What Peter Pilt Thinks of the Federal Greens Party!


I was recently challenged as to why I dislike the Australia Greens Political Party. They certainly have some positive humanitarian and environmental policies: and yes they are certainly passionate for the proper treatment of Asylum Seekers under Australia’s care. And for this they are to be applauded. Having read their polices on their website there are some policies that resonate with me…. But they lose me because of a lot of their other polices. Here are ten as a starting point that I have exception to:

1) Global Governance.

In their “Global Governance” platform, the Greens call for a “renewed commitment by Australia to multilateralism as the means of addressing world problems.” The policy goes on to endorse “a stronger UN capable of dealing with threats to international peace and security.”

I haven’t put the entire explanation in here but effectively what this policy would mean is that Australia’s national sovereignty would be weakened in favour of a reinvented United Nations that would be responsible for our protection as the Greens are also in favour of significant reductions in our defence budget. This new UN with extended powers would be responsible for governing the world: or another way to look at this is a one world government.

Former Greens Leader Bob Brown in a speech several years ago in Tasmania called for the establishment of a One World Government.

2) Small Business Tax Rate

The Greens policy states that they want to see the company tax rate at 33%. After the recent Federal Budget, the company tax rate is 28.5% and the mentality behind reducing it was to stimulate the economy. Australia rides not on the back of the sheep as the saying used to be, but on the back of small business and a tax rate of 33% would devastate the economy.

See this is the problem I have with the Greens…..policies that just won’t work in the real world…..to me the Greens are like pageant contestants in a Miss Universe….”I want world peace”…..that’s great but it’s the stuff of fairy tales….Maybe if the Greens tinged their policies with reality or at least dealt with the consequences of their policies then there would be a sense of real world robust thinking about what they are proposing.

If they want to increase company tax rates as a policy, great….but talk through how they will deal with the unemployment rate as a result etc.

3) Scrapping of the Fringe Benefit Tax Exemptions for the Not For Profit Sector.

The mentality behind this policy is the thinking that these exemptions put more cars on the road so in the interest of environmental responsibility the exemptions should be scrapped. The Not for Profits sector have reacted to this call saying that this would significantly reduce the workforce that they would be able to afford and thus greatly reduce the services given currently to some of the most vulnerable people in society. This is deeply concerning. The Greens do champion helping the poor and vulnerable so this policy is somewhat at odds with their philosophy and again in light of my comment in the previous point….it seems they fail to examine or deal with the entire consequences of their policies.

4) Scrap the School Chaplaincy Program

In Church last Sunday there was a representative of Scripture Union Queensland and he was telling the congregation about the lives that have been saved and deeply impacted by the School Chaplaincy program. The Greens want to replace this program with non faith based counsellors.

Australia has a significant problem with teen suicide….I have experienced this on the coal face as I have conducted the funerals of multiple teens who have taken their own lives in Nowra. Our young people need all the assistance they can get….And let me say (and don’t be surprised as I am a rabid Christian)….maybe now we have convinced our young people that they come from Monkeys and that there is no real purpose to life…..this is a contributor to disturbing suicide rate in Australia. Just my opinion.

5) Scrapping Parliament Opening in Prayer.

The Greens want to replace the opening prayers in Federal Parliament with a time of reflection. Nope!

6) Some of the Green’s policies don’t require an explaining comment

Pro Abortion

Pro Same Sex Marriage

Pro Same Sex Adoption

Pro Polyamrous Marriages: Ok I better explain this one. Google defines Polyarmous as “The practice, state or ability of having more than one sexual loving relationship at the same time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved.” Nope!

7) Pro Euthanasia

Ok so Euthanasia is a grey area. I think that the medical profession keeps people alive beyond their natural life. However I as a Christian Pastor must champion the sanctity of life. But I will acknowledge this is a difficult ethical area.

8) Anti exemptions for Faith Based Organisations under anti-discrimination laws.

As it currently stands, Christian Schools and Churches have the right not to employ someone who for instance may be a Muslim or may be homosexual. The Greens want to remove these exceptions for Schools and Churches.

9) Refusing to trade with countries that have a record of using Child labour.

Now I applaud the Greens for having a policy that seeks to address child labour exploitation but hurting these countries economically only seeks to push them further into poverty and all the related issues that come with that. The best way to end child labour is to help the country prosper. I do understand that’s a Pollyanna view of this topic, but hurting the country economically will just be counterproductive.

10) The education system to provide age-appropriate information about the diversity of sexuality.

The Greens want to teach children in schools sexual diversity, which means  teaching that heterosexuality and homosexuality are normal options for children to choose from as they mature sexually. As a Pastor I have to defend the biblical and the traditional definition of marriage and heterosexuality. I was asked recently in an SBS interview why I am anti marriage equality….I simply said…I am on the National Executive of a faith based movement…it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that I am pro biblical definition of marriage. Its not that I am anti…it’s more than about what I am pro.


