Blog Articles

GET UP CHIEFS FACE COMPLAINT TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

By Australian Newsletter

The tactics of left-wing activist group GetUp in the last election campaign could be laid bare before a parliamentary committee with two Liberal backbenchers preparing to lodge complaints to an inquiry in the May 18 poll.  Liberal MP Nicolle Flint will join fellow Coalition backbencher Kevin Andrews in formally complaining about GetUp’s election tactics, a development which could see office bearers from the activist group hauled before parliament to explain their conduct.  Aggressive tactics in Flint’s seat of Boothby led to vandals attacking her office and the 41-year-old being stalked.

“I will be making a detailed submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters regarding the behaviour of GetUp & the Unions in the seat of Boothby during the election campaign,” she said.  ‘I will provide detailed evidence as to their tactics which included: flooding the electorate with print material personally attacking me.  Flooding Facebook, Twitter, Instagram with personal attacks on me, organising protesters outside my electorate office, at community events, at public transport stops, at Liberal events, at community debates.”

Mr Andrews, the former defence minister, who won his Melbourne seat of Menzies despite a strong campaign against him, will also make a submission to the committee. “I intend to make a submission to the Committee about the activities of GetUp and its affiliates,” he said.  Mr Andrews said that he was falsely accused of supporting gay conversion therapy, a topic he has never even discussed, with GetUp withdrawing the claim only after he threatened legal action.  He was also targeted by a group called Colour Code, which shared the same address as GetUp, and distributed material in Mandarin to Chinese-Australian voters in his electorate labelling him a racist.

Ms Flint, revealed she was stalked during the election campaign and had her election material vandalised.  She told the media she wanted the aggressive campaigns to stop and to make GetUp’s funding more transparent.  “I want to do everything in my power to make sure this behaviour stops in Australia,” she said.  “We’ve got to make sure people like me feel safe in my workplace.  We’ve never seen this level of aggression, and a lot of it was abuse as well.  “We need to fully expose the tactics of GetUp and the unions and how they’ve run these hit campaigns against people like me.

“I don’t believe GetUp is subject to the same political funding reporting requirements that the unions or certainly political parties are.  So where is the funding from?”  A spokesman for GetUp rejected responsibility for Ms Flint’s treatment, saying the group had written a tweet during the campaign condemning the attacks on her campaign office.  “GetUp condemns the sexist and cruel attacks Nicolle Flint and other women, such as Zali Steggall, faced during the election, as well as bullying from within the party.  “We specifically condemned the attacks on Ms Flint’s office at the time. There is no place for that in our politics,” it said.

“GetUp volunteers campaigned in Boothby to champion climate action, by singing alongside children’s entertainer Peter Combe, having heart-to-heart phone calls with their neighbours and volunteering on election day.  “We will continue to hold politicians to account on the issues that matter.”  A GetUp spokesman said the organisation would be “happy” to appear before MPs if they were hauled before the electoral affairs committee.  He also denied the activist network’s funding were not transparent.  “We are of course happy to assist the committee and will continue to do so in order to defend and advance Australian democratic participation” the spokesman said.

“GetUp is strictly regulated under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.  GetUp is obliged to disclose cumulative donations of $13,800 or more in a financial year to the Australian Electoral Commission, as are political parties.  “But because GetUp is passionate about transparency in our democracy, we disclose all cumulative donations of $10,000 or more in real time, unlike political parties, whose donations remain secret beyond election cycles.”

Print This Post Print This Post

 

SCOTT MORRISON MYSTIFIED BY CRICKET AUSTRALIA’S TRANSGENDER POLICY

By Australian Newsletter

Cricket Australia’s new transgender policy has been met with fierce opposition from a number of sources.  The policy will allow self-identifying transgender people to play in whatever category they choose.  This means biological men can play as women.  Prime Minister Scott Morrison has lashed the new policy as “mystifying” and “heavy handed”.  The new policy ensures transgender and gender-diverse people can play cricket at the highest level in Australia. “I think it’s pretty heavy-handed to put it mildly,” Mr Morrison said. “The thing about sport is it should be driven locally by clubs and I have no doubt these sorts of issues are being managed practically at a club level.”

