamer "scandal". Makes it an even more of a laughable beat up.

You really need to let this go.

 

[Carringbush2010]

It's not a "scandal". It's not a "beat up". You've had it explained to you multiple times elsewhere. If she rents out of choice yet expects to be seen as empathising with people who rent out of necessity, she's going to cop scrutiny.

Come on mate, you're better than this.

I can't believe posters still aren't getting this.

YES< of course she played 'I'm just like you guys doing it hard' card, even though she's not. And even though she didn't explicity say she is a rentvestor, the media (in this case the guardian) has 'beaten it up' to make it look like she's hiding it and then it the same phuqin article, in her own words stated she owns two properties.

But nah, made to look like she's 'hiding' it.

Then every ideologically blinded twit on here starts barracking for the demise.

-Not

-The

-Point!!

The >POINT IS< the media hyperbolizing it for click bait (read > revenue), and the dumb cucks in here jump on it like shit to a blanket and drive it like it's the homecoming.

Yet when Farhuqi (or any other pollie I might add), who spruiks 'poor renters doing it hard' (ALSO hyperbolized by the media), is 'guilty' of investing (which is her democratic given right! btw), it's phuqin crickets and tumbleweeds on here.

FMD the dumb cucks on here can't see their own unconscious bias and lack of critical thinking, and is a little annoying tbh.

 

[Carringbush2010]

The Greens will probably fall into the abyss. Hopefully.

Give us all a good reason why.

 

[Gralin]

I can't believe posters still aren't getting this.



But nah, made to look like she's 'hiding' it.

Then every ideologically blinded twit on here starts barracking for the demise.

-Not

-The

-Point!!

The >POINT IS< the media hyperbolizing it for click bait (read > revenue), and the dumb cucks in here jump on it like shit to a blanket and drive it like it's the homecoming.

Yet when Farhuqi (or any other pollie I might add), who spruiks 'poor renters doing it hard' (ALSO hyperbolized by the media), is 'guilty' of investing (which is her democratic given right! btw), it's phuqin crickets and tumbleweeds on here.

FMD the dumb cucks on here can't see their own unconscious bias and lack of critical thinking, and is a little annoying tbh.

i mean she said she was a millenial renter so she understood what the kids where going through in a housing crisis

it was her in for the electorate and just happened to happily ignore the fact that she was a renter by choice with two investment properties



Faruqi never claimed to be a renter

It was also pointed out that Faruqi being a landlord in 2023 when the greens were spruiking renters rights wasn't a great look

its also been pointed out that politicians are landlords at much higher rates than pretty much any other profession, but hey when you're in the top 1% of earners thats the sort of thing you can do to minimise tax

same with trusts etc

the conflict of interest is never acknowledged by the pollies either

if 90% of politicans are landlords then every party is going to mostly be landlords

the issue is that she tried to pretend she wasn't to get votes, its not a same same with Faruqi

 

[Sphynx]

i mean she said she was a millenial renter so she understood what the kids where going through in a housing crisis

it was her in for the electorate and just happened to happily ignore the fact that she was a renter by choice with two investment properties



Faruqi never claimed to be a renter

It was also pointed out that Faruqi being a landlord in 2023 when the greens were spruiking renters rights wasn't a great look

its also been pointed out that politicians are landlords at much higher rates than pretty much any other profession, but hey when you're in the top 1% of earners thats the sort of thing you can do to minimise tax

same with trusts etc

the conflict of interest is never acknowledged by the pollies either

if 90% of politicans are landlords then every party is going to mostly be landlords

the issue is that she tried to pretend she wasn't to get votes, its not a same same with Faruqi

Can you show me where she said this?

I’ve heard her say - “I’m a renter, my rent has gone up…”

Is that the extent of this misdirection other than the one bedroom comment on the podcast?

Are you sure you aren’t just swallowing journalistic headlines like you always laugh at the Sky News crowd for doing?

The battler and struggling renter narrative are the exact words used in the 2-3 main news articles from everything I can see.

There is absolutely nowhere online (that I can find) where she has tried to represent herself as a battler or struggling. She’s allowed to make a factual statement.

 

[evolved2]

Give us all a good reason why.

A failure to connect with the voting public in an environment that's ripe for left wing politics.

They have some good policies they're unable to sell because of their fixation on unpopular ideals.

Did you read the article? Adam Bandt, Lidia Thorpe and Pauline Hanson rank as Australia's most unlikable politicians.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Can you show me where she said this?

I’ve heard her say - “I’m a renter, my rent has gone up…”

Is that the extent of this misdirection other than the one bedroom comment on the podcast?

Are you sure you aren’t just swallowing journalistic headlines like you always laugh at the Sky News crowd for doing?

The battler and struggling renter narrative are the exact words used in the 2-3 main news articles from everything I can see.

There is absolutely nowhere online (that I can find) where she has tried to represent herself as a battler or struggling. She’s allowed to make a factual statement.

She tried to represent herself as a renter struggling to break into the property market to create sympathy with voters. She was caught out and it backfired. Not a capital offence but she definitely deserves to be called out on it, not sure why you're so gung ho in defending her for it.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Can you show me where she said this?

I’ve heard her say - “I’m a renter, my rent has gone up…”

Is that the extent of this misdirection other than the one bedroom comment on the podcast?

Are you sure you aren’t just swallowing journalistic headlines like you always laugh at the Sky News crowd for doing?

The battler and struggling renter narrative are the exact words used in the 2-3 main news articles from everything I can see.

There is absolutely nowhere online (that I can find) where she has tried to represent herself as a battler or struggling. She’s allowed to make a factual statement.

For someone who provides some quite nuanced analysis at times I'm staggered that you continue to try and represent this as something it's not. Hamer tried to use technicalities about her private situation for political gain and it has spectacularly backfired.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that she might not be a millionaire and is perhaps being mis-characterised as wealth, but blind Freddy can see that she brought her "situation" into the public domain in the hope it would buy her political capital and street cred with people who are genuinely struggling to get into the property market, at all.

While she may not have explicitly said it, making references to dealing with rent increases, while not fully disclosing that she is also a landlord, is a deliberate political move.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

A failure to connect with the voting public in an environment that's ripe for left wing politics.

They have some good policies they're unable to sell because of their fixation on unpopular ideals.

Did you read the article? Adam Bandt, Lidia Thorpe and Pauline Hanson rank as Australia's most unlikable politicians.

Would a couple of those “unpopular ideals” be a housing policy, that unlike Labor’s, is a bit more use than udders on a bull?

And, again, unlike Labor, action on climate change that is more use than an ashtray on a Harley?

People love to characterise the Greens as idealists. Usually in the course of arguing for adoption of Labor policies that have been shown to be completely useless window dressing.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

The only party with a sensible policy towards negative gearing/CGT.

https://www.news.com.au/national/federal-election/australian-election-2025-greens-leader-adam-bandt-proposes-reform-to-negative-gearing-capital-gains-tax-at-national-press-club/news-story/e56d40ee51e6af0da4ff4e68618dcc2c?cid=ffd848979aafee01ed815648a92373a8

 

[Sphynx]

For someone who provides some quite nuanced analysis at times I'm staggered that you continue to try and represent this as something it's not. Hamer tried to use technicalities about her private situation for political gain and it has spectacularly backfired.

You can argue until you're blue in the face that she might not be a millionaire and is perhaps being mis-characterised as wealth, but blind Freddy can see that she brought her "situation" into the public domain in the hope it would buy her political capital and street cred with people who are genuinely struggling to get into the property market, at all.

While she may not have explicitly said it, making references to dealing with rent increases, while not fully disclosing that she is also a landlord, is a deliberate political move.

I get it — and maybe at this point I’m just digging in to prove a broader point. But what genuinely grates me is the piling on framed as exposing deception, when so much of the outrage is built on misquotes, exaggerations, or outright fabrications.

Let’s be clear: some of her comments absolutely warrant criticism. The "one-bedroom" reference was borderline — she clearly painted a picture that didn't reflect the full context of her situation. She should have disclosed her ownership, no question. Were some of her comments deceptive? Absolutely.

Posters lobbing in with "how is this so hard to understand" aren't understanding my point. I understand theirs perfectly. I agree with it to a point.

But what I take issue with is the disproportionate character assassination that’s followed.

Go look at the language being used across this forum:

"willfully lied to the Australian people"
"represented herself as a renter struggling to break into the market"
"described herself as someone trying to save for a deposit like other young voters"
"she traded on the premise of being a struggling renter"
"painted a picture of a battler while being a landlord not once but twice"
"used her 'renting' status as a means to claim she knows the struggle of saving a deposit for a home."
"She Lied"
"she traded on the premise of being a struggling renter just like the rest of you"
"she stated she is an average renter."
"Hamer is not a disadvantaged renter living on the bread line like she represented"
"When the claim is "I know what it is to be a renter" the implicit subtext it is trying to evoke is that of being a "battler"
"she’s implying that by renting out of choice she understands the plight of people who have no choice but to rent"
"tried to pretend she was a renter"
"but I wouldn’t then lie about being a renter to get votes"
" It's a slap in the face by a potential politician to claim they know the struggles of renting when they own two properties."

Now here’s the thing - I’ve now read and listened to the actual source material, and there are only two or three quotes directly from her on this topic. The rest is media editorialising — language written by journos at The Age, AFR, etc. Not words that came out of her mouth.

Words like “struggling”, “battler”, “average renter” — those aren’t hers. People are projecting subtext, then turning around and accusing her of deception. That’s not holding someone accountable, that’s gaslighting. It’s taking vague phrasing, attaching assumptions to it, then declaring those assumptions as fact.

I’m not saying she’s beyond criticism. I’m saying we need to criticise her for what she actually said and did, not for what we’ve decided she “must have meant.”

And for a crowd that’s usually pretty skeptical of media spin, it’s been amazing watching some of the same people swallow a narrative wholesale without questioning how much of it is constructed.

If we’re going to have a go at her, fair. But let’s at least stay tethered to the facts while we do it

 

[evolved2]

Would a couple of those “unpopular ideals” be a housing policy, that unlike Labor’s, is a bit more use than udders on a bull?

And, again, unlike Labor, action on climate change that is more use than an ashtray on a Harley?

People love to characterise the Greens as idealists. Usually in the course of arguing for adoption of Labor policies that have been shown to be completely useless window dressing.

Gender ideology, racial stereotyping, victim mentality.

I'm bisexual and my wife is brown. We aren't victims and I despise those who try to box us in as being so. I'd probably be on board if a LW party used socioeconomic status as a basis for policy rather than gender identity, religion and skin color.

Protecting the environment, unions, equality are also good things afaic.

At this point, I fully intend my last 4 at the next federal election to be the Greens, LNP, ON, and Clive (no particular order).

 

[Sphynx]

Would a couple of those “unpopular ideals” be a housing policy, that unlike Labor’s, is a bit more use than udders on a bull?

And, again, unlike Labor, action on climate change that is more use than an ashtray on a Harley?

People love to characterise the Greens as idealists. Usually in the course of arguing for adoption of Labor policies that have been shown to be completely useless window dressing.

I'd love to discuss the Greens housing policy, genuinely.

It doesn't make much sense to me, I'd honestly like to hear your view on why you think it would work.

The Greens national public housing policy seems to be mimic the Victorian ALP's GLM model from what I can see, which they have just completed in Brighton, Flemington etc. I was involved on a few of these from a peripheral, high level.

Which is almost a semi-privatisation of the public housing sites on long term leases, with mixed use rentals integrated in public housing. It basically privatises the management of the public housing in a way and is offset by the developers ability to integrate full cost housing into the same sites with added quantity.

The public housing quantities generally stay the same, but with capital upgrades.

Then absolutely every other housing policy proposal seems to be developer contribution related or anti supply related to make housing affordable, which is just insane to me.

• Rent freezes
• Developer mandates % of developments on affordable housing (circa GLM model)
• Affordable housing levies as a new developer contribution tax etc

etc

We have a supply side issue in an industry reliant entirely on private investment.

We have cost-lock inflation on building cost bases.

Nothing is being built in anything close to the numbers required, because feasibilities are underwater and every one of those knock on suggestions would result with absolute certainty the supply side issue getting exponentially worse?

I'd genuinely like to hear your view on it if you mind?

In pure optics - it makes sense. More public housing is needed, property developers traditionally an easy target, as the optics are they make bucketloads of cash etc. But in reality at the moment it's the opposite.

Builders and developers are falling over left and right at the moment. We've had a 75% retraction on building approvals in the residential sector etc. High inflation on not only materials, but an attempt at wage growth to keep up with CPI with house prices moving in the opposite direction........

Not one of the LNP, ALP or Greens housing policy makes any sense to me. I think they know the real issues, but most of the real answers are political suicide with their own core voter base. So we go around and around with the same self interest waffle and get nowhere.


We need to discuss wage restraint and productivity-linked pay models from a national level and an ever increasingly world market (even domestically) - ALP political suicide. (Not only that, but the worst timing possible given cost of living and world events - This should have been done 10+ years ago)

We need to discuss major tax reform, particularly about balancing current tax incentives on property and balance with a form of wealth/inheritance re-distribution model - LNP suicide.

If we can address both of these, try and lift house prices slightly to release supply side issues (ontop of reducing cost base issues) (but redistribute money back into those people who this will direct impact - i.e first home owners).

That in my opinion is the path forward.

The housing/construction (they go hand in hand) sector has surged into a broken model in my honest opinion, one that is very difficult to come back from politically with our current makeup.

 

[Saint]

Capitalism sees it that way. Employers don't care if you have a more well-rounded education unless it makes them more money.

Right up until the poorly-educated population elects an idiot which wrecks the economy.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Gender ideology, racial stereotyping, victim mentality.

I'm bisexual and my wife is brown. We aren't victims and I despise those who try to box us in as being so. I'd probably be on board if a LW party used socioeconomic status as a basis for policy rather than gender identity, religion and skin color.

Protecting the environment, unions, equality are also good things afaic.

At this point, I fully intend my last 4 at the next federal election to be the Greens, LNP, ON, and Clive (no particular order).

I’m actually with you on much of that but the decider for me is that, whatever my perception of the Greens getting bogged down in issues that I personally consider irrelevant, they are the ONLY candidates taking seriously the issues that are of the utmost urgency.

EG climate, housing, environment, widening economic inequality.

The Greens are streets ahead of anyone else on these crucial challenges.

Democracy is about electing the least worst candidate (was that Churchill, yet again?). On those issues I’ve listed above, I’d say the Greens are absolutely the least worst option, and arguably the straight out best.

So I can live with them getting het up about land rights for asexual potoroos.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I'd love to discuss the Greens housing policy, genuinely.

It doesn't make much sense to me, I'd honestly like to hear your view on why you think it would work.

The Greens national public housing policy seems to be mimic the Victorian ALP's GLM model from what I can see, which they have just completed in Brighton, Flemington etc. I was involved on a few of these from a peripheral, high level.

Which is almost a semi-privatisation of the public housing sites on long term leases, with mixed use rentals integrated in public housing. It basically privatises the management of the public housing in a way and is offset by the developers ability to integrate full cost housing into the same sites with added quantity.

The public housing quantities generally stay the same, but with capital upgrades.

Then absolutely every other housing policy proposal seems to be developer contribution related or anti supply related to make housing affordable, which is just insane to me.

• Rent freezes
• Developer mandates % of developments on affordable housing (circa GLM model)
• Affordable housing levies as a new developer contribution tax etc

etc

We have a supply side issue in an industry reliant entirely on private investment.

We have cost-lock inflation on building cost bases.

Nothing is being built in anything close to the numbers required, because feasibilities are underwater and every one of those knock on suggestions would result with absolute certainty the supply side issue getting exponentially worse?

I'd genuinely like to hear your view on it if you mind?

In pure optics - it makes sense. More public housing is needed, property developers traditionally an easy target, as the optics are they make bucketloads of cash etc. But in reality at the moment it's the opposite.

Builders and developers are falling over left and right at the moment. We've had a 75% retraction on building approvals in the residential sector etc. High inflation on not only materials, but an attempt at wage growth to keep up with CPI with house prices moving in the opposite direction........

Not one of the LNP, ALP or Greens housing policy makes any sense to me. I think they know the real issues, but most of the real answers are political suicide with their own core voter base. So we go around and around with the same self interest waffle and get nowhere.


We need to discuss wage restraint and productivity-linked pay models from a national level and an ever increasingly world market (even domestically) - ALP political suicide. (Not only that, but the worst timing possible given cost of living and world events - This should have been done 10+ years ago)

We need to discuss major tax reform, particularly about balancing current tax incentives on property and balance with a form of wealth/inheritance re-distribution model - LNP suicide.

If we can address both of these, try and lift house prices slightly to release supply side issues (ontop of reducing cost base issues) (but redistribute money back into those people who this will direct impact - i.e first home owners).

That in my opinion is the path forward.

The housing/construction (they go hand in hand) sector has surged into a broken model in my honest opinion, one that is very difficult to come back from politically with our current makeup.

Nah, out of my wheelhouse I’m afraid. At the height of the housing policy debate I was reading a lot about the respective policies, and I found plenty of convincing arguments that Labor’s initial policy was a complete joke and the Greens’ wasn’t.

I don’t follow the topic with the close interest you obviously do, but I’ve seen little since to suggest what finally got through the chamber is going to be much use, and I’d suggest a big part of that was the entire offering from Labor was so flawed that the extra billions the Greens extracted was lipstick on a pig in the end. That’s Labor’s fault, not the Greens.