Anyway there are some issues I have with the Greens Party. I could talk about the time the local Greens party in Nowra tried to Hijack an Election Prayer meeting we were holding at Nowra City Church, demanding access to the platform, which actually meant that the Green’s representative, Amanda Finalyson,  had to be escorted from the meeting,  I could also mention the insanely unfair negative blog that a local Greens councillor published online about me, complete with photoshopped photos of me with scantily clad busty women, but all that aside, these ten points are more my concerns about their policies despite their humanitarian emphasis.

Categories: Australian, Political Commentary or Thoughts

Tags: , , , ,

20 replies

  1. I am not a greens supporter necessarily (although I’m running out of options), although I have many many problems with your post. It seems that you have spent too long avoiding people that disagree with you. Seek out argument with intelligent people to carve out your opinions, otherwise they will turn out flaccid, hollow, and self indulgent, as they have here. Please read everything I write here, out of courtesy, and see if I am incorrect. You have influence over many people, and with your ignorance you abuse their trust in you.

    1) You honestly, truly think that the Greens defence strategy is to call a UN meeting and yell at everyone ‘YOU DO IT’ and kindly request a new world order in which that actually happens? You think they believe they have the power to effect this kind of change? Are you insane?

    2) Small business tax rate?? I think you mean corporate sector, who cost the government MILLIONS by avoiding taxes. Greens official policy is to reduce small business tax by 2%. This fact is wrong and you should change your post to reflect that if you have any integrity.

    3) Fringe benefits. More cars on the road, but also $1bn of government money. You say ‘scrap’, please show where I might find this official policy. I think the word you’re looking for may be ‘reform’; they want to reform fringe benefit tax structure at a benefit for the environment, and for the budget at a loss of things being slightly less cushy for some employees, having to pay for their own cars. Its not just the not for profits by the way, its everyone. Don’t playing the victim.

    4) Unfortunately, your wanting to keep the chaplaincy program over a manner of compassionate, secular counselling programs is just plain bigotry. Textbook. The claims that the theory of evolution and the ‘meaninglessness’ it apparently propagates (totally subjective, non-empirical, improvable, useless claims mind you) is the root cause of teen suicide is a really willful, aggressive, sinister brand of ignorance… but the fact that you use these two in completely dissonant conjunction really illuminates the strange, woeful logic that led you to believe the things you do about the greens, or anything else.

    5) Opening prayer in parliament. Again, bigotry. The refusal to accept that people might actually think differently to you. The majority of Australians don’t ascribe to your faith. Why (in God’s name) should they have to have the people representing them trudge through some religious rigmarole before they begin? How is this even slightly close to something you could consider a detractor towards the political capability of an entire party?

    6) This point makes sense at least. Without delving into the issues themselves, you don’t agree with their policy towards particular social issues. That makes sense. Although you HAD to ruin it. The greens are undecided as toward their policy about poly-amorous marriage. Bob brown said the party would absolutely never support it. There is internal disagreement at present. There is NO official policy about this and you should amend your post to reflect that. Straw men everywhere today.

    7) ‘I, as a Christian Pastor, must champion the sanctity of life’, could be rephrased to ‘instead of actually weighing evidence presented in front of my face about the pros and cons of this issue, I will blindly trudge ahead with a nominal stance that vaguely, but not directly reflects something to do with my religion’. Where exactly in the bible is there talk of the ‘sanctity of life’ that would easily translate to an issue such as euthanasia? I believe you are taking cues from the Buddhist faith. They have explicit ‘doctrine’ regarding the sanctity of life. Either become a Buddhist monk, or change the way you think.

    8) Faith based exemptions to employment. Again with the victim stance. you think that official policy is to FORCE Christian schools to employ Muslim staff? you think these things will be forcefully inputted against you? You would herald the day a Christian was employed at a Muslim school as the day that ‘light shone in the darkness’, am I wrong? Check your perspective.

    9) You summed up a gigantic chasm of discussion and information by creating a one sentence description of the Greens policy that looks very unfavourable. Their policy is more to do with coming up with a multilateral agreement.They understand that the western world operates on the back of violations of very basic human rights, and there is only one way to stop that. Stop rewarding it. This is a trade issue, not a foreign aid issue. Foreign aid is something the greens want to up spending on, unlike Mr Abbott, who couldn’t give a rats.