The Prime Minister suggested “there are far more practical ways to handle these issues” and he also “cautioned it was important to  manage it calmly.”  Kirralie Smith, Binary spokeswoman, was also mystified by Cricket Australia’s decision. “Women will be the big losers of allowing biological men to compete as women.  Males have an inarguable advantage having gone through puberty with high levels of testosterone.  It is insulting to women who have worked hard to reach elite levels and it puts them in a dangerous position.  This is a sure-fire way to destroy women’s competitions and to remove all incentives for girls to even participate in the first place.”

Source: Binary

Print This Post Print This Post

 

AS ABORTION BILL PASSES NSW LOWER HOUSE CROSSBENCH MPs IN UPPER HOUSE REVOLT

By Australian Newsletter

There were cheers as the controversial bill to decriminalise abortion passed the NSW lower house.  The bill to remove terminations from the state’s criminal code passed 59 votes to 31, but created a split within the Liberals with many of the party’s 35 MPs opposing the bill.  The proposed laws will now be scrutinised by the Parliament’s social issues committee, before proceeding to a vote in the upper house where it is expected to pass.  Premier Gladys Berejiklian and Health Minister Brad Hazzard supported the bill, but others including Attorney-General Mark Speakman, Treasurer Dominic Perrottet and Planning Minister Rob Stokes voted against the bill.

Now a coalition of upper house MPs from across minor parties have banded together in a plot to thwart the passage of the bill and will launch a fresh bid to prevent sex-selective terminations from being legalised.  The gender selection issue has dominated the bruising debate for Premier Gladys Berejiklian and has trigged deep divisions in all parties.  The issue is so contentious it has changed the stance of Shooters, Fishers & Farmers (SFF) MPs, who hold critical power in the upper house, who will now likely vote against the bill.  Prior to the exposing of the gender-based abortion loophole, the SFF members had been supportive of the bill.

The abortion debate has now split the minor party, with three lower house Shooters MPs having supported it when it passed on Thursday night following three days of fiery debate.  Sydney’s Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher has expressed his distress that an amendment to save the lives of babies that are born alive after an abortion attempt was not passed.  “If a civilisation is to be judged by how it treats its weakest members, New South Wales has failed spectacularly,” he said.  “Better proposed amendments, such as one to require that a baby born alive after a failed abortion be given lifesaving care, were defeated.”

In the US, 143 infants were born alive and died between 2003 and 2014 after attempted abortions, according to the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention.  Liberal MP and former minister for women Tanya Davies unsuccessfully moved a motion to require “termination not to be used for gender selection”.  Instead, members agreed to an amendment by Nationals MP Leslie Williams noting disapproval of the practice.  It requires the health ministry to review and report within 12 months.  A number of minor party members in the upper house have vowed to revive the gender issues when the bill is before them on August 20.

Christian Democrat MLC Fred Nile is already discussing amendments with One Nation’s Mark Latham and several Liberal members, including a motion to prevent sex-selective abortion.  Mr Nile said he would revive the motions that Ms Davies failed to get through the lower house, including reducing the threshold for restrictions of late-term abortions from 22 weeks to 20.  “I think it’s very important to discourage women or families and husband or wife if they want to try and control whether they’re going to have girls or boys,” Mr Nile said.  Shooters Party leader Robert Borsak said he was likely to oppose the legislation after he became concerned over the gender issues.

“I just won’t countenance any situation where there’s a chance for cultural reasons or other for potential parents to be selecting against a female,” Borsak said.  “That’s an anathema to me and I don’t want that to happen.”  He said he believed fellow Shooter MLC Mark Banasiak and Mr Latham would also not support the legislation.  Labor MLC Courtney Houssos is also open to an amendment on sex-selective abortions.  Nine upper house MPs have told The Daily Telegraph they will not support the bill.  Independent MP Alex Greenwich, who originally moved the bill, said Ms Davies’ amendment was “hostile” and “poorly drafted”.

Health Minister Brad Hazzard said gender-selective abortion “should not happen”.  “Not one Member of Parliament should think that there is any opportunity in this state for gender-selective abortion to occur,” he said.  But he has been unable to point to a section of the bill that outlaws abortions based on gender.  Other major amendments that were rejected included one that would have strengthened protections for women against coercion to abort, and a motion to allow health services to collect data on abortions to determine their frequency, with claims that it was unfair to asylum seekers who wouldn’t have a Medicare card.

Source: Compiled by APN from media reports 

Print This Post Print This Post

 

CHINESE EMBASSY ATTACKS ANDREW HASTIE WARNING HE THREATENS AUSTRALIA’S FREEDOMS

By Australian Newsletter

Foreign Minister Marise Payne has declared Australia should not let differences with China define an “important” relationship, as the Chinese embassy accuses Liberal MP Andrew Hastie of adopting a “Cold War mentality” after warning its rise could place Australia’s sovereignty and freedoms at risk.  The embassy said the comments by Mr Hastie, the chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, were detrimental to China-Australia relations.  Mr Hastie used a column in Nine newspapers to compare the West’s response to China to that of the French against Nazi Germany.  The response by China’s embassy was swift.

“We strongly deplore the Australian federal MP Andrew Hastie’s rhetoric on ‘China threat’ which lays bare his Cold-War mentality and ideological bias,” the embassy said in a statement.  “History has proven and will continue to prove that China’s peaceful development is an opportunity, not a threat to the world.  “We urge certain Australian politicians to take off their ‘coloured lens’ and view China’s development path in an objective and rational way.  “They should make efforts to promote mutual trust between China and Australia, instead of doing the opposite.”

Senator Payne would not slap down Mr Hastie for his critique and said an Indo-Pacific that was free, open and prosperous was overwhelmingly in the interest of Australia and its partners in the region.  “There are many opportunities for both Australia and China in our bilateral relationship.  It’s an important relationship underpinned by a comprehensive strategic partnership and a free trade agreement which benefits both countries,” Senator Payne said.  “There are differences from time to time but we should not let our relationship be defined by those differences.  We will continue to manage the relationship in Australia’s best interests.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton defended Mr Hastie, saying he was one of the most distinguished members of parliament after serving as an SAS captain.  “Andrew Hastie is somebody who has served with great distinction and it is his right as a backbencher to raise issues that are of concern to him,” Mr Dutton said.  While he refused to comment on Mr Hastie’s opinion piece, Mr Dutton said Australia must ensure all of its partners respected its sovereignty whether it’s in the area of trade negotiations, the allegations of theft of IP or on our university campuses.  We’ll continue to work with countries so people understand the boundaries,” he said.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison distanced his government from Mr Hastie’s warning.  The Prime Minister did not reject Mr Hastie’s critique, saying the issues and challenges he had raised were not new.  But Mr Morrison pointed out his colleague, who also chairs the parliamentary joint standing committee on intelligence and security, was not a minister and was therefore free to say what he wanted as a backbench MP.  Mr Morrison said Australia would continue to have a “cooperative arrangement” with China and declared there was more to be gained from the relationship, particularly from a trade perspective.

Mr Hastie said Australia must be clear-eyed about its position in the world as it balanced security and trade interests.  “We are resetting the terms of engagement with China to preserve our sovereignty, security and democratic convictions, as we also reap the benefits of our trade relationship,” he said.  “Right now our greatest vulnerability lies not in our infrastructure, but in our thinking.  If we don’t understand the challenge ahead for our society, in our parliaments, in our universities, in our private enterprises, in our charities, our little platoons, then choices will be made for us.  Our sovereignty, our freedoms, will be diminished.

Source: Compiled by APN from media reports

Print This Post Print This Post

 

MARK LATHAM ACCUSES PREMIER OF VOTE DEAL ON ABORTION

By Australian Newsletter

One Nation NSW leader Mark Latham has accused NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian of doing a deal with Independent Alex Greenwich prior to the election to bring the abortion debate on because she was concerned she would fall into minority government at the March state election.  Mr Latham has accused Ms Berejiklian of running the “Berejiklian-Greenwich government”.  Mr Latham said Mr Greenwich was being given a “rails run” by the government, including on introducing a private members’ bill on abortion, when other members introduced private members bills and saw them kicked off to parliamentary committees for six months or not debated.

Mr Latham said Ms Berejiklian, who has a majority of two, had given Mr Greenwich three concessions since being elected: the abortion bill, making him chair of a committee which he said was aimed at killing coal jobs and making him deputy chair of the lockout laws review committee.  He also attacked the cross-party working group which had worked on the abortion bill, saying it was led by Nationals MP Trevor Khan, who he said had been given more power than most ministers.  “Trevor Khan is like a shop steward for the leftist progressive issues of the parliament,” Mr Latham said.

He said of the prospect of a Berejiklian-Greenwich deal: “How else do you explain this convergence of the private members bill that is rammed through the parliament?  “I’m putting two and two together and getting four.  A spokesman for the premier said of Mr Latham’s claims there was a deal with Mr Greenwich: “This is completely untrue.  It did not happen.”  Before the election, Mr Greenwich and fellow Independents wrote to Ms Berejiklian with a series of demands.  After the election, where she did not mention social issues, the Premier said social issues would be her priority in this term.

Source: Compiled by APN from media reports

Print This Post Print This Post

 

UN WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE TO HAVE A SAY IN OUR DAMS AND FLIGHT PATHS

By Australian Newsletter

A UN committee including members from China, Cuba, Uganda and Burkina Faso will oversee key decisions on Sydney’s future water supply, flood mitigation and flight paths from the new international airport.  Australia has agreed to give World Heritage Committee (WHC) members full details of the environmental impact of a planned increase in the height of the Warragamba Dam wall before any final decision to proceed is made.  The committee has also requested final flight path data for the new airport to ensure there is no impact on the Blue Mountains, a listed World Heritage area.

Intervention by the WHC could mean flights are routed over populated areas rather than the national park.  The committee also told the federal government to limit future mining development in and around the protected zone.  Australia was represented at the meeting by a nine-member delegation of senior bureaucrats as well as a six-person indigenous delegation from the Gunditjmara people of southwest Victoria.  The indigenous delegation’s attendance is in anticipation of a new heritage listing being approved for their area.  The Budj Bim area will be the first World Heritage listing of an Australian site exclusively for its cultural values.

Ms Ley said the federal government recognised the importance of protecting the Greater Blue Mountains’ World Heritage status.  “World Heritage listing is a significant international achievement for any property,” she said.  “It is based on a recognition that the Blue Mountains has outstanding natural values that are globally significant.  World Heritage listing protects the values of the property, and also delivers social and economic benefits.”  Ms Ley said the listing did not mean that development could not take place in western Sydney, “but it does mean that every effort has to be made to protect the natural values of the Greater Blue Mountains”.

“To retain the World Heritage listing it is important to demonstrate that those efforts are being made and that is what this process can achieve,” Ms Ley said. Raising the Warragamba Dam wall is a state government project but it is being assessed under the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act.  The federal government is the state party recognised by UNESCO for World Heritage matters.  Australia is one of 21 nations on the current World Heritage Committee.  Many of the nations on the WHC have poor environmental records, including host nation Azerbaijan.

The Absheron Peninsula in Azerbaijan is regarded as one of the most ecologically devastated regions in the world because of severe air, soil and water pollution.  Brazil and Indonesia have been criticised for widespread deforestation, while Zimbabwe’s poor mining practices are blamed for heavy metal pollution of the African nation’s land.  A coalition of environment groups, led by the Colong Foundation and including former Greens leaders Bob Brown and Christine Milne, has lobbied UNESCO to intervene.  Colong Foundation organiser Harry Burkitt said hundreds of donors, volunteers and supporters from western Sydney had helped take the Warragamba Dam fight to the UN.

Foundation director Keith Muir said that as a signatory to the World Heritage convention, Australia must accept the rules that go with it. “The World Heritage Committee is within its rights to criticise our intended damage to this World Heritage area,” he said.  The proposal to lift Warragamba Dam’s wall by 14m for flood mitigation is expected to cost more than $700 million.  NSW Finance Minister Damien Tudehope said the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam was a key element of the government’s flood strategy for the Hawkesbury Nepean river floodplain.

“While there will be some environmental impacts from temporarily holding floodwaters behind a raised dam wall, they must be measured against the social and financial impacts a catastrophic flood would have on western Sydney,” Tudehope said.  Critics argue the project is designed to provide additional land development opportunities in the flood-prone area.  Last October, the NSW parliament passed an amendment to the Water NSW Act 2014, exempting Warragamba Dam from the prohibition to increase temporary inundation in a national park.  Australia told the WHC the raising of the wall was expected to increase the frequency and extent of temporary inundation upstream of the dam.

The Committee noted this “with concern”. Former NSW environment minister Bob Debus told the WHC meeting the area proposed for intermittent inundation included up to 1000 hectares of World Heritage property and up to 3700ha within the adjacent protected area critical to its integrity.  Up to 65km of wilderness rivers would be inundated.  ”The area proposed for in­undation includes at least 300 known Gundungurra Aboriginal cultural sites, which would be damaged,” Mr Debus said.  He said the NSW government has treated the protection of outstanding universal value in a World Heritage area as little more than an irritating afterthought.

He said the state government’s real motivation was to increase residential development in the flood plain.  The WHC said inundation of any areas within the Blue Mountains World Heritage property was likely to impact on its outstanding universal value.  The committee reaffirmed that it considered the construction of dams with large reservoirs within the boundaries of World Heritage properties as incompatible with their World Heritage status.  The committee noted advice from Australia that development of Western Sydney Airport might result in “some noise impacts within the property”.  These could be minimised through the airspace and flight path design.

Source: Compiled by APN from media reports

Print This Post Print This Post

 

ABORTION DEBATE DELAYED AFTER LIBERAL MPs PUSH PREMIER FOR MORE TIME

By Australian Newsletter

Premier Gladys Berejiklian has delayed a vote to decriminalise abortion in NSW after conservative Liberal MPs pressured her for more time to consider it.  Independent MP Alex Greenwich introduced the bill last week, with an unprecedented 15 co-sponsors from all sides politics, but it will now not be debated until this week.  With debate expected to be held in Tuesday of this week, by the time you read this it is possible the debate and vote will have been finalised.  Several senior Liberals were keen to have the bill debated last week but in a heated Liberal Party room meeting last Tuesday, there was a push for the issue to be delayed.

Police Minister David Elliott, Riverstone MP Kevin Conolly, Mulgoa MP Tanya Davies and Vaucluse MP Gabrielle Upton were among those who were worried about it being rushed through.  Community Services Minister Gareth Ward defended Health Minister Brad Hazzard’s role in the drafting of the bill, telling colleagues Mr Hazzard’s involvement ensured a sensible outcome.  Mr Hazzard and Local Government Minister Shelley Hancock are co-sponsors of the bill, along with MPs from Labor, the Greens, the Nationals and Animal Justice.

One senior Liberal said there was concern MPs had not seen the bill until Saturday night and some wanted time to “talk to their communities” before taking a position.  “This really is a complex issue and I do understand people not wanting it rushed through because that could undermine the bill,” the source said.  The source said the delay “would mean it will get messy” because MPs will be pressured from religious leaders as well as pro-choice supporters.  Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher and a number of religious leaders have written to the Premier asking for an “urgent intervention” so that more time can be permitted for a “proper consultation”.

“It is the dream bill of the abortion industry, which they have already pressed upon other several states; but it will leave unborn children and unsupported pregnant women even more at risk,” the Archbishop said in a statement.  Mr Greenwich said he had a “firm commitment” from Ms Berejiklian, and the Leader of the House, Andrew Constance, that the bill would “be dealt with” this week.  “I hope opponents of the bill do not use this time to play politics with women’s bodies,” Mr Greenwich said.  “But I am pleased that the bill will take priority over government business on Tuesday.”

Mr Greenwich said the Liberal MPs who raised concerns in the party room meeting about the legislation being rushed through had not sought a briefing on the bill, despite being offered one.  Mr Constance, who has been a strong supporter of the bill, told the lower house that the bill will be debated on Tuesday and the issue finalised this week.  The proposed legislation would excise abortion from the state’s 119-year-old criminal code and create a standalone healthcare act to regulate the procedure.  It would allow abortion on request for women up to 22 weeks’ gestation performed by a registered doctor.  Women beyond 22 weeks would need the consent of two doctors.

Ms Berejiklian and several ministers have confirmed they will support the bill, which will be the first co-sponsored legislation to be introduced into the Legislative Assembly.  Opposition Leader Jodi McKay has also said she would back the bill.  The bill has more co-sponsors than any piece of legislation in the history of the NSW Parliament.  Both pro-choice and anti-abortion supporters have rallied  outside Parliament House this past week in an attempt to influence Parliamentarians who have still to make up their mind as to how they will vote on the issue.

Source: Compiled by APN from media reports

Print This Post Print This Post

 

CHRISTIAN LEADERS LAUNCH PETITION CALLING FOR A RELIGIOUS FREEDOM BILL

By Australian Newsletter

Christian leaders, lawyers and lobbyists across Australia are urging people of faith to call on the government to enact a “Religious Freedom” bill, to protect the rights of Australians to free religious expression.  Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Liberal Senator for NSW, launched it during a recent speech in Parliament.  hg The petition calls for an act that ensures Australians the right to freedom of speech, thought, conscience, religion and religious expression, both publicly and privately; protects Australians from coercion in the area of religion and belief; is limited only by laws around public safety, order, health, morals and fundamental human rights and freedoms; and enables parents to educate and raise their children according to their beliefs.

The government is currently workshopping possible legislation around the issue of religious protection, and a “Religious Discrimination Act” is one of the possible draft legislations that may be brought forward.  However many Christian voices, including lawyers from the Human Rights Law Alliance, and the Freedom for Faith lobby group, believe an act focused solely on cases of religious discrimination would not be adequate to protect Australians’ freedoms.  In her speech to the Federal Parliament, Senator Fierravanti-Wells said she had been a long-time advocate for people of faith and was determined to see Australians’ freedom of speech protected.

“A religious discrimination act is not sufficient,” she said.  “It would be defensive in nature and limited to protecting against acts and practices by others which are discriminatory on the grounds of religion.  It is important that Australians of all faiths be free to practise their religion without discrimination.  Even those who have no beliefs should be free to express those views.”  She said the sacking of Israel Folau by Rugby Australia for his faith-based statements on social media, was an example of the discrimination that Australians should be protected against.

“The Israel Folau issue has heightened already existing concerns about incursions on religious freedom,” she said.  “Ordinary people of faith are now, understandably, asking the question: ‘if I quote the Bible, will it get me into trouble?’  This is now the discussion at the kitchen table for Australians who hold religious beliefs.”  A petition is now in circulation among Christian groups across the country, and the Senator is also urging people of faith to voice their concerns around the issue of religious freedom with their local Federal Member of Parliament.

Source: Hope 103.2FM

Print This Post Print This Post