    10) I honestly don’t have time to outline everything wrong with this point. Firstly the classification of hetero/homosexualities as ‘options’. What understanding do you have of the experience of being a homosexual adolescent? there is a SIGNIFICANT percentage of people who have a same sex attraction. Are they all faking it? Are they all just choosing it to be cool in the face of discrimination and hatred and people like you who want to tell them they are wrong? Again I employ this phrase to redefine your stance:

    “instead of actually weighing evidence presented in front of my face about the pros and cons of this issue, I will blindly trudge ahead with a nominal stance that vaguely, but not directly reflects something to do with my religion'”

    Not to mention the fact that the biblical definition of marriage is vague at best. Hundreds of wives here, thousands of concubines there, impregnation of slave women and unceremonious betrothing to your rapist. It’s all in there.

    Conclusion is a flurry of passive aggression about the actions of a few individuals. Spare us.

    • Thanks for commenting and I did read your comments all the way through…I guess at least I am willing to put my name to my opinion whereas you come up as Anon…See I have a problem with opinions without names…to quote you Mr Anon…Spare us.

      • You honestly think you can write off a well constructed counter to each and everything you said by making a completely irrelevant point about the name under which it was posted. If this is the case, you have a very small mind. The relevance and truth of a statement is unaffected by the username of its poster. I’d tell you to make a reply, but I doubt you have anything to say.

      • As I suspected.

      • So you wont put your name to your opinion and then when I don’t answer in your designated time, cause I was in church, it somehow reinforces to you my narrow mind….Really can’t be bothered engaging with you….I have not made any personally derogatory statements about you…but you certainly have about me….So clearly don’t want to actually engage in a civil conversation, you don’t agree with therefore you will call me names….and from the shadows of being anon….wow

      • This is all diversion to avoid engaging with clear, straightforward points. I am anon. so you don’t delete me from facebook, like many others have been who disagree with you. It has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity or relevance of what I have said.

        Allow me to apologise for any direct ad hominem attacks, I am sorry. The best way to engage with this would be to actually point them out to me. If I have spoken imprudently, show me where. I will apologise individually for each one (I have admittedly let my anger get the better of me in the last few days), but I am getting the feeling that you don’t have any intention of engaging with what I have said, and will continue to divert the conversation so it is about my choice of username.

      • I have been on the staff of churches for 25 years, up until March when I resigned, I have always made it a policy of mine not to engage with anonymous opinions. I have over the years received many anonymous letters telling me my bad points as a human and I have decided to not read any letters to me that are not signed. You make mention of people on Facebook who I have unfriended because they disagreed with me, this is simply not true. I enjoy a robust debate. I don’t mind people disagreeing with me, but I do draw the line at personal attacks. Unfortunately it seems people these days can’t disagree with each other with personally attacking each other. This shouldn’t be the case. My personal email is ppilt@ozemail.com.au if you email me your identity I promise you two things. Firstly if we are Facebook friends I won’t unfriend you and secondly I will engage with your original comment.

      • As I suspected. Its been 72 hours since I asked you to email me with your identity. You have not. See this is typical of social media. You accuse me. You say my arguments are shallow. You say I wont engage. I explain to you the terms of my engagement and that is that you put your name to your opinion….not even publicly…you could do it privately. but silence.

      • So I guess you don’t want to engage. Instead you are happy to have some cheap shots at me and then when I offer genuine engagement you suddenly disappear…which for the record, when I didn’t respond when you wanted, you had a go at me about that too….Your attacks were very personal and unfounded and when I offered to engage well you choose not to.

      • I have absolutely no interest in telling you my name. It only makes a difference because you decided it does. The whole reason I do this is so you weigh what I say rather than make any broad assumptions about me. If you’re deciding arbitrary terms around which to construct a debate, I might ask that you wear skinny jeans and a yellow wig. I will not send you any identity until you wear skinny jeans and a yellow wig, and ride a bicycle over a bridge.

        P.s. this conversation isn’t high on my to do list, I apologise for the tardiness.

      • And quite frankly, I can’t find any personal attacks that weren’t founded, if you take the word ‘bigot’ as a personal attack. It is not. If I had have used the words ‘neanderthal’, ‘moron’, ‘idiot’, ‘perplexingly sanctimonious prick’ etc. it would have been a personal attack. Those words are derogatory and used ONLY to insult. The word bigot has utility in this instance because that is what you are being. Here is the textbook on the matter:

        noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots

        a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.”

        You believe that the HOR needs to maintain the parliamentary prayer even though the majority of Australians, who are being represented by the house, don’t want anything to do with your religion.


        You believe that schools should ignore a compassionate, secular approach to counselling that would be ultimately superior and more effective in the treatment of our young people in favour of one with a religious agenda. Your religious agenda.


  2. I have some resonance with several of your points but disagree with others. My main problem is your comments re the School Chaplaincy Program. I have had intimate dealings with the NSW public school sector, working in it and being married to a man who ended up Principal of a school in Nowra. Our children were educated in country schools, Huskisson Primary, Shoalhaven and Vincentia High schools. During the time we lived in the Shoalhaven I also had contact through a close friend with the Youth Refuge and other other crisis services.I have a strong faith but that does not allow me to dismiss the value of professionally trained counsellors in our schools. I believe there is a place for both and I am disgusted with the government’s position of not allowing non-faith based professionals to take part in this programme. My daughter is a fully trained psychologist and for the last 12 years has been working in the Catholic school system in western Sydney as part of Catholic Care’s student support programme. She is not Catholic but her professional training and compassionate nature are recognised as being valuable in an area which experiences very similar issues to those in Nowra. It would be good if the Government and other bodies such as your could appreciate the value of both parties. Does your theory relate to classroom teachers as well – I have seen many children’s lives turn around thanks to the support of teachers but religion has not played a tremendous role at all. My grandsons attend a Catholic School (their dad is Catholic) and I love the guidance they are given there but it is to be expected since it is a faith based school.
    With no disrespect intended I think there are some situations where faith based counsellors are inappropriate for some issues our youth are training. Four years (a minimum) of university study does I skills/knowledge which are more appropriate to some situations. Only because I have not got permission from my son I would love to tell you the emotional damage an Anglican minister inflicted on my then 10 year old son at his Shoalhaven primary school in the mid 1990s due to that man’s zealous evangelistic judgement on my marriage break up. I will never forgive him or his version of faith for doing that to my son.

    • Bev

      I do agree with you re training and I am so sorry to hear of the bad experience your son has had back in the 90’s. I hope he has been able to get proper assistance subsequently.

      • I don’t get it – if you agree with me re training why are you so against non faith based counsellors in the schools. The name of the programme would probably be different but what is the big negative in allowing a mix of expertise into the schools. My son is in a good place, happily married and fully employed but will not put any trust in organised religion.

        My views on marriage equality would be different to yours I am sure. What confuses me is that we are all reading from the same text but getting such differing interpretations. I chose to be inclusive and am comfortable with that decision.

      • The Greens want to scrap the Chaplaincy program altogether. That’s what I am against. I think in the main they do a good job.

  3. Good on you Anon for at least having a go and creating some dialouge…. Wouldn’t hurt if u put your name to your piece. What are you afraid of?

    Not sure that I’d want a gig teaching at an Islamic school… In fact it would be mischievous even just applying…. Perhaps if we become like the states I could apply then be refused and then sue for discrimination. I’m glad the culture of our nation is not like that…

    Perhaps you might find Nick X’s new party a more palatable option… Still a little too left for me..


    Good on you Peter… Interesting piece of writing

  4. I agree with all you have said. I also believe they are against sustainable agricultural practices, logging, and are extremely anti-gun and 4wd’s.

  5. Love your lette Pete . If I have an opinion I am more than happy to put my name.
    If I don’t put my name to it, I would imagine I’m not prepared to back my opinion .
    Why put an opinion on here if you’re not prepared to put a name to it. Ooooops
    that’s only my opinion ☺

  6. I have many issues with what you have written, but specific issue with point #4. I come from a Christian background, yet I do not think that our public schools should employ religious chaplains if it means that secular counselling services are not funded appropriately. For two primary reasons: the further alienation of students already disconnected and alone who are not familiar or comfortable with speaking to a religious figure, and the fact that there are many issues that a chaplain is simply not qualified to deal with.

    Don’t get me wrong, if there is adequate funding for both, by all means have chaplains. I do not deny that they are beneficial to the school environment, I myself found them invaluable as a bullied and victimised high school child. But they are not school counsellors, and never will be. The reach they have within the secular community is limited, and our community is increasingly secular. If a child, alienated and alone, is further alienated through fear of approaching a chaplain due to perceived religious bias, then what hope does that child have? Surely loving people from all walks of life means ensuring and preserving the emotional wellness of all people, not just those comfortable with religious institutions?

    In addition to that, what about the child with learning disabilities? We would be lost without the input of our school professionals personally, my daughter has minor learning problems which a counsellor is qualified to assist with- a chaplain is not. Without school counsellors, we would have not known where to start and how to help my daughter. Would you prefer that she was left unsupported? Feeling that she is stupid when we know that she is not?

    You say you are being accused of bigotry for advocating chaplains over counsellors. I would not say it’s bigotry, obviously as a Christian pastor of very strong opinions, you have a vested interest in ensuring Christianity has a place in schooling. I obviously, due to my personal experience have a vested interest in the availability of both options. I do think that you are not looking at the bigger picture here.

    This is an honest post, by the way. I am truly trying to understand why people who want so much to show and preach the love of Christ are so keen to push something that would alienate so many people.

  7. Awesome read Peter. Anon your a misguided fool. With a response like that your better off staying anon as it’s better for you that you idiocy remain a mystery to the world.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: