Quantcast
Channel: Cognate Socialist Dystopia
Viewing all 585 articles
Browse latest View live

The large last part prev. comments reproduced...

$
0
0
The  last large part from prev. comments reproduced from my  earlier blog entry.
Simply because all comments could not otherwise be reproduced.
GS




Myra

Myra
To me this seems just another ploy to keep Labor in the forefront of the media, as only Labor can do.One has to wonder though what would possess them publishing books which are just an apology for their long litany of disasters and poor policies and just brings into focus their sheer disconnect with both voters and the needs of a present day economy.I wonder if they truly believe that this constant sad parade of books and interviews will in anyway help their cause?
From where I sit, it just reinforces the wise choice the nation made in voting in Mr Abbott and his able team.  

jeff

jeff
@Myra Totally agree. This 'sad parade of books and interviews' is just their means of justifying the decisions and processes put in place that brought this country to its knees. Other than throwing a few bones (Gillard on Carr) they are just not admitting their mistakes, they are still in denial.

Barbara

Barbara
when i saw the thumbnail pic of julia with a man, for a moment i thought - could it be tim? but no - its Ray. that made a lot more sense.
Wayne

Wayne
@Myra I note Howard was interviewed last night.. mainly because he published yet another book.  All former politicians do it.  They crave the limelight because it has now been removed from them most spectacularly.  Personally I like these interviews because its the first time you usually get any honesty out of them (and I am pointing at both sides here) about what actually went on behind the scenes for most of the iconic moments of politics.

Keith

Keith
@Myra How soon can we expect a book on their success, or it will it only take up enough space to fill a bookmark.
Robyn

Robyn
It's amazing that Gillard, like other ex PMs of this country, can remember the smallest details when creating their own historical version of their time in politics. It is truly a great shame that she can't remember whether or not corrupt union money was used to pay for renovations to her house.

Pat.

Pat.
@Robyn But could balance the books concerning the renovations expenditure and invoices paid when questioned, with no paperwork, very accurately going back all those years, supposedly proving it was all above board. Yet much simpler questions received the "I cannot recall" response. That's credible?

Mouse

Mouse
@Pat. @Robyn  Like she couldn't remember in 1995 when asked by her boss but now, 20 years  later and having no bank records available, can remember definitely paying herself. And they wonder why are all the people are cynical!!  Go figure...  :o/
Nancy

Nancy
Robyn, She remembers, don't you worry about that, Look at her face when she says, I don't remember!!!!
Soi

Soi
Is there anyone left in the recent Labor Government not writing a book about how they were betrayed by everyone else and had nothing to do with their own downfall?

Craig

Craig
First female and worst PM we ever had although I think KRUDD might just pip her for being worst.
Michael

Michael
"....... being beaten up by Abbott and Rudd and the Canberra press gallery,’’ Say what?

Narelle

Narelle
The way I remember that time....Gillard was a protected species by the Canberra press gallery. They did everything in their power to protect Gillard and denigrate Abbott.

Mark

Mark
Who cares Ray?  I won't be watching.

Incidentally I wonder how many of these insights will be shared with her St Louis Missouri USA audience in October when she is a key note speaker at one of the Universities in St Louis - or whether it will be more about the socialist paradise that she and Swannie set about establishing.

Right! said Fred

Right! said Fred
I think that whichever university it is, we, the people os Oz ought to be given a right of reply immediately following whatever it is she might have to say
Roger

Roger
What a waste of pixels (or ink). Great she can remember these things given they happened 5 years ago. All in all her leadership was characterised by blunder after blunder, spin after spin and cover-up after cover-up and policy failure after policy failure - remember she's the one that surrounded herself with the fools at the wheel like Jenny Macklin and Stephen Conroy, and Bill Shorten - whoops isn't he leader now?

horse2go

horse2go
Gillard's term as Prime Minister was an Encyclopedia of mistakes. She should fade away into the background and virtually disappear like the Cheshire cat leaving a humble smile on view. It could be though that she is being paid for this ridiculous heart to heart with the Ray of Sunshine so, one can only hope that 9 will get it's money's worth.

RM

RM
Not their ABC ??? That's a surprise.

Ian

Ian
@RM Oh come on RM!!  Gillard being interviewed by anyone at the ABC? Are you joking?  Who're they going to get to ask hard questions?  Although they don't have an interviewer called Dorothy Dix to interview members of the ALP (and the Greens for that matter) there are at least 6 who might just as well be called that and they're not all female either.  How hard do you think the questions would be from Barrie Cassidy or David Marr or Leigh Sales or Emma Alberici or Fran Kelly or Tony Jones?  That said, it would be  both remiss and unfair not to note that Chris Uhlmann probably would have given Ms Gillard a  much more searching interview than many of his colleagues at the ABC.  However, what are the chances he would have been selected as the interviewer?

Beverley

Beverley
@Ian @RM  It won't be a hard interview Ian, after all Ray Martin used to work for the ABC many moons ago.
Andrew

Andrew
As always Labor can't help talking about itself. We know they are rubbish. She talks like the all happened decades ago. It was only last year she was booted out by her own party.

grant

grant
Hazarding a guess I presume Ms. Gillard had her choice of interviewers and of course chose good Old Ray the real marshmallow in the CH9 line up.

"Beaten up by Rudd, Abbott and the Canberra Press Gallery"  Just which planet does Mr Martin occasionally visit from?

Flanders

Flanders
If Labor had any guts then it would have kicked Rudd out of the party for undermining Gillard. But instead they were weak and Gillard had to conjure up the nonsense that Tony Abbott was a misogynist. It also makes you seriously question Shorten's judgement to bring back Rudd. It really could not have been a worse six years of Government.

aghast

aghast
@Flanders AND...if they had expelled Rudd he would have resigned from parliament...AND..LNP would have won the subsequent by election..AND labor would not have the numbers to govern.Remember it was a hung parliament...The score is on the board for Gillard..She had a choice when she told Rudd she would not challenge..personal ambition or integrity..her ambition to be PM won out..When she promised that there would be no carbon tax under a government she would lead she had a choice.. personal ambition or integrity...AGAIN..ambition to be PM won out over keeping her word.As an insider she had the goods on Thomson yet she defended him for months to hold power..when Slippers sleaze reared its ugly head she defended him..to hold power....By her own actions she displayed repeatedly that raw ambition won out over personal integrity...
Malcolm

Malcolm
Apart from Rudd....the biggest mistake for the Labour Party was the appointment of Gillard." All this drivel about being "beaten up by Rudd, Abbott and the media"...Misogyny was it??
How weak can a person be?....especially when they dish out the dirt but can't take it themselves.
That this absolute goose of an incompetent  woman, lounging around on a whopping ex PM's  pension after pile driving Australia's economy and its legislature into the ground now sits in judgment of others just makes one laugh.

Great stuff....especially for the Coalition

Lynda

Lynda
Oh Julia how you continue to jest, to deny, to fabricate. Whatever it takes to cover that reputation hey? Beaten up by the Canberra Press Gallery? Please!!!! Just go away.....

Robert

Robert
@Lynda  Exactly! The Canberra Press Gallery was brown nosing Gillard from beginning to end. The ABC had to be dragged to the AWU affair. The whole six year affair was just incompetence!




9 April 2014 Bob Carr 'frustrated' by Israeli lobby and lack of First Class fares

$
0
0


Bob Carr 'frustrated' by Israeli lobby and lack of First Class fares

Posted 9 Apr 2014, 8:20pm
In his first interview about his book on his time as Foreign Minister, Bob Carr says he was frustrated by the influence of the Israeli lobby and makes no apologies for his preference for First Class flights.
Source: 7.30 | Duration: 13min 4sec
SARAH FERGUSON, PRESENTER: Bob Carr was Australia's Foreign minister for just a year and a half, but the Labor heavyweight found enough material to write a 500-page book on his time in the job.
In The Diary of a Foreign Minister, Bob Carr details what he sees as some of the biggest problems in Australian politics.
He's singled out the Israeli lobby, saying its influence on Australian politics has reached an unhealthy level.
He also declares that former Prime Minister Julia Gillard was selfish for not standing down from the top job.
Like all good diaries, it mixes the lofty with the mundane - his desperation for first-class upgrades on international travel, what he ate for breakfast when he got there and where to buy the best tie.
To get the gossip and the geopolitics, I met up with Bob Carr earlier today in Sydney.
Bob Carr, welcome to 7.30.
BOB CARR, FORMER FOREIGN MINISTER: Pleasure to be with you.
SARAH FERGUSON: The Prime Minister arrives in China today, having announced closer Defence ties with Japan on the way. What sort of reception is Tony Abbott going to get from the Chinese?
BOB CARR: They have been satisfied that the Prime Minister's retreated from what he had said earlier, namely that Japan is an ally of Australia. That was important to them. It was a mistake to describe Japan as an ally and the Prime Minister has beaten a retreat from that and that's sensible. He should be given credit. The Chinese will write that off as the missteps of a new government. I think we've got to think carefully about an Australian prime minister turning up at a national security meeting of the Japanese cabinet. Now what message is that meant to convey? It is in Australia's interests to be strictly neutral when it comes to the territorial disputes in which China's involved and to urge both sides to peacefully resolve those disputes.
SARAH FERGUSON: Let's go to the book. The strongest criticism of all in the book is aimed at the Melbourne Jewish lobby. Now, there are lobby groups for every cause under the sun. What's wrong with the way that group operates?
BOB CARR: Well the important point about a diary of a Foreign minister is that you shine light on areas of government that are otherwise in darkness and the influence of lobby groups is one of those areas. And what I've done is to spell out how the extremely conservative instincts of the pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne was exercised through the then-Prime Minister's office. And I speak as someone who was in agreement with Julia Gillard's agenda on everything else. But I've got to say, on this one, I found it very frustrating that we couldn't issue, for example, a routine expression of concern about the spread of Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Great blocks of housing for Israeli citizens going up on land that everyone regards as part of a future Palestinian state, if there is to be a two-state solution resolving the standoff between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East.
SARAH FERGUSON: You're saying that the Melbourne Jewish lobby had a direct impact on foreign policy as it was operated from inside Julia Gillard's cabinet?
BOB CARR: Yeah, I would call it the Israeli lobby - I think that's important. But certainly they enjoyed extraordinary influence. I had to resist it and my book tells the story of that resistance coming to a climax when there was a dispute on the floor of caucus about my recommendation that we don't block the Palestinian bid for increased non-state status at the United Nations.
SARAH FERGUSON: They're still a very small group of people. How do you account for them wielding so much power?
BOB CARR: I think party donations and a program of giving trips to MPs and journalists to Israel. But that's not to condemn them. I mean, other interest groups do the same thing. But it needs to be highlighted because I think it reached a very unhealthy level. I think the great mistake of the pro-Israel lobby in Melbourne is to express an extreme right-wing Israeli view rather than a more tolerant liberal Israeli view, and in addition to that, to seek to win on everything, to block the Foreign Minister of Australia through their influence with the Prime Minister's office, from even making the most routine criticism of Israeli settlement policy using the kind of language that a Conservative Foreign secretary from the UK would use in a comparable statement at the same time.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now, in that period, you give a very frank account of cabinet discussions - the cabinet discussions about a vote on the status of Palestine in the UN. Now during those cabinet discussions, you effectively rolled Julia Gillard. Do you have any qualms about revealing the details of those cabinet discussions?
BOB CARR: Yeah, one would have to think seriously about that, and I did, but on balance, I think that the public's right to know how foreign policy is made, how cabinet works, outweighs any other considerations. And the value of a diary written so close to the events is that Australians get a better idea of how government works.
SARAH FERGUSON: You're candid about other world leaders, but to be fair, you're also fairly candid about yourself. In fact, you come over as a bit of an obsessive. Are you?
BOB CARR: Yeah, I am. Look, I've got to say, living on airline food and food at official banquets offended every rule of life I adhere to on this front. And in my first month of the job, my weight dropped by about a quarter of a stone - whatever that is in kilos. And it was such an inherently unhealthy lifestyle - living on planes, subsisting on that cuisine - I thought it would have knocked about two years off my life.
SARAH FERGUSON: You talk obsessively about food. You also complain about which class you're flying in airlines. Are you a prima donna?
BOB CARR: Um, I remember once flying from Sydney to the Gulf, to Dubai, and then with an hour's break, on to Cairo, and having to have a meeting with President Morsi, with the Foreign Minister, with the Secretary-General of the Arab League, and I got to tell you, Sarah, having been upgraded to first-class was a great advantage. I make no apologies whatsoever for wanting to arrive on these missions for Australia in the best condition possible.
SARAH FERGUSON: People are going to make a lot out of those remarks though, aren't they?
BOB CARR: Faced with a choice, having to get off a plane and go straight to a meeting with the French Foreign Minister in Paris, I tell you what, I'd prefer first-class any time.
SARAH FERGUSON: Let's just go back to some of the big foreign policy issues that you talk about throughout the book. You're very critical of US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've just had elections in Afghanistan, quite successful ones with a high turnout, despite a very sustained campaign by the Taliban in the lead up. You said this: "After 12 years of war, it's been a waste. Huge armies mobilise the largest coalition in history for nothing." Is that view too bleak, do you think?
BOB CARR: One very candid Australian said to me, "If I'd been given a few buckets of money, I could have gone up there to Uruzgan Province and achieved everything we achieved by military endeavour with bribes of local chieftains." That might be too brutal and he might have spoken with exaggeration for effect, but I suspect there's an element of truth.
SARAH FERGUSON: On Iraq, again, hugely critical of that war, you say that Donald Rumsfeld amongst others should be put on trial. Are you seriously talking about a war crimes trial for US officials?
BOB CARR: No, that's a rhetorical point. But I cannot believe the suffering, the dislocation. Four million refugees, for example, a cost of trillions to the US, a weakened US, strengthened enemies of America, like Al-Qaeda in Iraq, as a result of this flight of fancy that took America into that war, with Australia shamefully at its side, yelping like a pet poodle.
SARAH FERGUSON: You replaced the Mandarin-speaking diplomat Kevin Rudd as Foreign Minister. Was he a good Foreign minister?
BOB CARR: I believe Kevin Rudd was good. I noticed with some amusement people who had tough experiences with him, including a Japanese deputy prime minister who was almost crouching in his chair during my meeting with him. I asked our ambassador later why even by Japanese standards there was this reserve or shyness and he said that when he was last in Australia meeting an Australian Foreign minister, he'd been really taken to task by Kevin on the issue of whaling. I thought that was a comment on Kevin's forcefulness.
SARAH FERGUSON: Now, your period as Foreign minister was set against terrible, uniquely awful in-fighting in the party. What was it about Julia Gillard's leadership in the end that finally convinced you to switch support to Kevin Rudd?
BOB CARR: We all wanted Julia to work. But by the time we decided, in our wisdom as a cabinet, to go to war with the newspapers, I thought, "The very viability of social democracy in Australia of a viable Australian Labor Party is now at stake." So with some reluctance and with respect for her, but real doubts about her political judgment, I moved into the Rudd camp.
SARAH FERGUSON: You're also scathing about her voice. Was that really important?
BOB CARR: No, no. I said - I made gentle humour and she was comfortable with it from time to time. I think I made gentle humour once or twice about what she'd joke about: her distinctive, broad Australian accent.
SARAH FERGUSON: But actually you do think those things are important. You - and I'm not being superficial about the ties - you think how you look is important, you talk about your own voice. Did you think that her voice and the way she communicated was a big part of the problem?
BOB CARR: I thought a lot of the time she was very good. And I couldn't understand the level of hostility that she ended up attracting, but you couldn't ignore that. Minority status diminishes any government and then a campaign by Rudd to get back. Jacobean revenge drama, knives flashing, blood flowing, and for all of us in the Labor Party, it's a relief to get beyond it. I wish both of them well.
SARAH FERGUSON: You also said she was selfish - just to stay with her for a moment - not to hand over the leadership. That was - that's a pretty subjective judgment. She was still the elected leader.
BOB CARR: Yeah, that was at the last moment; that was before the final leadership challenge and I thought - I thought, "If someone had presented me with figures, polling figures about state government in NSW that said, "You're now a significant barrier to the Government's re-election," I would have said, "Look, fine. Fine. I've done my best. It ain't working. I'll pull out, and, apart from anything else, I won't be the one indicted with the responsibility on the Sunday after election."
SARAH FERGUSON: There's a rueful tone when you talk about your own - the chance that you may have had to be leader yourself. How much do you regret having not seized those opportunities?
BOB CARR: I don't regret it. I think it was very difficult times. But as - I think they were very difficult times for anyone. But as someone who headed a state government, I naturally found myself thinking that if I'd been Prime Minister, for example, we would have gone straight to a carbon trading scheme and not lingered with the set price, the tax. We wouldn't have retreated from John Howard's offshore processing, or if we had, we would have returned to something like it pretty quickly. That fight with the newspapers. By my fiscal conservatism, a too-grand recovery package. But on the other hand, I got to say, the Rudd Government saved the country from the GFC and rebuilt the school system of the country. Now they're proud Labor achievements. I my conservative instincts might have been wrong.
SARAH FERGUSON: One very specific question for you is for the leader of this state. We're now witnessing the twin horror shows of ICAC going again to Eddie Obeid and a Royal commission into union corruption starting today. What is it about the ALP in NSW that allows people like Eddie Obeid and union officials, corrupt ones, to flourish?
BOB CARR: Yeah, I think the NSW party, once a grand political force, has got to have a real debate about this.
SARAH FERGUSON: What does that mean, a debate? It's more like cleaning out the Augean stables, isn't it?
BOB CARR: That goes without saying, but Obeid's entree was based on a mix of fundraising and mateship ethos gone to seed. I'm not saying it was a proud episode in Labor's history and the stables have got to be hosed out with one of those industrial standard fire hoses and that's a big challenge.
SARAH FERGUSON: Do you think that Australians will forgive you for presenting yourself as a dandy who thinks a lot about which tie he's going to wear?
BOB CARR: Yeah, I think self-parody and irony is the stuff of life and I wanted the book to have that flavour. The flavour's - the flavour's me.
SARAH FERGUSON: It's irony.
BOB CARR: And fun, a sense of fun. Life is too short to be taken seriously.
SARAH FERGUSON: Bob Carr, thank you very much for joining us.
BOB CARR: Thank you.

THE OZ NOV 10 2014 ‘Pope’ Bob Carr raises party ire on Israel apartheid claim

$
0
0

‘Pope’ Bob Carr raises party ire on Israel apartheid claim

Carr raises party ire on Israel claim
Former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr yesterday. Source: Supplied
LABOR MPs have criticised Bob Carr’s claim of creeping “apartheid” by Israel, with one describing the former foreign minister and NSW premier as the self-­appointed “Pope of Social Democracy”.
Mr Carr, the inaugural patron of Labor Friends of Palestine, hit back at claims he was “grandstanding” and a “dilettante” for leading a party push to recognise the Arabs’ 26-year-old claim to statehood. He said it was “inevitable” that Labor would support recognition of Palestine, possibly before the next election.
As the party prepares for a rancorous ALP national conference battle over the issue, several of Mr Carr’s former colleagues moved to distance themselves from his comments — or openly attack him. Deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek said recognition of Palestinian statehood must occur “in the context of a negotiated peace process”. “I don’t think we should diminish the seriousness of the apartheid struggle in South Africa,” the opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman told Sky News’sViewpoint.
Melbourne Ports MP Michael Danby accused Mr Carr, who founded Labor Friends for Israel with Bob Hawke in 1977, of obsessing about overturning Labor’s support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
He called Mr Carr “the Pope of Social Democracy” pronouncing party policy. “Bob Carr never says anything about the seven million peaceful Tibetans living under Chinese oppression, “ he said.
“He has never said anything about the 300,000 North Koreans in concentration camps. He said little about the 200,000 dead in Syria, or the Christians and other minorities facing death right across the Middle East,” Mr Danby, one of two Jewish federal Labor MPs, told The Australian.
“We will not solve, let alone impose, a solution on the Israelis or Palestinians from Australia.”
Mr Carr now believes fanatics in the Israeli government favour ongoing “apartheid” over a two-state solution. He did not know how long it would take for the Labor Party to achieve a unified stance for a Palestinian state. “These things are being determined on the ground. In the West Bank, the living conditions of the Palestinians are getting worse,” Mr Carr said.
“Every week there’s a new settlement announcement. Every week another Israel cabinet minister announces formally and ­officially he’s opposed to a Palestinian state.”
Melissa Parke, a former Rudd government minister, said the intervention of a Right faction figure in Mr Carr was important in pushing the issue at the supreme policy meeting, the national conference.
“(Recognition) would be a ­fairly popular position within the Left and you would also have many people within the Right who have had a change of heart on this issue in recent years,” the Fremantle MP said. “If I were to say this, nobody would be surprised and it probably wouldn’t get much attention. But when it’s somebody like Bob Carr, such a respected figure in Australian politics over many years, it makes people stand up and take notice.”
Josh Frydenberg, the ­Coalition’s only Jewish MP, ­attacked Mr Carr as a “lazy” minister and a “dilettante” on foreign affairs.
“This grandstanding by Bob Carr is all about him. It is nothing else but an obsession on Bob Carr’s part,” Mr Frydenberg told Sky News’s Australian Agenda.
“I just think it is because he has got relevance-deprivation syndrome. He was a failure as a state premier, he was a failure as a foreign minister.”
Mr Frydenberg also criticised Mr Carr’s “obsession” with Israel while remaining “silent” about ­Islamic State.
Mr Carr discounted Mr Frydenberg as a “fanatical Likud supporter” who supported settlements and opposed a two-state solution.
“Fanaticism adds nothing to this debate,” he said.
“ISIL (Islamic State) has got nothing to do with Palestinians. The spread of settlements or the loss of the opportunity for a two-state solution I think is the issue here. To suddenly throw ISIL up as a reason for no two-state solution is pure opportunism.”
Mr Carr said as more countries observed that a two-state solution was unlikely, and as settlements spread, other governments would follow Sweden’s lead in recognising a Palestinian state.
The British House of Commons also voted to recognise the state of Palestine last month in a symbolic and non-binding motion that passed 274 to 12. More than half of MPs abstained, although Labour leader Ed Miliband, who is Jewish, voted in favour.


Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.

63 COMMENTS
60 people listening

AFR - APR 10 2014 Bob Carr’s diary: notes in a gilded cage

$
0
0
mmm

Bob Carr’s diary: notes in a gilded cage

From day one in his coveted new job, Bob Carr gives every im­pression of occupying a (very well-travelled) version of what scholars of the Japanese mon­archy have called a gilded cage.
Being a member of the foreign ministers’ club is a choice post for any politician, more so for one who had worn the ambition for so long and so publicly through the long slog of running a state in a country so distant from the aura of the Washington Monument which, we are quickly reminded, he first visited in 1972 on a United States government junket.
“Forty years on, I’m in the city – the art ­collections and historic sites and surrounding battlefields I now know like the back of my hand – as foreign minister, this time in the Willard Hotel, where in 1861 Lincoln checked in, described so brilliantly in the ­opening ­chapter of Vidal’s Lincoln," Australia’s 37th foreign minister noted in his diary on April 20, 2012.
We are not informed whether Kim Beazley , a man with much more international min­isterial experience than Carr, but now merely his man on the ground in Washington as ambassador, found himself in a position of being at Carr’s “disposal".
AFR
AFR Illustration: David Rowe
Proffering himself in such a manner was the one concession to deference in a stern 3½-page email Beazley sent Carr a few days before the visit to set him straight on dealing with the US.
Carr had apparently lapsed from four ­decades of Washingtonian Kool-Aid consumption to describe as “sensible" a recent opinion piece by former Australian army chief Peter Leahy cautioning about broader military ties with the US. “Can I make a few points early?" Beazley asks his boss of only five weeks in an email which welcomes him to the “wilderness of lightning rods".
“I find Peter Leahy’s article infuriating. This is personal."

DEFINING THEME

Carr’s Diary of a Foreign Minister is a rarity in Australian politics, slotting in alongside the jottings of Mark Latham and Neal Blewett . Readers will find neither the take-no-prisoners character assessments of Latham (no complaints from foreign embassies should be required) nor the scope of Blewett (a political scientist by training), if only because Carr has a scant 18 months to work with.
But it is those 18 months that are the defining theme of the book. The conversation with NSW Labor Party secretary Sam Dastyari ­giving Carr Kevin Rudd ’s old job on behalf of prime minister Julia Gillard had been blunt about the likely life span of the government he was joining.
“Very hard to deny oneself this. I got on board," Carr writes in the preface, presumably after the event but still in the introspective, mostly daily narrative style of a man ­wondering what the hell he should do with so little time in his dream job.
As he puts it at the very beginning, almost with a sense of fatalism: “In total it will be 18 months to test what propositions hold, what fall by the wayside. And to decide whether it was history."
In reality, the cage was locked from the beginning. There was no time to plan a ­massive Kissinger-style realist realignment of foreign relations but, nevertheless, enough spare time for a frolic in the Californian forest at the ironically named Bohemian Grove with US Republican grandees at Henry’s invitation. The former US secretary of state emerges as a constant reference point in personal ­meetings and letters as Carr wrangles with how his achievements will sit alongside those of the grandmaster.
Constrained or not, Carr is preoccupied from the beginning with Australia’s contin­uing Nixonian challenge of how to respond to the rise of China and seems to see this as an area where historians will gratefully turn to his book for a contemporaneous account of a ­foreign policy dilemma. And it is a fascinating account of how a man with a sense of history, and an almost cheesy passion for America, wrestles with the rise of the new superpower.
But in the end, he only finds himself ­diligently reading his talking points in sundry meetings with sundry Chinese leaders in sundry cities until he can finally let Gillard savour the success of winning an annual dialogue with the Chinese leadership. “She deserves to bask. She enjoys so few wins," Carr wrote on April 10, 2013, while admitting he simply didn’t know why the Chinese had been so accommodating to a then fading Australian government.

CONSTANT TUSSLE WITH CHINA

Despite this constant tussle with the China question, Carr remarkably reveals at the very end that he never had a chance to discuss with Rudd the rationale behind the strongly anti-China tone of the 2009 defence white paper overseen by Rudd as prime minister and from which Carr feels he spent so much of his short time in power recovering.
The path to ministerial greatness was also locked by a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that seems to have regarded Carr as a slightly unpredictable gadfly, who was ­sometimes ­cavalier with the briefing notes and who unsettled policy wonks with his thinly ­disguised view that a bit of good old NSW-style hucksterism could always juice up the story for a popular audience.
This is abundantly clear in Washington in April 2012, when Carr writes of having 10 departmental people around the table at the Willard, but: “I was getting panicky. The bland briefing notes were the problem. BORING!" But it was most bluntly driven home on ­January 17, 2013, when – as Carr was to record: “Sometimes – only sometimes – my department springs to life in ways that reveal its ­hidden personality."
The minister had been generating some headlines with comments about the need for Australia to align its foreign policy closer to that of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, a theme he is still pursuing in his ­post-politics academic career. In this case, he had lent some sympathy to a pro-ASEAN speech by former prime ministerPaul Keating , only to prompt an unrequested ministerial ­submission from the department asking him to clarify that “Australia has no plans to seek or even consider membership [of ASEAN] even in the long term".
That submission is now buried in the archives with Carr’s blunt notation: “My ­comments were in response to remarks of a former prime minister – who I choose to treat with courtesy – and didn’t reflect any desire to shift Australia’s position. No need to pursue or clarify."
What will the department make of Carr’s diary entry on the previous November 3, where he reflects with satisfaction on an ­interview with this newspaper backing policy alignment with ASEAN? “Merely saying it in The Australian Financial Reviewmeans that becomes ­Australia’s stance. That’s Australian policy. The medium is the message."

MAN IN RACE AGAINST TIME

“Outrageous. Doable," he tells himself on June 16. High over the Med­iterranean on June 18, he notes: “How could I not give it a try? At least go through the motions? It’s the right thing to do and back home it creates a storyline and plants me in it.
“In that idle, self-indulgent holiday last Christmas . . . I could never have believed I’d have another cycle of public life given me . . . Then – in a puff of smoke – in August next year it’ll all be gone."
Enough of the high life. What makes Carr’s book beguiling is its honesty about life’s limit­ations. In the end, he concludes, despite all the early expectations in Washington, a visit to Myanmar (Carr changed the official Aust­ralian nomenclature from Burma) to Aus­tralian-funded schools was “one of the best days of my life". Likewise, he describes a trip to the Solomon Islands as the “single most interesting visit I have done".
Carr’s focus on how Australia can do more and learn more in south-east Asia than in the corridors of power in Washington or Geneva is a valuable, if personally humbling, insight from this book by a man with erstwhile grander ambitions. It is one that other politicians should pay attention to.
This long journey around the world,­ only to be brought down to earth, seeking small but useful achievements closer to home, is really brought into focus by a telling chronological omission.
The diary starts on the way to the United Nations in New York on April 9, 2012. But this is more than two weeks after Carr had been sworn in and had already been to New Zealand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Singapore, in what was spun at the time to this writer by an effervescent new foreign minister as an important symbolic visit to often overlooked small neighbours. Indeed, Carr promised enthusiastically that he would give Singapore more space in the Gillard government’s Asian Century white paper.

PORTENTOUS DATELINES

New York, Brussels, Washington: the portentous datelines of April 2012 recur time and time again, rivalled only by observations about poor hotel food, recovery Pilates at home in Maroubra and ham-fisted Labor ­colleagues bringing a journeyman foreign ministership to an untimely end. And they – not Singapore – seemed to be the right place at the right time to inspire a diary.
How ironic that it all finishes on election day in 2013, without staff, on a train in Russia where Carr had been caretaker representative at the Group of 20 meeting. Earlier, far from being an awkward political seat-warmer ­sitting amid the world’s most powerful con­tinuing leaders, Carr spends part of the meeting reflecting on his career as a boy from a fibro house who went on to run NSW. “I didn’t feel that here – amiable democrats though many of them are – could teach me much."
But on the train the vista narrows. “The 18 months are up, ending as it was always going to end, although I would never have guessed in St Petersburg. Had this been history? Seeing (Myanmar) President Thein Sein’s face lighten when I told him Australia was lifting, not just suspending, sanctions.
“I had stepped into this narrative, though only briefly. It was history. But speeding past, and already fading like an illusion."


jjj



CARR ET AL: United States Studies Centre AT THE University of Sydney NSW 2006

$
0
0
hhh


mbbnnv


Contact


United States Studies Centre
Institute Building (H03)
City Rd
University of Sydney NSW 2006
Australia


General enquiries

T: +61 2 9351 7249
F: +61 2 9351 6877
E: us-studies@sydney.edu.au
 

Media enquiries

Jonathan Bradley
Media Officer
E: jonathan.bradley@sydney.edu.au
T: 02 9114 2683
Max Halden
Media Officer
E: max.halden@sydney.edu.au
T: 02 9036 9137 






n,mn
http://ussc.edu.au/people/bob-carr

The Honourable Bob Carr

Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs

Bob Carr was formerly a member of the US Studies Centre Board of Directors. He was a speaker at the 2011 National Summit.
Bob Carr is the longest continuously serving Premier in New South Wales history. Born in 1947 he was educated at Matraville High School and the University of New South Wales.
He was a journalist with ABC Radio and The Bulletin.
Elected as Member for Maroubra in 1983, he was Minister for Planning and Environment and Minister for Heritage in the Wran and Unsworth Governments.
He served as Leader of the Opposition from 1988 until his election as Premier in March 1995. He was re-elected in 1999 and again in March 2003 securing an historic third four-year term.
He retired from politics in 2005 after over 10 years as Premier.
During these 10 years the State Government set new records for spending on infrastructure, became the first government in the State's history to retire debt, hosted the world's best Olympics in 2000, achieved the nation's best school literacy levels, and Forbes magazine called Bob Carr a "dragon slayer" for his landmark tort law reforms.
As Premier he introduced the world's first carbon trading scheme and curbed the clearing of native vegetation as anti-greenhouse measures. Today he chairs the Advisory Council of the Climate Institute. He was a member of the International Task Force on Climate Change convened by Tony Blair.
He is also Chair of the Board of the Asbestos Diseases Research Foundation; a member of the Board of the Dymocks Group of Companies, a member of the advisory board of the Centre for Australian Studies at Georgetown University, Washington and a member of the India Council for Sustainable Development.
Bob Carr has received the Fulbright Distinguished Fellow Award Scholarship and the World Conservation Union International Parks Merit Award. He has served as Honorary Scholar of the Australian American Leadership Dialogue. He is the author of Thoughtlines (2002), What Australia Means to Me (2003), and My Reading Life (2008).


mbmb


m,mmm




14 APR 2014 CARR IN 'THE CONVERSATION'

$
0
0



REPUBLISH THIS ARTICLE

We believe in the free flow of information. We use aCreative Commons Attribution NoDerivativeslicense, so you can republish our articles for free, online or in print.
http://theconversation.com/gareth-evans-bob-learned-early-self-deprecation-is-for-dummies-25579



Gareth Evans: ‘Bob learned early self-deprecation is for dummies’




Bob Carr ‘obviously revelled being back in the middle of the action’ in his 18 months as foreign minister, says former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans. AAP/Alan Porrittminister, says former Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans. AAP/Alan Porritt

Bob Carr took on the job of Australian foreign minister believing, as he doesn’t hesitate to tell us in his Diary of a Foreign Minister, that it was highly unlikely that he would be there for very long.
And although he doesn’t put this in quite so many words, it is clear that he approached the role, in these circumstances, with three basic objectives: to keep himself, and Australia, out of trouble; to have a ball; and to write up the whole experience for posterity in the most readable and colourful possible way. On the evidence of our eyes and ears over the last two years, and now of his book, it is clear that, on all three counts, he succeeded admirably.
He slid effortlessly into the presentational role at home and abroad, and kept himself out of trouble with the media (even maintaining, miraculously, the adoration of Greg Sheridan for the whole of his tenure – not the five weeks maximum that I told him was the previous record).
He kept Australia’s flag comfortably flapping through countless multilateral forums and bilateral exchanges; contributed significantly to our spectacularly successful UN Security Council bid (though he graciously acknowledges the central and critical role of our UN Ambassador Gary Quinlan in that success). He saved us from at least one spectacular own goal (on the Palestinian statehood issue), and navigated his way through what has been, and will remain, Australia’s biggest current and future foreign policy challenge by not offending either Washington or Beijing.
He obviously revelled being back in the middle of the action, and basking in the company of the world’s great, good and glamorous. Although it’s also clear that he derived huge and genuine pleasure from his less obviously glamorous encounters in the South Pacific and the African Commonwealth.
And he has given us a book which, in describing all this, captures, as well as anything you’ll ever read, both the crazily sleep-deprived, adrenalin-charged, exhilarating and frustrating life of a contemporary foreign minister – and the crazy combination of excitement and despair, idealism and cynicism, that characterises domestic Australian politics.
Cabinet diaries – a subset of the rather large genre of political diaries, and the much larger one still of political memoirs and autobiographies – tend to fall into two distinct categories, as Bob himself noted back in 1999 reviewing Neil Blewett’s diary of the first Keating government.
One kind focuses on “providing the arguments and raw material for historians” of which Richard Crossman’s record of the Wilson government in the UK in the 1960s is the daddy of them all, and Blewett’s a reasonably clear Australian example. The other kind focuses on “providing episodic colour and personality”, of which the leading Anglo-Saxon example – until now – has been Alan Clark’s wonderfully tasteless and entertaining diaries of the Thatcher years in the UK.
Of course, most such diaries try to do both to some extent. All policy debates and no egos, infighting and eccentricities would make for a pretty dull read. But all colour-and-movement, with no real policy substance at all, would be a little too much like daily journalism as it is now practised to be worth putting between hard covers.
But there is a noticeable distinction within the genre, and it is pretty clear on which side of the line Bob’s diary falls. To the extent that he had any role model for his own diary, I think he would be the first to acknowledge that it was Clark rather more than Crossman.

Gareth Evans as Australia’s foreign minister.AAP
Click to enlarge

There’s plenty of incidental meat for analysts and historians to relish. How could there not be with so many encounters at such a high level on so many issues with such key players?
But Bob doesn’t pause very often or for very long to analyse in detail the multiple policy issues with which he wrestled, or to explain how they were resolved within government or advanced in international negotiations. It is not that kind of book. His primary target – and he has hit it – is a general audience interested in reading a very skilfully written account of what it was like to be there.
There are not many of us in Australian public life who have had that privilege, of being there.
I was one of them, and a great many people, as a result, have been asking me how Bob’s experiences, and his approach to the role, compared with my own when I was Australia’s foreign minister. So I hope you won’t mind me spending a little time telling you.
The short answer about the nature of our experiences is that they were remarkably similar, even if many of the issues we dealt with were different. I don’t just mean here the manic pace of it all, the stresses of travel even at the front of the plane, the strain of constant tightrope walking in one’s public utterances, the pressures of meeting the expectations of domestic constituencies, the sense of exhilaration and excitement on the big occasions and when things go well, and the disappointment and despair when they don’t.
I mean also that sense which we both had – although Bob has been subject to some pummelling over the last week for the way he put it (in terms of not feeling “humble” in the presence of the great) – that Australia thoroughly deserves any place it can win at the top international tables, that competent Australian representatives can match it in any company, and that we can be justly proud of the contribution Australia has made and can continue to make as a good international citizen.
There is an issue, about which some in the government have been particularly critical, about the propriety of putting those experiences quite so fully on the record so soon after the event. I have to say that I feel something of a wimp in this respect, waiting nearly 30 years to publish – as Melbourne University Publishing will in August – my own diary potentially offending my colleagues in Hawke-Keating cabinet in the mid-1980s, rather than the less than 30 weeks it has taken Bob to potentially offend his colleagues at home and abroad.
I don’t think Bob has much to be apologetic about in this respect. No confidences of any consequence are revealed, and certainly nothing of any security sensitivity. Some of the exchanges he details have the potential to be slightly embarrassing to the participants – and go further by way of revelation than I might have been prepared to as foreign minister 20 years ago.
But times have changed and much more is out and about in the media, and social media, than ever used to be the case. I don’t believe that any of our relationships will be prejudiced, or future dialogue made more difficult, by what he has recorded.
On the question of Bob’s and my approaches to the job, there are some evident differences between us, partly reflecting the difference in the circumstances in which we held office and partly just because – although we have a number of literary/historical and other nerdy interests in common, have been friends for a long time, and he is kind enough to describe me as his mentor in this book – we really are very different kinds of people, with very different personal and political styles.
As to the circumstances in which we held office, I knew, like most of my predecessors, that in the absence of catastrophe I would have at least three years in the job, and hopefully rather longer. Bob knew that only a political miracle would give him longer than 18 months. And having a longer time horizon certainly enables you to be patiently proactive in creating and building diplomatic initiatives, rather than essentially just reacting, however deftly, to events.
The other contextual difference was that I had the enormous good fortune of working to two prime ministers, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, who each in their different ways had fine instincts for the issues and dynamics of international relations, and who instinctively understood the nature of the relationship that must exist between prime minister and foreign minister if things are not to end in tears. They were mutually respectful, highly communicative and interactive, and always willing to find common ground on sensitive issues and not to resolve them simply by the prime minister pulling rank.
Bob, by contrast, had much more difficulty in all these respects with Julia Gillard. However, she did have many admirable prime ministerial qualities, including great professionalism in mastering complex briefs, and very effective interpersonal skills, evident in her international as well as domestic dealings, as I can personally testify.

Bob Carr had occasional difficulties in dealing with prime minister Julia Gillard. AAP/Alan Porritt

But beyond the very different contexts in which we operated, we have also been very different in other ways. And I’m not just talking here about my total lack of interest in knowing what “steel-cut oats” are, let alone eating them, and my total lack of ambition – as will be apparent – in achieving “a concave abdomen”, let alone one “defined by deep-cut obliques”, whatever they might be.
There’s a relentlessly pragmatic cast to Bob’s approach to the world which comes through regularly in the diary which I don’t completely share, never having abandoned my belief that you can marry necessary pragmatism with a quite strong commitment to liberal, and indeed idealistic, principles.
One example is the enthusiasm with which he embraced as a “masterstroke” Kevin Rudd’s Papua New Guinea solution to the asylum seeker problem. We could all understand the need for a deterrent dimension to stop the deaths at sea of boat people. But I for one think that this needed to be accompanied by a huge diplomatic effort in the region to address the problem at source, which we never saw.
Another example is Bob’s willingness to be, I think, much too kind – again for reasons related to stopping the flow of asylum seekers – to the Rajapaksa regime in Sri Lanka, which was responsible for some horrific violence against civilians in the course of its (otherwise entirely legitimate) military response to the terrorist Tamil Tigers, and has never made an atrocity-accountability commitment it hasn’t breached.
I guess Bob would go along in this respect with my friend Jim Baker, who said to me once when he was US Secretary of State, in that inimitable Texan drawl of his:
Well, Gareth, I guess you sometimes just have to rise above principle.
Moving to less fraught differences between us, an obvious one is that Bob is and remains – as he cheerfully acknowledges – a “media tart” of the first order who absolutely revels in today’s twittering 24/7 news cycle madness, and is never happier than when contributing soundbites to it. I, by contrast – while not exactly, in my prime, a media recluse – can’t help but regard today’s environment as closely approximating Dante’s ninth circle of hell.
There is a more substantive dimension associated with this differing preoccupation of ours with the media. I saw set-piece foreign ministerial speeches, which I probably spent an inordinate amount of time developing, as really important tools of advocacy, record and instruction. They were crucial vehicles for articulating ideas about Australia’s place in the world, and getting other opinion leaders at home and abroad to understand and wrestle with its complexity.
Bob, by contrast, as he frankly acknowledges throughout the book, saw his speeches in less highfalutin terms: primarily as vehicles for communicating his very engaging personality. Recognising, with his intimate knowledge of media attention-span, that no more than a few lines or soundbites would ever be widely retailed, he took the view that there was not much point in taking substantive discussion much further than that. I think that was a missed opportunity, and that there is another one in this respect in this book, but it was an understandable call.
I think it’s probably fair to say, while on the subject of presentation, that we also seem have rather different senses of self-referring humour – albeit in neither case of a kind sufficient to keep us out of trouble. I have always leaned to self-deprecation in this respect (“Whatever you do don’t call me Biggles”, the “Streakers Defence” and so on), being very slow to learn that this is very dangerous politically.
This is not only in the case in the world’s irony-free zones like the US, but also locally, because there is always the risk that you will be taken literally, and regarded as being as big a dill as you say you are.
Bob, by contrast, learned early on that self-deprecation is for dummies, and there is plenty of evidence of his education in this respect in this diary. His preference now is for laying on his mastery of the universe so thick that the comedy (“I sing, I dance, I fly … I am the master entertainer”, “the wonderful one-legged Romanian deadlift” and all the rest) will be seen, as one commentator described it last week, as that of “a true satirist, a self-made grotesque”.
The trouble is of course, again, that even in the world’s irony-receptive zone – in which Australia usually counts itself – there will be a lot of people out there who don’t get the joke. But if he’s cheerfully prepared to take that risk, that’s his call.
All these differences duly noted, there is plenty on which Bob and I have agreed, and for which his efforts as foreign minister deserve attention and recognition, albeit not discussed in his book in the degree of detail I for one would have liked.
There was the new approach he pioneered to dealing with Myanmar, recognising that isolation and sanctions had largely run their course and there needed to be some greater international engagement with the military regime to edge it toward change.
There was the careful way in which he picked his way through the competing imperatives, in a rapidly evolving strategic environment, of keeping the US alliance alive and well but at the same time staying close friends with our major economic partner China.
There was the role he played in overseeing the crucial last phase of the UN Security Council campaign, projecting an image of Australia as engaged with Africa and the developing world generally, committee to generous international assistance, and committed to global public goods like managing climate change and achieving arms control.
And there was what I regard as perhaps his signature achievement, his leadership role in ensuring, in November 2012, that Australia did not vote “No” on the UN General Assembly resolution to give Palestine observer status there.
As Bob records me saying at the time, a No vote “would have been the worst Australian foreign policy decision for a generation”, being not only wrong in principle, but leaving us totally isolated from every friend we had in the world apart from the US and Israel, and mortally wounding our credibility and effectiveness on the Security Council to which we had just been elected.

Bob Carr’s views on the so-called ‘Jewish lobby’ in Australia have caused some consternation.EPA/Abir Sultan

It’s important to appreciate that while questions of eroding Labor support in Sydney’s western suburbs was a relevant factor in the debate for some NSW members, the argument in Bob’s eyes – as in mine – was wholly about doing the right thing for Australia – and at the same time not acting against Israel’s real interests but in fact very much in support of them.
We had both come to share Bob Hawke’s strong view – and no Labor leader had ever been a firmer friend of Israel – that the Netanyahu government, along with its rusted-on supporters in Australia who were lobbying fiercely for a No vote, was shooting itself in the foot with its intransigence.
On the question of those rusted-on supporters, in particular in the Victorian Jewish community, I don’t think we should get as excited as the press has been in the last few days. This is a lobby group like any other, which wins some and – notwithstanding all the donations and duchessing – loses some. It influenced me to campaign vigorously against the Zionism as Racism resolution when I was foreign minister, which I was proud to do because the cause was just.
But it also lost me – and my fellow Victorian Bob Hawke – when it lost its way, as it has continued to do to this day, on the larger Palestinian issue. It certainly very strongly influenced Gillard, but I am sure she made the judgements she did – cloth-eared they may have been – on what she believed to be a principled basis.
Bob Carr took the view, as Bob Hawke and I had before him, and with the overwhelming majority of the cabinet and caucus agreeing, that pressure had to be mounted to achieve once and for all, and sooner rather than later, a two-state solution – without which Israel will be condemned either to lose its Jewish identity, or to maintain it at the price of ceasing to be an equal-rights-respecting democracy. And the UN vote was simply a legitimate way of increasing that pressure. It left full membership of the UN to be determined and final status issues to be negotiated, and contained no language remotely offensive to Israel.
Forcing the issue in the cabinet and the partyroom, and ensuring that the majority view prevailed – even if Gillard was deeply embarrassed in the process – was not about crude local electoral politics. It was about ensuring that Australia was not seen internationally as being on the wrong side of history.
The treatment of the Palestinian issue is about as detailed as the analysis and argument gets in this diary about the great substantive issues of foreign policy with which Bob and the government – and indeed the region and the world – were wrestling during this period. And whether or not he felt constrained by the rules governing cabinet secrecy so close to the event, you won’t find in the book anything very secret, and previously unsuspected, being disclosed.
But what you will find is, again, a wonderfully engaging account of what it’s like to be there¸ where and when it’s all happening, written with great flair and obviously huge enjoyment of life. This is a book which should fly out of the stores and on to the shelves of anyone with even a passing interest in politics and public affairs. And so it should. It’s a great read.

This is an edited version of Gareth Evans' speech given at the launch of Diary of a Foreign Minister on April 14, 2014.




THE CONVERSATION - articles on ISLAMIC STATE

$
0
0
http://theconversation.com/au/topics/islamic-state


Islamic State


Articles (1 - 20 of 174)


THE CONVERSATION - APR 2 2015 Why Palestine joining the International Criminal Court could be a total game changer

$
0
0
http://theconversation.com/why-palestine-joining-the-international-criminal-court-could-be-a-total-game-changer-39603



Why Palestine joining the International Criminal Court could be a total game changer





Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas signs ICC Rome Statute last December. EPA

After more than five years and much diplomatic wrangling, Palestine has joined the International Criminal Court (ICC). Now, the prospect of Israel being held accountable for war crimes has greatly increased, and that will have significant repercussions for the peace process and for Palestinian statehood.
ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opened a preliminary investigation on January 16. This can investigate everything that has happened in Palestinian territories since June 13 2014 – the date that Palestine formally accepted ICC jurisdiction. This is also the date when Israel broke a ceasefire with Hamas leading to Operation Protective Edge, which raged throughout the summer of 2014, leading to the deaths of at least 1,473 civilians in Gaza and bringing widespread international condemnation against Israeli actions.
The story dates back to 2009, when the Palestinian Authority requested that the ICC investigate Israel over Operation Cast Lead, but was rejected for not being a state. It was rejected for full membership in the United Nations in 2011, but was granted the status of non-member observer state the following year.
Palestine then joined numerous international organisations, such as UNESCO, and while the question of its statehood remains controversial, it has now been allowed to join the ICC. In the interim it has periodically indicated it would refer Israel to the ICC, but was held back by pressure from the US, the UK and France – and because using the threat suited Palestinian political interests.

Avenues of enquiry

The prosecutor could investigate the civilian casualties in Operation Protective Edge. She could also investigate whether the Israelis carried out the war crime known as collective punishment. This includes demolishing the homes of suspected Hamas militants, thus rendering their families homeless, as well as killing civilians in these buildings. During Operation Protective Edge alone, Amnesty International reported that “more than 18,000 homes were destroyed or damaged beyond repair”.


Israeli tanks in action during Operation Protective Edge EPA
Click to enlarge

The prosecutor would also be likely to investigate Palestinians over the hundreds of rockets Hamas fired indiscriminately into Israel from Gaza, which resulted in the deaths of at least six civilians.
Most substantially, Bensouda could look at the continued occupation of Palestinian territory, including both the West Bank and Gaza. Specifically this might look at Israel’s settlement policy, which appears to contravene Article 8 of the ICC’s founding Rome Statute.
The ICC’s power in this situation is somewhat weakened by the fact that Israel is not a signatory to the ICC, but still significant. Bensouda could issue arrest warrants for individual Israelis, who could then be arrested if they travelled to one of the 123 signatory countries. Any finding would also be a powerful condemnation of Israeli policy that could severely damage the country’s international standing.
A big issue would be identifying those most responsible for relevant actions against Palestinians. This could very well include Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his predecessors – as well as other senior government officials and military commanders.


ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda EPA
Click to enlarge

In theory there are precedents that would enable Bensouda to decide not to investigate Hamas on the grounds that the actions by the Israelis were much more serious. But in practice the intense international scrutiny would likely put extra pressure on the prosecutor to be completely evenhanded.

Consequences

The implications of any investigation are extremely unpredictable – particularly following the recent Israeli election, where Netanyahu stated that there would be no Palestinian state while he is in power (he has since tried to move away from this statement, but few believe this reversal).
One prospect is sanctions against the Palestinians. Israel has already retaliated for Palestine joining the ICC by refusing totransfer to the Palestinian Authority more than $100m (£68m) per month it collects in taxes (it has since partially backpedalled). And despite the fact that the US is not a party to the ICC either, Congress has passed a law as a concession to the pro-Israel lobby mandating that all economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority be cut off once it joins the ICC.
Such sanctions could cause the Palestinian Authority to collapse, doing even more harm to the peace process. This would further destabilise an unstable situation and potentially further radicalise Palestinians, while expanding global sympathy for the nation.
A second possibility is that an investigation deters Israelis and Palestinians from further armed conflict, but this is unlikely while Israel’s policy continues to be based on its oft-proclaimed right to protect its security and continues to see settlements as key to its continued existence. And legal challenges from a court which Israel doesn’t recognise are not going to change those policies overnight.


Benjamin Netanyahu: not for turning yakub88
Click to enlarge

Given Obama’s comments after the Israeli election there is widespread speculation that Israel may have to reckon without continuing US diplomatic cover in the UN Security Council, which might might reduce the prospect of the US attempting to get a resolution through the UN Security Council to suspend the investigation.
But Hamas is unlikely to be deterred by the threat of the ICC either. The conflict goes too much to the heart of Palestine’s existence – and we have seen that Hamas is willing to endure much more severe punishment from Israel to pursue its goals.
A third possibility is that the peace process revives. Many will not want it to collapse entirely, including the US – which may be prepared to reverse its opposition to a Security Council resolution calling for the occupation to end and the creation of a Palestinian state. The Obama administration has recentlyreiterated its public backing for a two-state solution, after all. Thequid pro quo would likely be that ICC proceedings be suspended.
Of course, such a move by the Obama administration would likely be resisted by both hardline Israeli politicians and many members of Congress. Russia, in particular, could also decide to veto a suspension through the Security Council at some point. Even if the Israelis did reach a peace agreement, the threat of prosecution in The Hague would always remain.

From despair to where?

Palestine joining the ICC has further complicated the situation in the region over and above the Netanyahu election victory. And even if peace broke out in lieu of an investigation, it could have negative consequences. It could make the ICC seem merely a tool to make warring parties lay down arms, which could badly damage its legitimacy. It would keep in power those who committed atrocities on both sides, raising the possibility that they could be spoilers as the peace is implemented.
Meanwhile those most affected would likely be left feeling they had received no justice. Some people on both sides might only feel able to embrace reconciliation after seeing wrongdoers punished. They might rightly ask whether this is the best result that decades of development of human rights norms and mechanisms can deliver.


Jewish community ‘censors its own on BDS’

$
0
0

Jewish community ‘censors its own on BDS’

University of NSW philosopher Peter Slezak says ‘the idea that some people decide for oth
University of NSW philosopher Peter Slezak says ‘the idea that some people decide for others what they should hear is an outrage’. Picture: Renee Nowytarger Source: News Corp Australia
A prominent Jewish academic banned from delivering an ­address at a major conference ­because he supports boycotts against Israel has warned of a growing trend of censorship within the Jewish community.
Peter Slezak, a philosopher at the University of NSW, had promised not to raise the boycotts, divestment and sanctions campaign at the Limmud-Oz Festival of Jewish Ideas to be held in Sydney in June. He made a similar promise and kept it at a previous Limmud conference.
He offered the organisers the chance to vet his proposed talk, on the German-American Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt. Arendt died 40 years ago after winning fame for, among other things, reporting on the 1961 war crimes trial of Nazi Adolf Eichmann for The New Yorker.
The Limmud organisers ­rejected the proposal, saying even though Professor Slezak might not mention BDS, the problem is that he believes in it.
“This year we have said that given that several of our presenters come from Israel, and given the broad consensus within the Limmud community and the broader Jewish community ­opposing the BDS movement against Israel, the board of Limmud in Sydney determined that Limmud-Oz will not provide a space for people to present who promote or actively support boycotts and sanctions against the state of Israel,” Ben Berger, the chairman of the Limmud-Oz board, told The Australian.
“Peter affirmed he actively and publicly supports some forms of BDS. We therefore confirmed that, as per our guidelines, Limmud-Oz would not be able to include his session at this year’s event.” At the weekend, Vivienne Porzsolt, the organiser of a group of Jewish activists opposed to ­Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, issued a press release backing Professor Slezak and calling on the Limmud-Oz organisers to reverse their decision. “Whatever their views, I believe our fellow Jews reject this restriction of freedom of discussion by communal leaders,” she said.
“They welcome the free, ­respectful exchange of ideas, which should be the essence of Limmud.”
Professor Slezak said the leaderships of Limmud-Oz and other Jewish organisations, were “trying to exercise censorship and make some people pariahs”.
“They don’t understand the most basic principles of free ­society and free speech,” he said. “The idea that some people decide for others what they should hear is an outrage.”
Professor Slezak, who lost family members in the Holocaust, was one of three prominent Jewish activists who last month ­addressed a public forum at UNSW arguing that support for BDS was not anti-Semitic. The speakers claimed the opponents of BDS used the anti-Semitic tag tactically, to try to vilify and shut down supporters of the campaign.
Professor Slezak said BDS was a peaceful, global movement that sought to apply non-violent pressure on the Israeli government over its treatment of Palestinians.
He said the oft-quoted lesson of the Holocaust, “never again”, applied not just to Jews but to anyone who might be oppressed, including Palestinians.
Some Jewish academics who do not support BDS nonetheless agree that their colleagues should be allowed to express views in favour of the boycott, but the peak Jewish body, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, has no tolerance for the cause.
“Any movement ... predicated on slandering the Jewish state as the embodiment of evil is rightly viewed as anti-Semitic,” ECAJ president Robert Goot said, adding that “the right to express your views does not include the right to force others to listen to you”.

ROBERT MAGID - Foley’s folly: will ALP members now go to Taiwan after China?

$
0
0

Foley’s folly: will ALP members now go to Taiwan after China?

NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley has introduced a policy that directs all state ALP MPs travelling to Israel with the benefit of ­financial assistance to spend equal time meeting Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.
He wants the Baird government to follow suit.
Foley explains: “Arabic community leaders put this argument to me about trips to Israel and their desire that parliamentarians get a first-hand view of the life of Palestinians when they are in the region. In the spirit of a two-state solution, I thought that was a perfectly reasonable argument.”
By “financial assistance”, presumably he means Jewish financial assistance.
So, the intention is to prevent Labor MPs from visiting Israel with funds raised by the Jewish community — unless they also pay for equal time for their opponents. The absurdity of the policy is evident if we reverse the coin.
How would Arabic community leaders react if, in raising finance in Arabic communities for Labor MP visits to Palestinian territories, funders were obliged to pay for MPs spending equal time in Israel?
Clearly the intention of the ­Arabic leaders to whom Foley refers is not to increase the awareness of issues but to restrict the travel by Labor MPs on funds raised by the Jewish community.
As opposed to Foley’s claim regarding Arabic community leaders, I believe the Jewish community would oppose a restriction on Palestinian supporters’ freedom of travel and study.
A corollary of this “even-handed” policy would be to force MPs visiting Ukraine with the ­financial assistance of the local Ukrainian community to spend equal time in Russia. Will Labor MPs visiting China with Chinese financial assistance be forced to spend equal time in Taiwan?
This policy appears to be an unnecessarily authoritarian approach to the issue. It is unclear why this one-sided restriction on the freedom to learn is not clear to Foley.
In a free society the best policy is to encourage all sides to be well informed.
The idea also shows little faith in the intelligence of Labor MPs, the underlying assumption being that they cannot discern between information and advocacy.
Furthermore, it sees Israel from one angle, as a country in conflict. Israel, like Australia, is confronting multiple issues around health and education, technology and trade. It is tackling poverty, crime, social issues such as gender equality, gay marriage, union issues as well as terrorism. There is much to learn from an exchange of view between the two nations.
MPs are already time constrained so the visits are inevitably shorter than ideal.
During their stay in Israel, Australian delegates visit their counterparts in the Israeli political system and are presented with a wide variety of opinions, some highly critical of the government.
Furthermore, these visits do include a visit to the Palestinian Authority’s capital, Ramallah, organised by the Australian government representative at which Australian visitors hear from representatives of the Palestinian Authority.
Visits to Gaza are obviously problematic. It is under the administration of Hamas, a terrorist ­organisation.
Australian MPs who have visited Israel have found much in common with their counterparts on most issues and have been surprised how distorted their previous perception was of important matters. These visits are usually packed morning to night with ­visits to counterpart organisations selected by the participants.
Furthermore, if the visits are funded by advocates of either side they would wish to control the agenda.
One would hardly expect to be able to fund a delegation that gave equal time to the promotion of views hostile to those of the funders. Funds would therefore dry up. As a contributor to such study tours I certainly would be unwilling to support such unreasonable restrictions.
This would eliminate an opportunity for Labor MPs to collaborate with Australia’s ally Israel. It also would prevent MPs from hearing the Palestinian point of view since their supporters wouldn’t fund visits that included equal time spent in Israel.
The only result of this policy will be a denial of opportunities for first-hand knowledge.
Palestinians, Israelis and ­Australians will be the losers. As Gandhi said: “A policy of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves the world blind and toothless.” And, in this case, ignorant.
Robert Magid is publisher of The Australian Jewish News. He has contributed funds to study tours to Israel by local MPs and journalists.
Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.
20 COMMENTS
27 people listening

Robyne
Robyne
This is Labor pushing their opinions on MPs again. Does Plibersek come to mind. When the social engineering stops, Labor may be a viable alternative government.
Merle
Merle
Is Mr Foley serious ?    Did he ---- really and truly ---- propose this as 'Policy' ?   Political and social 'engineering' immediately springs to mind.  
Logical
Logical
@Merle Have you noticed that Foley has to pause and think when he speaks?  And I am referring to very simple sentences here.  Foley and Bill are alike in they don't have much upstairs.
Tony
Tony
It really is just a move to shore up the Muslim vote in outer Western Sydney seats. As outlined in this op ed it really is hypocrisy. Spending 'arabic' raised money on a Jewish jelly bean woud be a step too far for a Muslim, let alone spending it on a visit to Israel. Double standards abound in the ALP and this is just one of long list.
Rodney
Rodney
Foley is pandering to the likes of Rhiannon, Milne, and any number of left wing loonys that cannot cope with the Israelis being able to stop the the -AVOWED TO ANIHALIATE ISRAELIS- Muslims that surround the smallest state in the ME. and its all about calling those ex-Labor voters back into the fold, and as far as Foley telling Baird  Baird what he should do. WELL,
Joseph
Joseph
Rather than asking for "balance", we should demand that no Australian politician accepts money from any foreign interest for any purpose.

If a politician wants to go to Israel (or China or Taiwan or any other country), he should pay for it himself.
P x
P x
My first reading was that 'assistance' referred to taxpayer funding?
This is my first-ever statement which might be construed as proALP. Their economic philosophy is absurd in a real world.
John
John
Further evidence of how the western left is choosing to embrace Islam in return for its growing voting power.   In the end, the ancient proverb will apply..........."he who rides the tiger is afraid to dismount".
Iain
Iain
Here's a quick summary. Israel is a modern, vibrant democracy bursting with inventiveness, drive, creativity and forward thinking. Palestine is an artificial construct designed with the pretence of a perpetual refugee camp run by ignorant, backward looking, violent annihilationists determined to keep their citizens in abject poverty for propaganda purposes. There, no need to spend the money now. Next problem to solve?
Neil
Neil
Sheesh. You got your history back to front, son. Do a little reading. Israel is the artificial construct.
Kevin
Kevin
@Neil  Israel was around before the Romans - Palestine on the other hand...  How far back in history do you want to go?
CRISP
CRISP
@Kevin @Neil And before that it was Phoenician or Philistine, and Assyrian, and Akkadian etc etc.  For the chronologically challenged, I should point out that none were Islamic.
ALL states are artificial i.e. man-made.  Well, of course.  What else could they be?  There is no God-given right for anybody to own for eternity any piece of this Earth.  You own only what your nation is prepared to defend and only for as long as it can do so.
PS God is also an "artificial construct".
Edmond
Edmond
@Neil And if so, I will suggest Australia as we know it is also an artificial construct, but with far less claim on the land than Jews have in Israel.  
Let's face it, a mere 250 years ago there was hardly any non-Koori living here. Then came Cook and guess what happened?  Walk around First Australian communities and you will find out.  Not a pretty sight for certain
Clifford
Clifford
I have a better idea for NSW State politicians, instead of spending untold amounts of money traveling around the world at someone else's expense, ....stay at home and do the job your paid by the taxpayer to do here!

T BRAMSTON - Luke Foley’s MPs must meet Palestinians

$
0
0
mm

Luke Foley’s MPs must meet Palestinians

Foley’s MPs must meet Palestinians
NSW Labor opposition leader Luke Foley has been seen as a moderate in the party on Middle East policy.Source: News Corp Australia
NSW Labor leader Luke Foley has directed all state Labor MPs travelling to Israel with the benefit of financial or in-kind assistance to spend equal time meeting with Palestinians in Gaza or on the West Bank.
Mr Foley’s unprecedented intervention — widely seen within Labor as an attempt to ensure MPs are not overly influenced by the ­Israel lobby — comes as the party navigates a fractious debate on Middle East policy at the national conference in July.
Mr Foley has been seen as a moderate in the party on Middle East policy and says his new travel requirement for Labor MPs is to ensure they gain a balanced perspective on issues that divide the region. “I support a two-state solution,” he toldThe Australian. “I am a member of the Parliamentary Friends of Israel and the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, and will continue to be so.
“Arabic community leaders put this argument to me about trips to Israel and their desire that parliamentarians get a first-hand view of the life of Palestinians when they are in the region.
“In the spirit of a two-state ­solution, I thought that was a perfectly reasonable argument.”
The new rules will require MPs who are assisted in any way with travel to Israel to spend an equivalent amount of time meeting ­Palestinians outside of Israel on the same visit.
Mr Foley’s intervention comes as Labor faces a huge push from in its ranks to strengthen its support for Palestinians in response to what many perceive as an increasingly belligerent stand by Israel, accentuated by the re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu’s centre-right government last month.
Many want stronger pressure applied to Israel to agree on a peace process to work towards a two-state solution.
Local Labor branches, particularly in NSW, have passed reso­lutions condemning Israel and expressing strong support for the Palestinian people.
A motion passed by the NSW Labor state conference in July last year said that if moves towards a two-state solution remained stal­led then a Labor government should consider providing recognition to a Palestinian state regard­less of Israel’s view.
This is stridently opposed by some in the Victorian Labor Right faction.
Mr Foley said he understood the concerns many inside the party had over the spread of Israeli settlements, the bellicose statements of some Israeli politicians and the lack of progress towards peace.
“Many social democratic friends of Israel are disappointed with numerous decisions of the Netanyahu government,” he said.
“Netanyahu’s actions in the final days of the recent election campaign have dismayed many people.”
Mr Foley also urged NSW Premier Mike Baird to introduce the same travel requirements for Coalition MPs. It was ­essential MPs were exposed to different views on this issue.
“I am perfectly relaxed about Labor MPs going to Israel, but I think Palestinians make a good case that they would like to show those MPs the experiences their people are going through at the same time,” he said.
Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.
89 COMMENTS
71 people listening

hh


Jeffrey
Jeffrey
Once upon a time Labor was Green-lite not any more, its now green light for anybody’s’ foolish policy.
Jason
Jason
Gods forbid Labor politicians spend too much time talking to Israelis - they might learn something about democracy.
Ralph
Ralph
Firstly, I am not spreading new news but Foley is a fool.
He is also trying to be a greenie (not much transition is necessary).
He should ensure that all MPs having trips to the ME paid for by Palestinians MUST spend equal time in Palestine.
Don't tell me the Palestinians cannot afford it - just look at their ammunitions bill.
Bev
Bev
Let us hope that Foley's MPs give as much time to the NSW electors as they di to their overseas trips.  And let us hope that the also spend as much time with the Israelis as the Palestinians  both overseas and in NSW
AJ
AJ
Irrespective of political persuasion, the greater the number of people who witness Israel's apathied policies first hand the better.
OZ Redux
OZ Redux
Its time for "Team Australia" to come down on Foley, the trade unions and his like - we used to have "Traitor" laws in Australia! Mainstream Australia is tired of the socialist politics and tired of the divisive, hysterical and veiled threats that the demographic we "cant" talk about has brought with it. Australia needs to reset and fix our immigration policy because we are losing our way, particularly when just a couple of seats that are over subscribed by middle eastern muslims can influence our politics like this. Its absurd and needs to be fixed or we have lost control of our country. Whats the plan from those like Foley that support this ? Another annex for the PLO in Australia ?
Steve
Steve
Has the ALP forgotten that Palestinians live not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but also in a number of Arab countries, especially Syria, Jordan and Lebanon? Does it only care about the "plight" of Palestinians who are affected by Israeli security policies, while ignoring what is happening to Palestinians in neighboring Arab countries?

What about the daily killings of Palestinians in Syria and the fact that Palestinians living in Lebanon and other Arab countries are subjected to Apartheid and discriminatory laws?

More than 2800 Palestinians have been killed in Syria since the beginning of the civil war there four years ago. More than 27,000 Palestinians have fled Syria to different European countries in the past four years. The Yarmouk camp in Syria has been without electricity for more than 730 days and without water for 229 days.

83 Palestinians died of torture in Syrian prison during March this year. Three of the victims were women, including 22-year-old Nadin Abu Salah, who was pregnant when she died.
Paul
Paul
I just fervently hope that Foley and the rest of his pack of  typical Labor idiots, stay over there on the opposition side forever, where they can do minimal damage to the economy and the rest of us!
Beverley
Beverley
What does Luke Foley want from his Ministers? Does he want them to actually see that Hamas has not done as much for it's people as Israel has or achieved anything at all except war for it's people with Israel. I don't think that the Palestinian people want to be seen as victims Luke Foley. International politics is not the domain of State politics.
john
john
@Beverley They are not Ministers unless they have been ordained by a religion. If they keep up this line of unAustralian behavior they never will be Ministers of the Crown.
Sir Graham G.MBA
Sir Graham G.MBA
What this actually means is that the Labor Party especially in NSW has a significant number of supporters in their electorates with an Islamic background.
This is just the start of there influence and it is only going to get worse.
It is utterly predictable and it is just the start of things to come.
Warren
Warren
Todays handy hint goes to Luke Foley, if your going to sit on a fence you can only expect to get splinters.

Todays Policy suggestion also goes to Foley. You're an Australian Politician, representing an Australian electorate,
keep your big nose out of extremely complex foreign issues.

Todays sage like advice goes to ... Foley. Should the Left Wing Love Machine or Israeli/Palestinian worriers
whistle and expect you to dance, tell them to take a long walk off a short jetty.
The experience will prove to be refreshing for them and therapeutic for yourself.    
MaxJ
MaxJ
Is there no limit to the wastage of public monies by politicians?

A NSW opposition(or government) meddling in foreign affairs, is this why individual State MPs are elected?

I think not but rather than serve their constituency they find time and funds to spend on busy bodying well outside their elected responsibility as NSW MPs.

It is disappointing the Government has allowed this to occur, it holds the purse strings
Michael
Michael
So for what purpose do Opposition MPs need to go to the Middle East? Carpet shopping, or perhaps trying to resolve world peace?
Foley is a fool. Slow news day? He should be focussing on trying to get back into power. Dabbling in Israel will not get him any votes. Try working on improving workplace relations or the price of bread!!
MaxJ
MaxJ
@Michael But remember he has an electorate in Western Sydney where the muslim vote is essential to his re election

As a trade union man he will do as he is bid by those who keep him there
John
John
NSW labor politicians travelling to overseas countries on taxpayers money. Why should this be allowed by the voting public ? State politics should be just about NSW , and not be part of a global question of Israel v Muslims . Let the Federal Govt. work this one out. Labor is certainly a huge can of worms ....focus on working people and make sure they have jobs that they , the workers ...white and blue collar , can work in. I would apply this to the Coalition parties as well . It is a gross waste of state taxpayers monies to be used this way. 
MaxJ
MaxJ
@John Why has the Govt who holds the purse strings allow it?

Maybe its an inter govt-opposition arrangement the voters have inflicted upon them for the mutual convenience of govt and opposition 
Rodney
Rodney
sounds more like Foley buckling under the likes of Milne and Rhiannon etc, Labor didn't get the Green vote it thought it would so now they are buttering them up, then of course Foley is trying to influence the LNP govt to -follow the -leader- huh, like that's gonna happen, I also wonder if when these -govt funded visits go to Palestine will they hear of the facts PALISTINIANS  ARE THE ONLY THIRD GENERATION REFUGEES ON EARTH, and then there the question of who funds these generations of refugees, well , it is noted that 1/3 OF ALL WORLD AID MONEYS GOES TO PLALISTINE GENERATIOAL REFUGEES, the lies and innuendos that go on over the ME is disgusting, the on eyed UN directives against Israel is disgusting, if only people would place themselves in the place of Israelis public under fire from missiles from Hamas or Fatah and then think again of what they thought of these, currently there are dozens of wars going on around Israel, ALL INSTIGATED BY MUSLIMS. AND THEY ALL -BLAME ISRAEL, if that is not proof of the nonsense of the western lefty anti-Semitic media and political ideologues, WHAT IS.
rod qld
con
con
Isn't it extraordinary ?
We have the Labor Luvvies lining up in droves demanding a Muslim country ignore their Laws & show mercy to , two Repeat Drug Smugglers
The same luvvies can't wait to get into bed with a Muslim country with similar harsh laws, ruled by a gov. who have vowed to Obliterate an entire nation from the face of the earth
The Leader of the Opp. when questioned about this, was interrupted by his deputy, & true to form said, "I concur", 
better change your name to Ruben, billy ! woof, woof. 
MaxJ
MaxJ
@con Foley has an electorate with very high middle eastern and within that muslim community.....any more explanation needed?

More ALP pandering
David
David
The next direction will be to meet the representatives from ISIS another terrorist organisation along with the current edict to meet Hamas and the PLO, 
sandfly
sandfly
A representative of a political party founded by toilers who made things and grew stuff visiting Israel seems eminently sensible: after all,  Israel has by all accounts made the desert bloom and is in the top league for manufacturing and innovation.  But why would anyone be required to visit Palestine - especially a State government representative - unless there were other more sinister  considerations.
David
David
Didn't a prominent real ALP representative say something along the lines that the ALP has been taken over by the dreggs of the middle class it is a party of toilers no more.
Steve
Steve
Will all ALP politicians who visit any nation antagonistic to Israel (including many Arab nations and Indonesia, which don't recognise Israel) also spend equal time in Israel?
Steve
Steve
Will all Labor politicians who visit the territories administered by Hamas and the PA spend equal time in Israel?
bob
bob
Thankful for small mercies. This no hoper could well have been the premier if the NSW voters hadn't rejected the chaos and incompetence they are having to endure in QLD and VIC. You people in those states prepare for another downgrade of your credit rating, terrorist organizations abroad should be the last of your concerns.
Joshua
Joshua
Will the Labor party be placing the same requirements on MPs traveling to any other country where there is a conflict? This to me appears to be an unabashed attempt to gain Muslim votes whilst at the same time being inherently ainti-semetic
David
David
Ah once again we see the ALP version of democracy in action, lets not have any free thinkers or any one with a conscience in the ALP just do as you are told and follow the edict of the mighty leader. Sounds a bit like a one party state mentality to me.
helen
helen
Besides the fact that any trip to the ME by state politicians is a questionable use of taxpayers money - unless it was the shadow Ag Miinister investigating Israeli use of saline water for irrigation (very successful) or some like reason,  I would hope the directive is equally balanced in the opposite - that is all Labor politicians who are travelling to palestine must spend equal time in Israel.
Andy
Andy
So will he also direct any NSW Labor MP visiting South Korea to also spend 50% of their time in North Korea???
(Any why are NSW opposition MP's travelling overseas in the first place???)

John
John
I like the idea, but let's expand it. Equal time in China and Tibet, as well. Bet he'll be less keen on ruffling those feathers.
Terence
Terence
Why are state politicians travelling courtesy of the taxpayer to that part of the Middle East? If they are pushing pork products on behalf of their regional constituents I can tell them right now that it won't fly. What a joke this state gov't is. Run the State properly and don't waste the money of your tax-xpaying charges.
R
R
@Terence  Yes, why are state opposition politicians travelling overseas? And why Is the Labor government instructing them to meet with a known terrorist supported political party? What do they expect to learn?
Wendy
Wendy
I certainly hope that Mr Foley intends the Labor Party to pay for the extra expense because since when does an opposition leader have the right to increase taxpayer spending?
robert
robert
Someone please come up with a relatively polite term stronger than looney to describe this left of left nonesense. Regardless of the merit of state pollies travelling to the area, if one could be sure they would ask searching questions of the terrorist sponsored regime, some good might come from it - pigs might fly!
Mobius
Mobius
@robert - how about "maniacal"? Defined as: -1. Suggestive of orafflicted with extreme mental derangement: .2. Characterized by excessiveenthusiasm or excitement:.3. Wildly irresponsible:
Peter
Peter
So here is labor promoting the interests of 2% of the electorate at the expense of the other 98%. Because their minority populations are significant in electoral terms for specific parliamentary seats. This is the long term divide and conquer political segmentation play that emanates from multiculturalism coming to fruition. This is how people lose control of their parliaments, then their identity and then their countries.



Greg
Good idea. The MPS can ask questions of the Palestinians such as:-

1) Do you support the legitimacy of violent Jihad in the 21st century
2) Do you support Hamas and its stated intent to obliterate Israel and to kill all the Jews
3) Do you consider Transjordan to be your homeland
4) Do you acknowledge Israel has repeatedly offered a 2 state solution but the Arab League/PA/PLO repeatedly rejected it
5) Do you acknowledge Israel treats its Muslim population with equal rights?

R
R
@Greg  I think these are all legitimate questions and its about time Labor and the Greens started to take this into account.
Rob 379
Rob 379
Not sure what the objectives of State Politicians are in going to Israel. But for Labor MPs, their holiday time has just been doubled. 
Hans
Hans
I had just started my comments when I saw that Rebecca had already put down what I had in mind. I can only add that Foley probably made this statement to please the Muslim community. Any state Labor MP should stay in NSW and do their deeds there.
Rebecca
Rebecca
why would state MP's be travelling to either place? Their business is state politics and has nothing to do with international relations, policies and diplomacy. They have got no business on such junkets and definitely operating outside of their job description.  
Rick
Rick
Are Labor MPs who visit Palestine also required to visit Israel, or is it another example of the Left's anti-semitism?
Ann
Ann
If Labour is doing this it just indicates how many of the illegal arrivals that have now been settled in the community are Muslim and therefore must be wooed to vote for them - the precedent set by Keating with the Lebanese community in his electorate. I see this as more divisive than constructive. You never hear of Jewish leaders in Australia extolling our political parties to see their point of view on Israeli affairs.Yes, go and have a chat with Hamas - see how that goes with a two state solution. I am sure this little bunch can persuade them to change their annihilation of Israel policies!
John
John
If I were the Israelis or Palestinians I'd shut the gate on the visitors given their track record of solutions in Australia.
I also hope the union members are paying for the trips, not the poor taxpayers. Is it some kind of sick joke?
Timothy
Timothy
I'm sorry but at what point in time since Federation where the individual states placed in a position to dictate foreign policy? Has the Labor Party gone completely mad or are we, as is more likely the case, finally seeing exactly how dysfunctional the Labor Party has become with a complete lack of leadership? This also posits the question of whether or not this kind of Labor Party policy is being funded when the requirement is being imposed only on taxpayer funded 'junkets' and, if so, is that not a breach of taxpayer funds being used to directly fund political party activities?
Allan
Allan
Hopefully Luke Foley will insist that all MP's will be required to spend equal amounts of time with Climate Science sceptics as they currently spent with Anthropogenic Global Warming Scientists in the spirit of MP's being exposed to different views. 
Rebecca
Rebecca
@Allan I hope that he insists they spend their own money and use their own holiday time in which to complete such travels. 
Iain
Iain
Equal time for Israeli democrats and Palestinian fascists. Makes sense to the Left I suppose.
Barbara
Barbara
Absolutely unreal.  Labor promoting a terrorist Muslim Govt in Palestine.  Which begs the question that if Labor get back in federally - what hope for Australia not being drawn into supporting Labor's terrorist mates?  Any Australian political party that would openly - and proudly - stand with a terrorist Govt gets my lifelong distrust and loathing.
(Barb - 6.11am)
phillip
phillip
Another day another step closer to the greens for the ALP. I no longer see much difference in either party both federally and state.
Peter
Peter
@phillip The factions of both of labour and the greens from left to right can now be defined as communist unionist and socialist.
Gabrielle
Gabrielle
Hamas is the governing political party for Gaza and its charter states: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." It's unsurprising the ALP wants to snuggle up to Hamas.
dexxter
dexxter
@Gabrielle Yep. All about votes in western Sydney. Labor has become an absolute disgrace. We would be in real trouble if they and their Green mates were again elected to office. Probably find Sydney being named as a twin city to Gaza or some such rubbish. Hollow people with no values.
clyde
clyde
Gosh they are so boringly predictable as they follow the play book for the left, painful...
Laurie
Laurie
Pathetic reaction by the weak Foley...Israel is a democracy Arab terrorisst have only one aim obliterate Israel and at a time when Islamic terrorists threaten our society
Frankie
Frankie
This is so blatantly left wing and lame that it is cringeworthy to say the least.
Besides spending time with Palastinians to "equalise" relations, of what possible benefit will there be to the NSW state government ? Surely the purpose of these overseas visits are to enhance and build trade and gather new and innovative ideas for the purpose of building our states and country.
This is purely a political move designed to suck up for votes, and has no real value. This appears to be the way lnp wants to lead us into the future. What a disgrace.
Luke
Luke
@Frankie I hope you're not as confused as you appear to be. Luke Foley is the leader of the NSW opposition, not the Premier. Your final sentence castigates the "lnp" for leading us into a future you describe as a disgrace. Surely you meant to say ALP. Apart from that I agree with the sentiments of your letter.
Richard
Richard
Of course he would, what a wally. To what end? Are we going to get trade from them? Perhaps we would if we started to peddle arms.
James
James
When was the last time any Muslim Arab attempted to make peace? 
There's no country besides Israel in the Middle East that even vaguely attempts to live in peace, there's constant sectarian violence, political, clan or tribal violence, violence out of envy, spite, you name it.
Foley's desperately trying to curry favour with inner west lefties that would otherwise vote green, and shore up Islamic support which must be somewhat tenuous given Labor's pro gay marriage stance. 
Brian
Brian
@James As someone said recently "If Israel laid down their arms tomorrow, there would be mass genocide, if the Palestinians laid down their arms tomorrow, there would be Peace."   

John
John
As a staunch Israel supporter, I do feel I should point out that the Arab League actually put forward a rather good plan some years ago which would have required all its member countries to recognise Israel. It was rejected on basis of its proposal regarding the right of return for Palestinians which is absolutely off the list for Israel, however it would have made a good starting point.


ABC Catalyst’s anti-statin stance increased risk for patients

$
0
0


ABC Catalyst’s anti-statin stance increased risk for patients

In October 2013 the ABC aired the first part of its two-part edition of theCatalyst program titled The Heart of the Matter , criticising the use of statins (cholesterol-lowering drugs) in Australia.
Much has been written about this program, which has now been removed from the web.
The program has been the subject of an internal ABC investigation, a Media Watchprogram and numerous articles.
All have concluded that the program was misleading, biased and ignored the overwhelming evidence of benefit of statins, especially in people with established heart disease or those at high cardiovascular risk.
At the time of the airing of the episodes, the Heart Foundation warned that people would stop taking their medications and that, as a result, people could die.
The Heart Foundation urged people to talk to their doctors before stopping their medication.
It is only now that we have become aware of the full negative impact of these programs.
The conclusions presented in the Catalyst program were not supported by the Heart Foundation or the vast majority of the medical and scientific communities across the country and internationally.
It was with interest, then, that I read the report by A. Schaffer and colleagues published in this week’s Medical Journal of Australia, examining the impact of theCatalyst programs.
The authors used Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme records to measure changes in weekly statin dispensing and to assess if there was a change in statin dispensing following the program.
The study covered 191,833 people, dispensed, on average, nearly 27,000 statins weekly. The authors found there was a temporary increase in discontinuation and a sustained decrease in overall statin dispensing.
Eight months after the program was aired, more than half a million fewer statins were dispensed, affecting more than 60,000 Australians.
The authors conclude that if the individuals affected remained off statins long-term, 
it could result in between 1522 and 2900 preventable, and potentially fatal, major cardiovascular events.
They also write: “The subsequent retraction of the program may counteract some of the apparent negative impact, but this remains to be seen”.
Leon Simons, professor of medicine and director of the lipid research department at the University of NSW, says it directly and most effectively in commenting: “It was unfortunate that while the positive results of research showing the cardiovascular benefits of lipid therapy were often not considered newsworthy, the slightest hint that any medical therapy may have adverse effects leads to sensational headlines.”
The professor is right; we are living in a time when people are questioning the accepted wisdom and are taking a more active role in their health. They also have more information available to them than ever before.
But the science and facts can’t be ignored. Statins are the most commonly prescribed medicines in Australia. More than 27 per cent of people aged 50 and over are taking them.
The simplistic claim that this must be because they are “overprescribed” does not consider the fact that heart disease is Australia’s single biggest killer.
It accounts for the highest numbers of deaths in Australia (19,766 a year), while 600,000 Australians are living with ischaemic heart disease.
Large-scale, randomised trials have consistently shown a significant, beneficial effect of statins in reducing death and disability from cardiovascular disease, particularly in those who already have heart disease.
It is also important to realise that cholesterol is not the only risk factor for heart disease. Other risk factors include high blood pressure, smoking, diabetes, physical inactivity, and obesity.
These risk factors are well known and largely controllable, yet more than 60 per cent of Australians are overweight or obese, two out of three (66.9 per cent) Australians aged 15 years and over are either sedentary or have low levels of physical activity, and while smoking rates continue to fall overall, there is a worrying increase in smoking among young women.
There is a common perception among Australians that heart disease has been “fixed”, or can easily be treated by medications such as statins.
That is not true and much more research is required to guide future treatments for heart disease.
In the meantime it is important for individuals to be aware of their own risk of heart disease and to seek well-informed, balanced advice from their doctors.
This week’s research shows the power of the media in influencing public opinion.
It also clearly shows the consequences when the media get it wrong.
Cardiologist Jennifer Johns is national board president of the Heart Foundation.




Barbara
Barbara
you'd only believe catalyst if you believe human beings can change the weather.
Bris barb.
helen
helen
There is discussion now of prescribing Statins for children as a 'preventative' for future heart conditions. Have we gone mad? Statins play a role in reducing inflammation - which is done just as well by small dose asprin. Why pay a fortune when you can get the same benefit cheaply?

But spacedoc.com has a wealth of information regarding the emerging side effects of statins, transient memory loss, muscle pain and so on. 
The biggest fear I have in getting on a plane is 'Has the Pilot been taking Statins and will he forget how to fly the plane today?"

I am glad Catalyst raised the question, otherwise we would not be having this discussion now, and it is a discussion that needs to be had. Informed consent to take a drug, that is Dr explains the pros and cons and you then say yes - or no, or blind acceptance that Dr knows best and no questions asked. I know which one I am.


james
james
Does the Heart Foundation still take money from corporates such as McDonalds food chain to hand out their red tick (of approval)?
ivan
ivan
Dr.ABC
incredible that they havnt been struck off  the medical boardfor misleading,mischievous reporting.
stiil,what else would one expect from this organisation.

Timothy
Timothy
Dr Johns has provided a highly credible criticism of the ABC's Catalyst program with emotionlessly objective presentation of the facts as well as a balanced understanding for the use and evident misuse of statistical data. The real question here is, if the ABC can get something like this so very wrong where the public’s reactions could pose such a potentially dangerous risk for those who take the implications of the presentation so literally in how many other instances is the ABC misleading its audiences, intentionally or unintentionally where the risks are not so great?
There is no acceptable excuse for the ABC’s complete lack of regard. I recall when some years ago when Channel Nine’s marketing for the new season of their Nine News shows made the statement "I know everything I need to know because Nine told me so." Making this kind of statement is dangerously arrogant but seems to be the mantra of our rather out of control ABC.
It is unacceptable when the ABC is unable or unwilling to ensure balance in reporting as required by their Charter but it’s downright dangerous when they are unable to ensure balance between facts and an appropriate approach to questioning of those facts, especially when it involves the lives of individuals.
All of this simply adds to the body of evidence indicating that it is time to rein in the ABC and hold it and those responsible to account for the ABC's actions. The Minister can no longer hide behind the claim of editorial independence. This has nothing to do with editorial content or independence and the Minister should take action given by both his portfolio and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and issue a 'please explain' to the Board and Mr Scott immediately; either that or the Minister should consider the tenability his own position in the Ministry.
Russell
Russell
@Timothy  Highly credible!!! you must be joking.  She is from the Heart Foundation sponsored by the producers of Statins. When the Heart Foundation stops ticking products like McDonalds and low fat yogurts full of Sugar etc etc then they might be considered as credible.
David
David
When I watched the programme my reaction was that it could be right in its predominant thesis, but the way it was presented left much to be desired. 

Mind you, the food ticks given by a well-know heart organisation for foods high in unnecessary sugar don't give me much confidence either.

Disclaimer- I have been on statins for about nine years and I'm still al_________ 

Russell
Russell
This author is from the Heart Foundation sponsored by the produces of Statins. Enough said.
Mike R.
Mike R.
@Russell That is unecessarily cynical, Russell.  The HF exists to promote what is good for the hearts of Australian people.  If you can show a conflict of interest, then do so.
Russell
Russell
@Mike R. @Russell  Sorry not cynical at all, if you wish to be credible then you need to be independent.  Heart foundation like Diabetes Australia is hopelessly compromised by their sponsorship deals.

Yes the HF does exist to promote what is good for the Heart, but they have lost their way and you only need to look at the sort of Companies that get the Heart Foundation tick.  Pay enough and you get the tick.
I would not eat anything on the tick list.  Just eat real food, ie fresh produce that you cook and eat, nothing processed.
Caroline
Caroline
There is compelling research that dietary changes including the exclusion of meat, chicken and dairy reduces "bad" cholesterol levels far more effectively and safely than statins but too many people would rather take a pill than think carefully about what they are ingesting.
Reg
Reg
@Caroline  maybe people like meat, chicken and dairy! they can still eat it by taking a little pill daily. Its 2015 you know.
Mike R.
Mike R.
@Caroline The "compelling research" (is there any other kind?!) may be well and good, Caroline, but the metabolism of many means that dietary changes alone are not sufficient.  Pills aren't all bad, you know.
richard
richard
@Mike R. @Caroline Pills aren't all bad Mike. However, if pills are not prescribed for the correct reason, then they are both dangerous and an impost on the PBS 
Our organizations responsible for the heath system should be doing studies to ensure the veracity of the drugs permitted under the PBS.
Anyone remember Thalidomide or Vioxx  
Robert
Robert
After stopping my statin prescription owing to muscle shrinkage and permanent cramps I wanted to know what excess risk of a heart attack I was running.  Based on data from the largest and longest-running study in the world, at age 76 I have 6% LESS risk and at age 86 I will have 19% LESS risk of a heart attack by NOT using statins.
The website is by the US Dept of Health & Human Services and is based on the Framingham Mass study over 65 years of 5,209 people.  There have been over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers based on this study.

Bob
Matthew
Matthew
Hang on a minute - way back then they said we were about to go over a cliff.  Can we deduce there is no big heart attack spike?  I mean it's been a while?  
Mark
Mark
Statin denial and climate change denial are probably at a similar level of scientific proof ( Richard you won't have to try too hard to find the evidence - its well known in the medical scientific community). It would be a fairly simple calculation  to work out how many myocardial infarctions would have been caused by the medication cessation that resulted from the program. In at risk populations , myocardial infarction events are about 30% less per annum when taking the medication. In the same population the infarct rate is about 10-15% per year at least.  0.3 x 12-15% of the proportion of the known at risk population who ceased the drug is the number of infarcts caused per annum.
richard
richard
@Mark Does not answer the question. 
What scientific studies, when, where and by whom
At what point should statins be prescribed, ie, the ratio between HDL, LDL, large and small and Triglycerides.Also the calcium blood levels. Do they advise to take CoQ10 as well to counteract the statins reduction

richard
richard
What large scale, randomized trials have been done, where and by whom
Many of my clients are  telling me they have now been told to take the statins , as a precaution, even when their tests are normal. These drugs are the pot of gold for the medical profession and the pharmaceutical companies
A collation of Medicares patients, their test results and prescribing details for statins would be beneficial to ensure drugs are being prescribed correctly
John
John
If all of the scientific experts are convinced that something is good, then it is wrong headed to question that wisdom?   This is exactly the same argument used by their ABC to promote its pet concerns around climate change and the elevation of lawyers into positions of absolute power over the community.  Whatever the merits or otherwise of the statins argument it cannot be argued by any side of the debate that because all of the scientific experts are in accord, we must accept their view as truth.  This philosophical position only serves to entrench what might have been a leading idea in its day as an orthodoxy not to be challenged and this just leads to stagnation, corruption and decay. 
David
David
One point not addressed is that M.Demasi interviewed a lot of alternate "health" experts who were pushing products they had an interest in marketing,also Prf. D. Sullivan's moderate comments on the benefits of statins were heavily edited.
Greg
Greg
I distrust their abc utterly but I also question reports such as this. The writer makes no mention of the fact the US health authorities have changed their minds about cholesterol (as reported in the Times and reprinted here, may 25, "More eggs please: cholesterol 'is OK now'". The Australian medical authorities accused the catalyst report of ignoring recent research, and this writer appears to be doing the same thing.
Regarding the claim that discontinuing statins could result in between 1522 and 2900 fatal heart attacks: if statins are so necessary to people's lives, how many have passed away in the last 8 months? Is that number significantly above average for cardiac patients on statins?
This essay does raise one important point, though: the public's loss of faith in medicine (and science). While many medical writers such as this person condemn the public for not accepting medicine's "authority", I see none that wonder how this situation has come about, or what medicine might do to restore the public's confidence in their discipline.

Rachel
Rachel
Most things in medicine have a cost and a benefit.  Statins can have serious and significant side effects in some people, and are overprescribed. For some people, with established heart disease, they can be extremely useful.  I'm a doctor, and I say trust your doctor but also take responsibility for your health. History is replete with examples of the medical profession not questioning the harm that some medicines cause, in taking on faith the next "miracle" drug, and for pharmaceutical companies being less than honest in how they market their wares. Statins are good, if you need them. 
Bernard
Bernard
@Rachel  Well Rachael, I get the issue of proper use and that is why statins are prescribed medicines.  You seem in your comment to be implying statins are overprescribed by doctors.  How about some evidence of over-prescription - this article seems to indicate the opposite.  The fact is that the ABC and the producers of Catalyst were wrong and being mischievous with this show.  That is the issue, not some supposed oversupply argument a la the Catalyst proponents.

Janis
Janis
@Rachel  If Doctor's practice medicine according to current evidence based  guidelines then their patient will have best outcomes based on latest information. Doctor's who don't keep up to date are as much risk to a patient as any ABC program with a slant. It is not about faith when Drs prescribe , if patients want faith they should go to their spiritual  leader who also can make a difference for that person if they have a belief . 
Dave
Dave
There is no evidence that the media "got it wrong". Certainly Catalyst took a provocative angle, but it sought balance by presenting comments from both sides of the discussion. The concerns it raised were well-founded and deserve to be discussed. It would have been absurd to raise them in the context of a presentation that was fundamentally pro-statin and Catalyst has been crucified simply for daring to question the conventional wisdom. 
What is really concerning is the implicit assumption in articles like this that critics do not have the right to do that. Jennifer Johns starts the article asserting Catalyst was wrong because Media Watch, an internal investigation and "numerous articles" said so: basically appealing to authority rather than evidence. Why has she done this? The answer is that the "evidence" itself is subject to interpretation, as the program showed. 
At the end of the article John softens her attack by conceding that a mythology had developed around statins that they were a "cure-all". The medical establishment as a whole (excluding many prudent doctors) is responsible for perpetuating this myth, just as it was in the use of antibiotics, with disastrous results. Doctors should have been providing the "well-informed, balanced advice" about statins all along, whether or not their patients were seeking it.
Nancy
Nancy
The ABC is consistently irresponsible in its airing of a large number of its programmes which show intransigence and deliberate bias.  However, most of the time it doesn't really matter.

In this case they took it upon themselves to demonstrate their ignorance in a very dangerous manner which will apparently have long lasting and serious consequences for a large number of Australians.  We have yet to hear an apology or correction from CEO Scott or anyone else, let alone a full programme covering the subject of their folly.  Without drawing attention to their mistake, they do now post a disclaimer to accuracy before some of their Catalyst claims. 

Dr Karl and other so-called "science" experts are  not immune from error either and speak with all the authority of a research scientist on a wide range of matters on which they have no expertise at all.  This is very noticeable when they try to explain something from physics, which is a difficult discipline and where their errors are quite clear to those of us who are familiar with the subject matter being "explained".
John Nicol 
Rick
Rick
'misleading, biased and ignored the overwhelming evidence of benefits'
That pretty much sums up the Left's ABC. Four Corner's anti-coal campaign is the latest example, but this description fits much of what spews out of both the Left's ABC and SBS.
Joseph
Joseph
The evidence for statins is not as straightforward as Dr. Johns claims.

Most doctors would accept that statins are effective for "secondary prevention" of heart disease, i.e. people who have known heart disease.

But the story is much murkier for people who do not yet have heart disease, but have been placed on statins anyway -- i.e., "primary prevention".  In these patients the cost-benefit ratio is suspect, to say the least.

It's beyond the scope of a short comment to go through all the evidence, but allow me to quote from the relevant Cochrane systematic review on statins for primary prevention:

"Although reductions in all-cause mortality, composite endpoints and revascularisations were found with no excess of adverse events, there was evidence of selective reporting of outcomesfailure to report adverse eventsand inclusion of people with cardiovascular disease. Only limited evidenceshowed that primary prevention with statins may be cost effective and improve patient quality of life. Caution should be taken in prescribing statins for primary prevention among people at low cardiovascular risk." (my emphasis)

Millions of patients have been prescribed statins for primary prevention, which is a matter of genuine controversy.  It is disappointing that Dr. Johns has ignored this part of the issue.
Lynda
Lynda
@Joseph At what point is it a good idea to begin taking statins?? What cholesterol level? 5,6,7,8?? Is cholesterol in the 6's high enough to start the drug to bring it down? I have just had a mini-stroke and my GP has placed my onto a course of statins. I am very concerned now, and not sure what to do. 
Mark
Mark
@Lynda @Joseph Take the pill Lynnda - its well established knowledge you will have  a FAR lower risk of stroke on the medication , especially if combined with BP lowering treatment and anti-platelet aggregation treatment. Or you can trust the ABC - you choose!

Obsidian
Obsidian
@Mark @Lynda @Joseph I'm no expert, but my understanding is that it would be more accurate to say "statistics show that you will have a SLIGHTLY lower risk of stroke on the medication, especially if combined with BP lowering treatment and anti-platelet aggregation, IF (and only if) you are a middle-aged woman".
But the bottom line is the same - take your doctor's advice. 
Caroline
Caroline
@Lynda @Joseph @Lynda - forget the statins read Dr Joel Fuhrman's "Eat for Health" and T.COlin Campbells's "The China Study" or look up Dr John MacDougall - its the FOOD!
Obsidian
Obsidian
@Joseph Thanks for making this point, Joseph. I noticed that Dr Johns stresses the benefit of statins in "people with established heart disease or those at high cardiovascular risk". My memory of the ABC program is that it was directed towards the over-prescription for those simply with high cholesterol levels, which is not the same thing. It would have been easy enough to separate the two groups out in the stats, and also to see whether the reduction in dispensing led to any increased deaths in either group. Of course, she also doesn't mention any adverse health outcomes due to statins, either. So this article is really just the Heart Foundation throwing up (yet another) cloud of misleading information. I'm sure they do some good work, but in the end they are like any other bureaucracy.  
Richard
Richard
We have this problem with the ABC because of the proliferation of journalists educated in the arts and socialist attitudes, but with little statistical or mathematical knowledge, and virtually no science background. The same argument explains the extraordinary stance of the ABC on climate alarmism.
Lunchalittle
Lunchalittle
@Richard well said. And for real confusion try letting your average journalist try to explain something on a graph. Words after words touting progressive ideas (particularly Fairfax/ABC)- they are good at bombarding us with those - but as for trying to explain something scientific or of a mathematical or statistical nature ....... well, just give the figures and I'll do it myself thanks.
Mark2
Mark2
@Lunchalittle @Richard Of course. I go directly to The Australian for all my scientifically rigorous reporting. On climate issue, for example, no rhetorical, ignore the evidence dog whistling there!
John
John
It never ceases to amaze me ."I saw it on TV it must be true" It makes more sense if your doctor is prescribing you medication simply ask about the side effects and then weight up the risks .
Barry
Barry
As an admirer of Catalyst I am grateful for this discussion which challenges all of us to carefully consider the power of the media for the power both ways. 
John
John
Trust your doctor not some unqualified journalist. 
Lunchalittle
Lunchalittle
@John don't JUST trust your doctor without question. I had to do my own research to find out if statins were in all likelihood the cause of some symptoms that impeded my quality of life. That included playing with dosages, periods of stopping medication to prove to myself (and after all, only WE know our own bodies) statins were the cause.
I presented my documented/diarized evidence to the cardiologist who agreed with my findings, and then my GP who did likewise after reading the cardio's report.
Anyone who simply does what he/she is told without question because a doctor told them to is as silly as the person who grabs catalysts's story and just runs with it. 
Ern
Ern
I think the persons responsible for the Catalyst programme were irresponsible and reckless in airing opinion rather then factual information about the pros and cons of Statins.   Media persons are very aware of the power they have in influencing public opinion.   That the ABC did so on this occasion in such a cavalier and irresponsible manner with potential loss of life by those who followed the programme is a reprehensible reflection on the organization.    
Johan
Johan
The Catalyst program was well balanced and made it clear that statins have a role in "secondary prevention" (i.e. those with known IHD), its focus was on the fact that the preventive role is not established in primary prevention and yet millions of people are prescribed them for this purpose. Please acknowledge this fact. As a doctor, myself  and many colleagues are dismayed by how the medical profession frequently fails to stand up to Big Pharma. Statins are expensive and cause muscle weakness and ache in many patients. Eat a healthy diet instead. I am disappointed by the standard of debate in this article.
Paul
Paul
Spot on. The article is the usual pro-pharma propaganda. The rate of prescribing statins makes no sense.
Russell
Russell
@Paul  Well said Johan. The whole basis of lowering cholesterol by the use of Statins is founded on science that is now known as being wrong. Ansel Keys cherry picked his data to get the answer he wanted. Big Pharma picked it up and then developed statins to solve a problem that doesn't exist. No too much money is at stake to admit this and go back to the root cause.  Too many people just want a pill and any pill will do.
Franki
Franki
Thank you. My husband was diagnosed with Alzheimer's about three years ago. He had been on statins, as a preventative measure only and as part treatment for cardiomyopathy, for two years prior to diagnosis. He has been a brilliant man with a formidable memory and successful in his career but I became most concerned about his withdrawal from communicating at all and the excruciating muscular pain he was experiencing. He was totally confused and did not know where he was most of the time. He presented as a late stage Alzheimer's patient. Upon asking his chemist if this could be related to his medication, I was horrified to learn that statins can cause these side effects, although not in everyone. I stress that point. My research revealed alarming "anecdotal" evidence and I demanded he be taken off this medication immediately. Within three days his communication was 100 percent improved and his pain almost gone. He continued to improve over time. This shocked his various physicians, some of whom apologized for not picking up the connection. I will never know if the statins caused his Alzheimer's and he still has the disease but I can tell you he turned from an almost catatonic state into a person who enjoyed life again. I know he is not cured but don't know whether he would be with us now if it weren't for the discovery.
Ian
Ian
@Johan Agreed.There is no mention of side effects such as muscle pain and energy loss or that there are other factors other than high cholesterol implicated in IHD.  Lack of discussion of the positive side of statins  in the Catalyst program is criticised in this article which in turn does not comment on the negative side of statins.  IanL
Warren
Warren
@Ian @Johan Yes, Ian, I've been a victim of statins.  I had heart attack-like symptoms and continue to suffer muscle pain after having been on a statin drug.  My kidneys were damaged and the hospital where I was admitted were super-quick to take me off the drug.  They were in no doubt whatsoever as to the cause of my issues.  I've now read enough to know that the people who benefit most from statin drugs are the management and shareholders of pharmaceutical companies.  In countries like Sweden, where mass trials of this class of drug have been conducted, it has been shown that statins serve no purpose whatsoever in lowering the rate of death by heart attack.  Save your kidneys - don't take statins.

UNPRECENDED CRIMINAL ABC RE MATTERS MEDICAL!

David Thodey, James Packer sign on for Square Peg venture

$
0
0

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/david-thodey-james-packer-sign-on-for-square-peg-venture/story-fn91v9q3-1227408607199

mmmm,m
Square Peg players

llllllll

David Thodey, James Packer sign on for Square Peg venture

Telstra CEO David Thodey giving Henbury School $10,000 on his last day in the job.
Retiring Telstra CEO David Thodey will join James Packer at Square Peg Capital. Source: News Corp Australia
Retiring Telstra chief executive David Thodey plans to join billionaire James Packer in working with the Paul Bassat-led venture capital firm, Square Peg Capital, to pursue more investments in Israel.
The company intends to spend $US150 million ($193m) over the next three to five years in venture and growth-stage online and technology companies.
Square Peg last week took a delegation of 40 leading Australian technology entrepreneurs, ­investors and executives together representing more than $US150 billion in value to Tel Aviv and ­Jerusalem to learn about the Israeli hi-tech industry.
The delegation included Mr Packer and Mr Thodey as well as Rob Rankin, the chief executive of Mr Packer’s Consolidated Press Holdings; Evans & Partner founder David Evans; Carsales chief Greg Roebuck; Seek boss Andrew Bassat; Square Peg backer Justin Liberman, and his cousin Josh ­Liberman.
UBS Australia chief executive Matthew Grounds and Stockland director Carol Schwartz are also investors in Square Peg.
During the trip the firm ­announced its fourth investment in an Israeli company, leading a $8.1m Series B equity raising for technology firm JethroData, in partnership with existing investor Pitango Venture Capital.
Square Peg’s other Israeli ­investments over the past year have been in early-stage storage and database softwear technology businesses, the first being Feed­visor, the world’s first algorithmic pricing and business intelligence platform for online retailers.
Mr Packer, who has bought a property in Tel Aviv and divides his time between the Israeli capital and the US, said he was keen to do more with Mr Bassat and Square Peg in the Israeli tech scene. He also does business in ­Israel with Hollywood film producer Arnon Milchan. “The trip has strongly reinforced my view of the investment opportunities and incredible tech ecosystem in Israel,” Mr Packer toldThe Australian from Tel Aviv. “I am in Israel meeting new people and Paul (Bassat) is certainly someone I want to do more with, but we are just wetting our feet here.”
The delegation met Iscar chairman Eitan Wertheimer, who ­recently sold 20 per cent of his company to US investment legend Warren Buffett for $US2bn.
It also met Check Point founder Gil Shwed, leading hi-tech founders of Waze, Outbrain and ironSource, as well as many other entrepreneurs, government officials, investors, incubators and ­accelerators, including the president of the Weizmann Institute, Daniel Zajfman.
The trip was the first to Israel by Mr Thodey, who is looking to his life after Telstra when he retires as chief executive in August. He took the trip in a private capacity.
“I’ve always wanted to come here from a technology perspective and to understand what has driven such innovation,” he said.
Mr Thodey is not yet an investor in Square Peg but says he has “always had a lot of time for” the group. “I really admire what they are doing. Paul and Andrew (Bassat) are reinvesting back into the sector. If there is some way I could help them, whether it is financial or not, I would like to,” he said.
Mr Thodey stressed he would not make any decisions on his ­future until the end of the year. But he added: “A big part of what I would like to be involved in is ­investing in start-ups and using the experience I have had to help companies get established, both ­financially and non-financially.”
Mr Thodey also met Mr Packer during his time in Tel Aviv. “David Thodey and I had a proper catch-up, which was great as I think he did a terrific job at Telstra,” Mr Packer said. Mr Thodey said the billionaire had “seen the incredible opportunity of what they call the ‘start-up nation’. He is keen to be a part of that.”
Evans & Partners founder David Evans, a Square Peg investor, said the start-up culture in ­Israel had “also been helped by a culture ‘that’s it’s OK to fail’.
“And second and third-time entrepreneurs get encouraged and embraced,” he said. Since its launch almost three years ago, Square Peg Capital has spent tens of millions of dollars on more than 20 investments in a range of start-up companies, largely in Australia.
They include taxi booking app goCatch, global ad data venture Standard Media Index, travel website Wego, US e-commerce group Shipping Easy and online beauty products supplier Bellabox.
It also took a stake in digital marketing company Rokt with News Corp’s Lachlan Murdoch, Hong Kong hedge fund manager John Ho and Greg Roebuck. Rokt is run by former Jetstar chief executive Bruce Buchanan.
Square Peg co-founder Dan Krasnostein moved to Tel Aviv last year to lead expansion plans. Former Cisco executive Arad Naveh has also joined Square Peg as a venture partner based in Israel. Paul Bassat said the firm was keen to build a successful business in Israel and wanted to build its network. “We have met entrepreneurs into their fourth and fifth ventures. There is a real can-do mentality and energy around solving really significant problems.”
Earlier this month Mr Bassat, who is also a Wesfarmers director, spent a week in Silicon Valley.
“There is a similarity in Israel to what is happening in the valley. People have an enormous ability to create a lot without a lot of resources.’’
Square Peg is also backed by investors such as Tony Holt, Barry Brott, Gavin Appel and Justin and David Liberman, who are not ­related.
Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.


Telstra ventures group eyes Israel opportunity

$
0
0
 
Telstra ventures group eyes Israel opportunity
QLD_CM_BIZ_THODEY_5MAY15
David Thodey, outgoing chief exectutive of Telstra. Picture: Mark Cranitch. Source: News Corp Australia
Telstra’s vaunted in-house ­venture capital team plans to sharpen its focus on investment opportunities in Israel, according to chief executive David Thodey.
The applications and ventures group, founded by Mr Thodey in 2011, now has 16 investments. This year, it led a $12 million Series B funding round for Israeli mobile security company Zimperium.
Other backers of the raising ­included Japan’s Toyo Corporation and existing investors Sierra Ventures, Lazarus Israel Opportunities Fund and Samsung.
At the time, Mark Sherman, managing director of Telstra ­Ventures, said the investment represented “an opportunity for Telstra to acquire a stake in an emerging company with a unique solution to the problem of ­advanced cybersecurity attacks on mobile devices”.
Telstra is a customer of Zim­perium and the funding is being used to scale Zimperium’s operations and support its rapidly ­growing customer base.
“Obviously one of the big growth areas is network and ­cybersecurity. We work with Checkpoint already, which is a big Israeli company, and source a lot of software from Israel,” Mr ­Thodey said.
He said the ventures group, which has offices in Australia and Silicon Valley, was looking at other investments in Israel.
“The ventures group is back in Israel in a month doing more due diligence. The group is about getting insights into the technology and looking at how we can use the product internally ourselves ... For Australia, we need to be more ­focused on driving innovation and entrepreneurship.”

JULY 30 2015 World's leading counter-terrorism expert speaks at Graf oration

$
0
0



World's leading counter-terrorism expert speaks at Graf oration
July 30, 2015
Written by Leah Cohen

Most people have an opinion about terrorism but not many have spent a life-time studying it. 
While Australia is fairly new to the threats and concept of terrorism, Israel is not. 

For one night only at the Shalom Institute’s 2015 Graf Oration dinner, over 400 people from Sydney’s Jewish community and beyond were lucky enough to hear the world’s leading counter-terrorism expert, and distinguished guest, Professor Boaz Ganor speak about the global threat and problem of international terrorism. 
From the crumbling economic power of Hamas to the crowning of ISIS as the largest ever terrorist organisation, from the Israeli operations in Gaza to the disaffected foreign fighting youths, Professor Ganor did his best to cram his life’s work and as much information as he could into just over an hour.  

As a new member of Plus61J, I had never attended one of the Shalom Institute’s events but first impressions are everything. Immediately entering the bustling foyer of the Shangri-La, any nerves I had were washed away by a wave of comfort as I was handed a glass of wine and looked around to see many familiar faces young and old. I felt a strong sense of community knowing everyone was here in honor of Ervin Graf and of course here with the same intentions to learn more.

One would expect nothing less than an illustrious career from Prof. Ganor. He co-founded the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, consulted to the Israeli government, lectured throughout the US and published numerous articles and books. 

Terrorism is a threat that confronts us all, challenges us, and in fact, is something we don't really understand. Prof. Ganor emphasised the importance of a universal definition of the word to be able to counter terrorism effectively. “I am familiar with 109 definitions for terrorism, how can we join forces and counter terrorism when we don't have a standard definition,” he said. “Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence, aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends,” Prof. Ganor defined.  

He clarified that one should understand that religion is no more than a cover up tactic used by terrorist organisations to hide their true political goals and motivations. Whether they are lone wolf or organised attacks, “terrorism is terrorism,” Prof. Ganor said, and “one cannot differ between Hamas, Hezbollah, IRA and ISIS.” 
In order to counter terrorism we too need to define our enemy. Instead of pointing fingers at organisations Prof. Ganor said, the real enemy is the ideology of jihadists.   

The ultimate way to counter terrorism is to deal with the “terrorism formula,” tackling both the motivational and operational capabilities of terrorists at the same time, but that is “easier said than done,” Prof. Ganor said. “There is a contradiction between the two, we call it the boomerang effect.“ If we act on operational capabilities by fighting back or imprisoning terrorists, this only raises their motivation to retaliate, “and how do we deal with that? That is the art of counter-terrorism...” 

Prof. Ganor expressed his concerns about the other contradiction we face having to balance between efficiency in counter-terrorism and guarding our democratic values. Sometimes we have to “sacrifice some values in order to secure some efficiency in counter-terrorism and sacrifice security in order to cherish our own values,” he said. 
In Australia, the focus has been shifting towards counter-terrorism strategies following the siege at Sydney’s Lindt café and more recently the luring of young people to ISIS. However, according to Australia's leading constitutional lawyer George Williams in his Sydney Morning Herald opinion article published in April, we are placing “too much weight on the idea that terrorism can be prevented by enacting new laws.” 

Prof. Ganor opened his speech discussing the rise of multi dimensional warfare, whereby not only motivational and operational capabilities need to be tackled simultaneously, but the legal field too in order to be successful in countering terrorism. While Australia is acting on the legal battlefield, it's not doing anything to stop the motivational or the operational. Or even if they do act on the operational such as the counter-terrorism raids earlier this year, like Prof. Ganor said, this only motivates them to retaliate. 

On that note, Williams mentions that the overreaction of nations to terrorist attacks such as the portrayal of fear and anger through the media also produces a cycle that only feeds terrorist organisations more. Instead of giving terrorists exposure in the media, which is exactly what they want, perhaps counter-terrorism messages should be projected on TV and digital media screens like they are in the UK. 

“ISIS is becoming an epidemic,” Prof. Ganor warned, “inspiring the phenomenon of homegrown terrorism.” Targeting the uneducated and vulnerable, Jihadists use social media and glamorised videos to reel young people in and tell them they belong with Islam and not in their country where they feel ostracised. With the ubiquitous Internet, there needs to be some security over what young people can access to stop them from being conned into thinking fighting for ISIS is their only hope. 

Prof. Ganor played a short ABC video interview of two Australian foreign fighters in Syria (there are now estimated 70 Australians actively fighting in Syria). This really struck home seeing such young men draped in black uniforms sporting rifles, especially hearing them speak with Australian accents

Now more than ever is a close family, social and community environment and sound public policy essential to counter the growing radical online environment.

“It takes a network to beat a network” Ganor said “and we are dealing with the network of global jihadists and we need to create a global network to combat them.” 

Our leaders shouldn’t just band-aid terrorism with laws but rather compliment them with community-based initiatives and terrorism prevention strategies that may help combat the cycles we keep promoting and getting ourselves into. 
We need to be resilient not just as a country but as a local and international community working smartly and cohesively to counter terrorism.

Our leaders shouldn’t just band-aid terrorism with laws but rather compliment them with community-based initiatives and terrorism prevention strategies that may help combat the cycles we keep promoting and getting ourselves into. 
We need to be resilient not just as a country but as a local and international community working smartly and cohesively to counter terrorism.



SEPT 2014 -Why I Could Not Support Bob Carr’s Middle East Resolution by Michael Easson

$
0
0
http://aild.org.au/why-i-could-not-support-bob-carrs-middle-east-resolution-by-michael-easson/



Why I Could Not Support Bob Carr’s Middle East Resolution by Michael Easson

At the NSW Labor Conference I spoke in opposition to a motion moved by Bob Carr concerning the Israel-Palestinian Peace Process. The motion lacked balance, was loosely and inappropriately worded, and seemed to equate Israel with Hamas.
In 1977 as a university student, under the tutelage of Bob Carr, I joined Labor Friends of Israel which Carr set up to fight for a social democratic defence of Israel. It was then I learned that any true friend of Israel is a friend of Palestine and a true friend of Palestine is a friend of Israel.
There is a long-standing NSW ALP tradition of support for Israel. Whatever my disagreements with the current government of Israel, that case remains impressively persuasive and strong. In contrast, Bob argues that “Israel has changed” and that their handling of the Palestinian issue is such that a hostile perspective is merited. I disagree.
With the 50th anniversary of the 1967 War approaching and the conquest of the Jordanian-administered West Bank, it is time to redouble every effort to strive for what nearly everyone in the Australian Labor Party believes in, namely a two-state solution. This is something to be achieved through negotiation, compromise, and a genuine spirit of reconciliation. The now stalled peace initiative by US Secretary of State John Kerry and similar efforts by the Quartet of organisations led by Tony Blair are aimed at coaxing all sides to reach an agreement for a final settlement.
The Quartet, set up in 2002, consists of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and Russia. Its mandate is to help mediate Middle East peace negotiations and to support Palestinian economic development and institution-building in preparation for eventual statehood.
We are all appalled by the renewed conflict in Gaza. Many more deaths would have occurred if any of the several thousand Hamas rockets fired at Israel were more successfully targeted. Hamas is a terrorist organisation and recognised as such by Australia’s government. Hamas started the current conflict by firing rockets at the general Israeli population (not military targets) and with its operatives murdering three Israeli teenagers hitch-hiking a lift home from the West Bank. Hatred of Jews on religious grounds by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, together with a refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist as a country, makes peace in Palestine impossible.
Fanatics on all sides, including the extremist settlers now under arrest who burnt a Palestinian youth to death in “revenge”, need to be relentlessly fought against. Those settlers in Israel who actively believe, on religious grounds, that all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is Israel’s patrimony remain a serious to Israel’s national security, not just peace with the Palestinians.

As every word in this debate – particularly at party Conferences – is loaded, the attention to carefully crafting a sensible position is essential.

***************************************
BREAKOUT
Bob Carr’s Motion
MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS – Resolution adopted at NSW Annual Conference
  1. Deploring the tragic conflict in Gaza, Conference supports an end to rocket attacks by Hamas and an end to Israeli incursions, which have led to the deaths of innocent civilians.

  1. ALP Conference applauds the last Labor government for its commitment to a two-state solution in the Middle East and specifically:
-          voting to enhance Palestinian status in the General Assembly;
-          restating the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied territory;
-          opposing Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land; and
-          joining the world community in branding settlements illegal under international law.

  1. NSW Labor recognises a Middle East peace will only be won with the establishment of a Palestinian state.

  1. The state of Palestine should be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps and with security guarantees for itself and Israel.

  1. NSW Labor welcomes the decision of the Palestinian Authority to commit to a demilitarised Palestine with the presence of international peacekeepers, including US forces.

  1. If, however, there is no progress to a two state solution, and Israel continues to build and expand settlements, a future Labor Government will consult like-minded nations towards recognition of the Palestinian state.

Editor’s note: numbers have been inserted for ease of reference.
**************************************************
Paragraph 1 is uncontroversial though it is strange that there is no further reference to Hamas and certainly none to its hateful Charter which refuses to recognise Israel, calls for its elimination, and declares: “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” The Charter thunders on: “The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.”
Paragraph 2 is problematic. The fact is Australia abstained (rather than voted against as Julia Gillard wanted) and did not vote for the UN resolutions enhancing Palestinian status in 2012.
On settlements, everyone except the respective extremists accepts that there will need to be land swaps as part of an international peace settlement. Until a comprehensive agreement is reached, the long standing position of Australia, along with nearly every other country, is that any acquisition of land by Israel will not be recognised until a final, binding settlement is reached with the Palestinian National Authority.
This body is more commonly called the Palestinian Authority , the interim self-government body established in 1994 to rule the emerging Palestinian autonomous regions of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a part of the peace agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the multi-party body formed in 1964 to fight for an independent Palestinian state.
Secret meetings held in Norway in 1993 between the PLO and Israel led to the signing of the historic Declaration of Principles, the Oslo Accords, in which the two sides agreed to mutual recognition and terms whereby governing functions in Palestine undertaken by Israel since the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 would be progressively handed over to a Palestinian council. The first intifada - an Arabic word literally meaning “shaking off”, in this instance, involving violent resistance – raged from late 1987 to 1993. It ended with what came to be known as the Oslo process, where both sides were to negotiate a permanent peace treaty to settle on the final status of the territories. The agreements called for the PA to take control over most of the occupied lands with security resting with the Palestinian police, although Israelis would be guaranteed freedom of movement.
Several militant Islamic groups, such as Hamas, denounced the Oslo Accords and have never been reconciled to this peace process. A return to the exact “1967 borders” is a position no one is arguing for. Not among the Israelis, the Palestinian Authority, the Americans, the Europeans. Israel, including the Israeli Labor Party, has long called for an adjustment to borders broadly along the “Green Line” of the 1949 truce agreements. The name of the border is a reference to the green ink used at the time to draw the armistice line on the map while the talks were going on between Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council in the aftermath of the Six-Day War of 1967, UN resolution 242 refers in the preamble to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”. Those words have been overwhelmingly interpreted to mean that any annexation or settlement of the areas captured by Israel in 1967 would be illegal. Israel has disputed this interpretation. The UK government routinely refers to all settlements as “illegal settlements” whereas the United States calls them contrary to international law.
In both cases, it is clear that the language used is to encourage a final, binding settlement.  In every negotiation land swaps are discussed. The Arab League in April 2013 proposed for the first time “mutual and minor” land swaps as a central feature of renewed negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
In 1967 East Jerusalem was annexed by Israel. Its Arab inhabitants were given permanent residency and the prospect of citizenship. Domestically, the status of East Jerusalem as part of Israel was further entrenched by the 1980 Jerusalem Law declaring Jerusalem the eternal capital of the Jewish people. The declaration has not been internationally recognised. UN Security CouncilResolution 478 adopted on 20 August 1980 declared the Israeli law null and void.
An Israeli capital in Jerusalem and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem is the position endorsed by most peace advocates, including the Americans and European foreign ministers.
On 22 July 2014 in Brussels the European Union Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers resolved to support Israel’s right to defend itself, condemned Hamas and “call[ed] on Israel to halt continued settlement expansion, including East Jerusalem, especially in sensitive areas such as Har Homa, Givat Hamatos and E1”. E1 is the East 1 area located adjacent to East Jerusalem in the West Bank.
EU ministers honed in on the real fault-line in Israeli politics: those who support massive settlements beyond the Green Line, including East Jerusalem and areas deep inside Palestinian Authority territory such as Har Homa, Givat Hamatos and E1. The EU resolution does not emphasise the concept of all settlements as “illegal”. It focuses attention on those settlements Israel must surrender in a final peace process – and should now dismantle.
As for paragraph 3, I prefer “complete” rather than “won” for the reason that I expect a freely negotiated peace is the means to that end.
I agree with paragraph 4. Paragraph 5 praises the Palestinian Authority. If only those words were true, exactly in the way stated. This, however, is not an agreed position within the Palestinian Authority, though the Authority certainly has talked about a demilitarised zone. Israel’s position has been to oppose any Palestinian Army in an independent Palestine.
At the July 2000 Camp David summit, hosted by US President Bill Clinton with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, the Palestinians indicated that they would be willing to accept major constraints on the “right” to have their own military force. As we know from Lebanon with Hezbollah, and Gaza with Hamas, para-military forces outside the control of a state’s government are the problem.
In 2013 Mahmoud Abbas commented that in any peace settlement, the Palestinian state would consider being demilitarised. During negotiations with former Prime Ministers Barak and Ehud Olmert in 2000 and 2007 respectively, there was an in-principle understanding between Palestinian and Israeli negotiators to post international and American soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza for an unspecified period to help maintain security.
It is a huge stretch to say that this has been “agreed” as Barak’s proposals were rejected and Olmert’s abandoned, though he persevered in negotiations with Abbas. In Olmert’s case, he was left stranded after a collapse in Palestine governance arrangements. Since 2007 the Palestinians were politically and administratively split into a Hamas “government” ruling Gaza, which favoured on-going war with Israel, and a Fatah administration controlling the PA, but its authority only effectively covering the West Bank. Fatah, founded by Arafat, is the leading political party of the PLO.
Paragraph 6 is totally irresponsible. This last, loosely worded paragraph implies that if settlements continue – even if Hamas sticks to its guns with its current absolutist Charter and continues attacking Israelis – the ALP would unilaterally recognise Palestine. The resolution blithely ignores both what that means on the ground and ethically.
Some Wider Issues
I was a regular at Annual Conference for my first 21 years of membership. Not so in the last 20. I was surprised at how few foreign policy resolutions were sent in by party units for consideration by the 2014 Conference. There was nothing about Syria’s devastating civil war, nor the brutal conquests by the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – including the massacre of religious opponents, persecution of the historic, remnant Christian communities, and the introduction of sharia law including the mandatory circumcision of girls by excision of the clitoris. Nor anything about conflicts and outrages against human rights in Nigeria, Ukraine, North Korea, Eritrea, Sudan and a host of trouble spots. No doubt this is partly a reflection of the long term decline of the vibrancy of ALP branches, a theme this Newsletter has commendably addressed over many years.
At this year’s Conference, there was just one resolution on ANZUS, several on Julian Assange, and 33 on Israeli settlements and Palestine.
On the Saturday afternoon of the Conference it was good to see resolutions moved from the floor concerning cuts in the foreign aid budget, the need for free elections in Fiji, slack security at airports. They were in addition to Carr’s resolution.
There is obviously going to be a campaign led by Carr into the National Conference. As he stated to Arab Friends of Labor at the Sunday fringe event – “next step, Federal Conference”.
So long as Hamas is a significant force in Gaza and Palestine generally, so long as their Charter calls for the destruction of Israel, so long as they express a religious hatred for all Jews, and so long as their deeds continue to match their words, there can be no peace. Any motion that does not recognise this is unbalanced.
There is an intra-Palestinian political context to the current fighting. When in April 2014 Hamas agreed to join a unified government of Palestine, along with the PA leadership, there was agreement to elections supervised by Egypt within six months – three months from now. In Gaza, Hamas was unable to pay its bureaucracy – as Egypt no longer provided funds. The popularity of Hamas in Gaza was collapsing. On the West Bank, support according to opinion polls was in the low teens.
Cornered and facing electoral oblivion, Hamas ramped up its rocket attacks on Israel and provoked renewed war in Gaza. Its support has risen, however temporarily, but it still violently suppresses peaceful demonstrations opposing its rule. Funding has been gained from Qatar and indirectly through Iran. Abbas’ long term aim to present a moderate, reasonable face to the world, to be a true peace partner for Israel, is drastically undermined. Not recognising Hamas’ cynical strategy for what it is is to be wilfully blind.
Unsuccessfully I privately pleaded for the resolution to be amended. It should have reiterated long standing Labor policy of support for two states, side by side. UN Resolution 242 proposes each state has “the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force”. To achieve this objective Hamas has to accept Israel’s right to exist. Both sides need to negotiate for peace and reach an agreement based on respect for human rights and a comprehensive settlement.
Rejection of a Bill Clinton initiative
One of the most tragic moments in the whole conflict was the rejection by Arafat of the Clinton Plan, endorsed by Barak, put forward in the dying days of Clinton’s Presidency at a White House Summit from December 19th to 23rd2000 when the three leaders met to consider a final settlement proposal.
The Plan offered the Palestinians 97 percent of the West Bank (either 96 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from Israel proper or 94 percent from the West Bank and 3 percent from Israel proper), with no cantons, full control of the Gaza Strip, with a land-link between the two. Israel would have withdrawn from 63 settlements as a result.
In exchange for the three percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Arab neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state, refugees would have the right of return to the Palestinian state and would receive reparations from a US$30 billion international fund collected to compensate them. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places, and would be given desalinisation plants to ensure adequate water.
Arafat had to concede Israeli sovereignty over only the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (that is, not the entire Temple Mount) plus three early-warning stations in the Jordan valley. Israel was going to withdraw from the warning stations after six years. Abbas, then leading the negotiations wanted to accept but, to the anger of Clinton, Arafat overruled him. Renewed violence erupted back home.
Clinton’s term as President finished the next month, Barak was heavily defeated by Ariel Sharon in the February 2001 Israeli elections, Arafat died in 2004.  The second intifada started in September 2000 and only ended in February 2005, when President Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon agreed to stop all acts of violence against Israelis and Palestinians and reaffirmed their commitment to the road map for peace.
In August-September 2005 the Israelis unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and dismantled the settlements there. Sharon, who had been a hawk, left Likud in 2005 and formed Kadima, the party of renewal, attracting a number of former leading lights in Labor. A stroke completely incapacitated him in early January 2006. His successor as Prime Minister, Olmert, was defeated in 2009. Tellingly, in 2001 and 2009, the Israeli Right returned to office after peace proposals by moderate Israeli leaders were spurned by the Palestine Authority.
The present round of Gaza fighting undermines Abbas’ attempt to realise his long sought ambition to conclude the conflict and for Palestine to become a normal state. The fighting adds unpredictable volatility to the restarting of the peace process.
Israel should do more in supporting moderate Palestinian representatives. Given unbridled anti-Jewish propaganda in the Gaza and the West Bank – cartoons and children’s television show the joy of murdering Jews – there are grounds for wondering if the Palestinian leaders, many of whom say one thing in English and another in Arabic, seriously believe in peace and a two-state solution and are  capable of delivering this.
As Yitzak Rabin famously said: you make peace with your enemies, not your friends.
The extremists in Israel who do not respect Palestinian rights are a minority. Most Israelis support a two-state solution. Hamas’ intention is to radicalise Palestinians as well as Israelis. Cool heads are needed.
Despite the presence in the Israeli Cabinet of Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home Party and other rightist groupings in favour of unilateral annexation of the West Bank, the Israeli political establishment, including the current Prime Minister, overwhelmingly favour a two-State solution (albeit to varying degrees). Putting Carr’s position at its most generous, he seems to believe the whole world is being hoaxed by the far right in Israel.
Israel’s proportional representation system has a threshold quota of 3.25 per cent for election to the Knesset. PR encourages the formation of tiny parties and militates against the larger parties forming coalitions within themselves and gaining outright majorities. All governments since the collapse of the Labor establishment in the late 1970s have been diverse coalitions. As the current Right coalition includes parties favouring Greater Israel settlements, this means that such elements hold disproportionate sway in Israeli politics. Hence the steady advance of certain settlements beyond the Green Line.
Most Israelis hold to the view that settlements significantly inside Palestinian territory should be given back. Less than ten percent of settlements are in that category. Most settlers are not prone to psychotic mob violence. The EU publishes lists of settlements well beyond the Green Line that should be dismantled. This is undoubtedly a vexed and complicated issue with frustrations sometimes boiling over. So Carr is right to highlight that a permissive settlements policy is an important grievance.
But that is not the only or most important issue in the current conflict. The most significant, fundamental problem remains implacable hostility to the very existence of Israel by wide sections of Palestinian society and genocidal hatred of Jews by a bigoted minority of Palestinians. When Hamas activists sing “from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea, Palestine will be free,” what they mean is free of Jews.
The bind we are all in is that Hamas is locked in a deadly battle for leadership of the Palestinian people, ignoring calls from Egypt and the Palestinian Authority in recent weeks for ceasefires. They desperately want to kill as many Jews as possible. When they order their people in Gaza not to leave their homes, when they use civilians as human shields, when they hide weapons in and beside buildings such as schools and UN facilities, they are hoping that casualties of women and children will undermine international support for Israel and galvanise support for Hamas at home.
Mistakes are made in war and I sometimes wish Israel would show greater public sorrow when that happens. But the reader of this Newsletter shouldmake no mistake. This is Hamas’ war and Israel is defending itself.
No responsible former Australian Foreign Minister should allow personal emotions and pent up rage against what he calls “the Melbourne Jewish Lobby” to cause him to miss the big picture. Labor should not be party to an old and recurring feature of Palestine-Israeli relations: never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Although the Carr motion was overwhelmingly carried on the voices, there were many voices raised against when a vote was called for. It is false to assert, as did some media, that the motion was carried unanimously.
Michael Easson studied international politics under Owen Harries at the University of NSW. In 1977 he joined Labor Friends of Israel, was Secretary or President of the NSW ALP Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee (1977-85), and served on the ACTU’s International Affairs Committee (1981-94). In 2008 he was a founding member of what is now known as the Australia-Israel-United Kingdom Leadership Dialogue. 

Michael Easson’s article about Bob Carr’s views first appeared in the ALP Southern Highlands Branch Newsletter – no.208 (August 2014)

THE OZ JULY 26 ALP conference 2015: Live updates

$
0
0
,,,n,m

ALP conference 2015: Live updates

Reporter
Melbourne

Paul Kelly's View

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/external?url=http://videomam.news.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/generated/prod/07/26/2015/139376/image1024x768.jpg?count=1&width=650&api_key=kq7wnrk4eun47vz9c5xuj3mc

ALP conference votes for turnback policy

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/external?url=http://content6.video.news.com.au/h3OGhodjqo4vgtYWYkw5CzOIhd5VNarf/promo262096420&width=650&api_key=kq7wnrk4eun47vz9c5xuj3mc
Bill Shorten speaks in the boat turn back debate on Saturday.
Bill Shorten speaks in the boat turn back debate on Saturday. Source: AAP
7.30pm: The party has voted to close the meeting, with Bill Shorten speaking to the motion and finishing with a three word slogan of his own: “Advance Australia Fair”
“The hour is late, and the challenges ahead of us are great,” he told delegates.
“We understand though in the last three days that the eyes of Australia were in no small part upon us.
“When this conference opened, the nation paid attention.
“We have established in the last three days, I submit, that the Labor Party is most serious about offering a social and economic program for the future of this country.
“We have engaged in debates about reforms. But what we have done most of all, is we have offered a picture of Australia writ large.
“We understand in this room, that for all the mining booms that come and go, the greatest potential of this nation is that of its people, and in every chapter of our platform we have offered views and propositions for change for a brighter future.
“We will leave here with the fundamental challenge of the next election established.
“We will believe that hope can triumph over fear, that optimism defeats pessimism, and most importantly at this conference, we have established that when people ask you what our party and movement stands for, you can tell them that we stand for jobs, quality healthcare, education for all regardless of background or circumstance, and that we stand for fairness.
“On this platform of jobs, education, healthcare, we have offered specific propositions, from the future of renewable energy to the importance of science and innovation, to investment in TAFE and our universities, to a Medicare system defined by your Medicare card not your credit card, but above all else as we approach the next election, we are united by our vision for a better Australia, by our desire to offer a future as opposed to Mr Abbott’s very, very poor propositions, but most of all friends it is the words in front of me which I believe define our vision: Advance Australia Fair!”
7.00pm: Here are five key issues voted on at Labor’s national conference today.
PALESTINE, KIND OF RECOGNISED The Left and Right managed to reach a deal, after intense negotiations on the conference floor, to work towards recognising a Palestinian state if peace talks with Israel stall again. Labor will also call for Israel to stop expanding settlements in occupied territories and reject the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against the country. Israeli ambassador Shmuel Ben-Shmuel watched on and senior Labor figures including Anthony Albanese and Jenny McAllister filibustered for more than an hour while the deal was nutted out.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEAVE Labor’s added domestic violence leave to its list of workplace rights it believes all Australians should get. But CFMEU official Joe McDonald stole the show during debate with a passionate plea for everyone to do more to address the “war in the kitchen”. “F***ing stop it, f***ing fix it, do something about it,” he urged.
GAY MARRIAGE After three days of talks and rumours, the party agreed to bind its federal MPs to vote in favour of legalising same-sex marriage — in the parliament after next. But Bill Shorten promised he’d introduce marriage equality legislation within 100 days of being elected prime minister. Penny Wong, who received two massive standing ovations from the conference, said she would have wanted the party to dump the conscience vote now but at least it was on the way out.
EQUAL REPRESENTATION FOR WOMEN Labor made an historic agreement to ensure women hold 50 per cent of positions at all levels of the party organisation and get a greater shot at running for parliament by 2025. Union representative Linda White got a standing ovation for her speech introducing the move, which she said achieved the nearly impossible task of uniting the NSW Right and Victorian Left.
* MARTIN ON THE OUTER Labor formally condemned former federal minister Martin Ferguson for his “self-serving commentary” over the past year or so that’s been damaging the party and unions. This was reference to his disparaging comments on general opposition to electricity privatisation. A trio of hardcore union bosses led the move against Ferguson, saying he didn’t deserve “to be considered a Labor elder and must be condemned as a disgraced former Labor politician”. The motion passed with resounding “ayes”. Ouch.
6.53pm: Bill Shorten has promised to legalise gay marriage in the first 100 days of an ALP government, and to put as much pressure as possible on the Abbott government on the issue in the meantime.
At ALP national conference late today, Mr Shorten moved a motion, seconded by deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, resolving that “the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the party.”
Under pressure from the Left faction to immediately drop an existing conscience vote for federal MPs in favour of a binding vote on the issue, Mr Shorten announced a compromise to deliver laws in the next parliamentary term under a Labor government, or see Labor MPs bound to vote in favour in the parliament after that.Read Rachel Baxendale’s full report on same-sex marriage here.
6.15pm: Bill Shorten says “marriage equality is a simple overdue change that sends a powerful message,”
He called on Prime Minister Tony Abbott to allow Liberal MPs a free vote on same-sex marriage. “What the Labor party does with this resolution is we lay down the challenge to Mr Abbott and his Liberals: please give your members of parliament a free vote so we can make marriage equality a reality now.”
Tanya Plibersek said the current parliament had the numbers to pass same-sex marriage and it should be allowed to.
“I still hope we can have marriage equality by Christmas but if this parliament doesn’t pass marriage equality a Shorten Labor government will in its first 100 days,” she told the conference. Mr Shorten said same sex couples had waited too long.
“Australia is trailing the world. The debate about marriage equality has simply gone on too long.”
5.30pm: Now a feel-good moment for the party with a motion on affirmative action.
Victorian Linda White got a standing ovation when she moved it. It’s now being seconded by Victorian state MP Natalie Hutchins. It sets a minimum percentage of 40 per cent of women in all party positions, moving to 45 per cent from 2022, and 50 per cent by 2025.
5.10pm: There’s been fierce debate over a motion moved by Queensland’s Anthony Chisholm and Victoria’s Eric Dearricott giving grass roots party members in electorates with more than 150 members in the party’s state branch 70 per cent of the vote when preselecting House of Reps candidates.
Union leaders were unimpressed with the motion, which would weaken their power.
CFMEU national secretary Brendan O’Connor hit out and members of Mr Dearricott’s branch for what he portrayed as their hostility towards workers.
“People who turn up to party meetings in Bacchus Marsh in their overalls aren’t welcome,” Mr O’Connor said.
“Some of these people talking about democracy in the Labor Party are full of shit.”
A vote on the matter has been postponed.
4.55pm: A compromise deal on same sex marriage will see Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek agree on an amendment to party policy that ensures a free vote on the matter for at least two terms of parliament, reports David Crowe.
This is a blow to Plibersek’s idea of a binding vote for all Labor MPs in order to maximise the numbers in favour of change in federal parliament. It seems that Plibersek has retreated on her original idea and backed the more moderate approach.
Shorten worked on the proposal with Plibersek and another senior Left leader, Penny Wong. The result means that the idea of a binding vote becomes academic. For the next two terms, Labor’s policy will be a conscience vote for all MPs. Most expect that federal parliament will approve gay marriage by the time the Labor amendment expires.
Tanya Plibersek and Bill Shorten have agreed on an amendment to party policy that ensures
Tanya Plibersek and Bill Shorten have agreed on an amendment to party policy that ensures a free vote on gay marriage for at least two terms of parliament. Picture: Hamish Blair
4.53pm: The gay marriage amendment on which party members will shortly vote has gone up on the ALP website. The amendment, which will be rescinded the day writs are issued for the next federal election, moves that:
“Conference resolves that the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party.”
4.49pm: It’s taken until late on Sunday afternoon for us to reach our first count of the conference.
The issue at stake was the election of delegates to National Conference.
The motion, moved by NSW member Prue Car and seconded by Kaila Murnain, stipulates that:
The delegates from each state must include:
(i) a number of delegates directly elected by the financial members of the state branch that is at least equal to the number of House of Representative electorates in that state as at the previous 31 December; and
(ii) delegates from outside metropolitan areas.
It passed with a statutory majority of 199.
4.38pm: ALP conference has carried a motion committing to a review of the party’s Socialist Objective. The move stops short of immediately scrapping the Socialist Objective in the party’s constitution, but appears to sound its death knell with a timeline for the review to be established at the next national executive meeting.
NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley proposed the motion, while frontbencher Kim Carr spoke up for the retention of the objective.
Foley’s speech was accompanied by some booing and some delegates turning their backs.
3.56pm: NSW ALP secretary Jamie Clements kicks off rules debate pushing for party to adopt NSW model of having every seat elect a rank and file delegate to ALP conference, Rick Wallace reports.
Says Victorian ALP doesn’t support this and wants a “carve out” from this. Clements says he also supports the 70/30 reforms being pushed by Bill Shorten to deepen rank-and-file power over decision making.
2.55pm: Labor’s national Left faction has unanimously agreed to support making same-sex marriage binding on MPs after the next election, Troy Bramston writes.
This new proposal, which rules out compelling MPs to support a same-sex marriage resolution in the current parliament, was proposed by the Rainbow Labor group.
This was reported in The Australian last week.
Labor’s national conference will debate on whether or not same-sex marriage should be binding on MPs later this afternoon. The party’s platform states that it supports same-sex marriage but MPs are not bound to vote for it in parliament.
2.45pm: We’re back after lunch. Shayne Neumann and Andrew Leigh are speaking to open a chapter on “new opportunities for an ageing Australia”.
1.55pm: Labor’s Left and Right factions have reached an agreement to formally review the party’s 1921 socialist objective with a view to modernising it with new language to reflect to the party’s core mission in the 21st century, Troy Bramstonwrites.
This is a significant step for the party to take, even though the objective is redundant, given the emotional attachment many in the party have to the wording. It describes Labor as a “democratic socialist” political party.
This is a big victory for NSW Labor leader Luke Foley, who led the charge on replacing the objective ahead the conference. A new objective has other supporters too, including Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen, national president Mark Butler and a host of former leaders such as Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam.
In recent weeks, others have added their support for rewriting the objective, including former premiers Bob Carr, Steve Bracks and Peter Beattie.
It was untenable for the party to recommit to socialism, so they’ve agreed to review it with a view to replacing it.
ACTU senior vice-president Joe de Bruyn.
ACTU senior vice-president Joe de Bruyn.
1.29pm: Labor frontbenchers are at odds over whether an emissions trading scheme can be called a tax - a fundamental question that caused enormous grief for Julia Gillard only three years ago, writes David Crowe. The party’s agriculture spokesman, Joel Fitzgibbon, seemed to concede on the Ten Network this morning that people could call an ETS a tax. Industry spokesman Kim Carr has rejected that view when asked by reporters on the sidelines of the national conference. “That’s just wrong,” Senator Carr said. “It’s not a tax. An emissions trading scheme is a way of ensuring we do something about controlling dangerous pollution.” The word-play is no small matter. Bill Shorten is adamant an ETS is not a tax and this will be crucial to Labor’s defence against a scare campaign over its climate change policy pushing up consumer prices.
1.26pm: The conference has carried a resolution condemning former ACTU boss and former federal frontbencher Martin Ferguson, writes Rick Wallace.
The MUA sponsored resolution “condemns Martin Ferguson whose self-serving public commentary is not in the interest of the party, party members or the Labour movement”.
The move follows the failure of the MUA and its allies to have Mr Ferguson expelled from the party for his comments criticising NSW Labor Leader Luke Foley for his campaign against foreign investment in power assets and privatisation.
Maritime Union of Australia boss Paddy Crumlin told the conference Mr Ferguson’s comments on the ALP and unions were “littered with vitriol” and the former resources minister and advisory board chairman of oil and gas lobby group APPEA had a “massive conflict of interest” and was looking after “his mates in big oil”.
“Martin said he was ashamed of the party, well Martin, I am ashamed of you,” Mr Crumlin said in a provocative speech that invoked Socrates and John-Paul Satre.
The rest of the motion text said: “Martin Ferguson has repeatedly spoken publicly against ALP policy and in the case of the NSW election, his actions damaged the party’s chances of success.
“Martin Ferguson does not deserve to be considered a Labor elder and must be condemned as a disgraced former Labor politician,” it read.
The motion was carried on voices.
1.13pm: There have been a lot of references to domestic violence and associated leave entitlements during this afternoon’s jobs discussion.
The CFMEU’s Joe McDonald, dressed in a black union hoodie, with yellow, tape-measure themed braces and trademark cap has offered the most colourful view on the issue so far, receiving a standing ovation when he urged male perpetrators of family violence to “just f***ing stop it.”
McDonald is not known for mincing words. In 2007 then-PM Kevin Rudd was obliged to expel him from the party after the WA Supreme Court release footage showing up abusing a company representatives, and earlier this year he and the union were fined a combined sum of $173,500 after he threatened to have a group of workers thrown off “every construction site you’re on in Perth” if they didn’t participate in a strike.
12.46pm Labor has largely lived up to its promise of a “warts and all” open conference where a significant proportion of its internal processes are carried in plain sight on the conference floor - with one notable exception, writes Rick Wallace.
Journalists are free to wander through the cavernous halls of the Melbourne Convention Centre rubbing shoulders with the factional warlords, frontbenchers and rank-andfile ALP members.
But on level one of the centre it’s a different story - security were quick to shepherdThe Australian away from the cordoned off room set aside for heavy-duty fundraising activity under the banner of the Business Observer’s Program.
As revealed in The Australian, the program has roped in 100 corporate leaders paying between $7500 and $10,000 a head to hob knob with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten and his shadows.
Thanks to the diligence of security operatives, we were pushed back just far enough so the entrance to the room was obscured leaving captains of industry and frontbenchers free to converse away from the press’ prying eyes.
12.35pm: Delegates are in a series of meetings on proposed rule changes to preselections expected to be debate this afternoon, Rick Wallace writes.
Right-faction delegates are discussing the possible changes in a meeting that began just before midday.
It’s not clear at this stage the exact form the proposals will take, although sources say there will be a Right-backed motion on the 70/30 changes backed by Bill Shorten. The motion would dilute union influence on preselections and the increase the power of rank and file delegates.
The ALP is also expected to debate changes to Senate preselections with Left sources saying there would be Left motion pushing for a system of 50 per cent rank and file and 50 per cent union leaders to decide the make up of the party’s upper house ticket. Currently the ticket is decided by delegations to state party conference.
The Right is expected to oppose this motion.
12.26pm: One of Labor’s senior figures, Martin Ferguson, continues to divide the party by expressing his personal opinion on everything from the resources industry to the royal commission into union corruption, David Crowe writes.
An amendment to the party platform is being put to attack Ferguson, a former ACTU leader and longstanding resources minister in the Rudd and Gillard governments. Those on the Left do not take kindly to Ferguson expressing his views so freely, but they failed in an attempt to drum him out of the party last month. The amendment states: “This conference condemns Martin Ferguson whose self-serving public commentary is not in the interest of the party, party members or the Labour movement. Debate and disagreement is critical in any political party, but that debate must occur at the appropriate Labor forums not in the public domain.”
That is a warning to all Labor ministers, past and present, to watch their mouths.
Martin Ferguson continues to divide the party. Picture: Andrew Taylor.
Martin Ferguson continues to divide the party. Picture: Andrew Taylor.
12.02am: Standing orders have been suspended to allow ACTU secretary Dave Oliver to speak in favour of the jobs chapter and of the importance of the relationship between Labor and the unions.
Richard Marles at the conference today.
Richard Marles at the conference today.
11.54am: The chapter on foreign policy concluded.
We’re now going straight into one on “Decent jobs with Fair Pay and Conditions”.
Brendan O’Connor is opening, seconded by Julie Collins.
Expect lots of references to “Tony Abbott’s war on workers”.
Convenor Mark Butler has warned that lunch may be cut short. Lots of debates to get through today, with gay marriage set for the afternoon.
11.45am: It seems a swift deal was done on the Israel Palestine debate, with a proposed platform amendment on the issue dropped in favour of a resolution.
Debate on the matter was delayed with a lame filibuster involving a report on the National Policy Forum while last-minute negotiations were made.
Tony Burke then proposed a resolution, seconded by Queenslander Wendy Turner.
“This party believes that Israel has a right to exist and exist safely,” Mr Burke said.
“This party also believes that Palestine has a right to a state where they can exist safely too.”
Here’s the resolution in full:
The Australian Labor Party Conference:
Affirms Labor’s support for an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and security within their own state.
Deplores the tragic conflict in Gaza and supports an end to rocket attacks by Hamas and the exercise of the maximum possible restraint by Israel in response to these attacks.
Supports a negotiated settlement between the parties to the conflict, based on international frameworks, laws and norms
Recognises in government Labor retained its commitment to two states for two peoples in the Middle East and specifically
Did not block enhanced Palestinian status in the General Assembly;
Restated the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied territory;
Opposed Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land, recognising that a just, peaceful and enduring resolution will involve a territorial settlement based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps;
Held that the settlements are illegal under international law.
Recognises that any resolution will be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, a timeframe to end Israeli occupation, demilitarization of Palestinian territory, agreement on a solution to Palestinian refugee issues, and resolution of the issue of Jerusalem’s final status.
Recognises that settlement building by Israel in the Occupied Territories that may undermine a two-state solution is a roadblock to peace. Labor calls on Israel to cease all such settlement expansion to support renewed negotiations toward peace.
Rejects the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
Condemns the comments of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the recent elections where he ruled out a Palestinian state and further condemns his appeals to race during the campaign.
Recognises a lasting peace will require a future State of Palestine to recognise the right of Israel to exist and the State of Israel to recognise the right of Palestine to exist.
Recognises the special circumstances of the Palestinian people, their desire for respect, and the achievement of their legitimate aspiration to live in independence in a state of their own. This is a cause Labor is committed to.
If however there is no progress in the next round of the peace process a future Labor government will discuss joining like minded nations who have already recognised Palestine and announcing the conditions and timelines for the Australian recognition of a Palestinian state, with the objective of contributing to peace and security in the Middle East.
11.23am: We had a bit of amusing banter between Anthony Albanese and Mark Butler MP, when the latter asked crowd favourite Albo to wind up his speech on Cyprus.
“I voted for you. So be nice,” he told the SA MP and party president.
Imminent debate on Israel and Palestine has been delayed slightly while we hear a report on the party’s National Policy Forum.
11.13am: Bll Shorten is tweeting ahead of the marriage equality debate this afternoon.
11.10am: Now we’ve got one on Cyprus:
“Labor will work to facilitate a just settlement of the Cyprus problem, based on UN resolutions respecting sovereignty, independence and the territorial integrity of Cyprus, and resulting in the demilitarisation and reunification of the island for the benefit of its entire people.”
This is being moved by former NSW senator Michael Forshaw, and seconded by Anthony Albanese.
10.57am: We’re getting close to what are likely to be hotly debated motions on Israel and Palestine, but before we get there, we’ve got a couple of uncontroversial motions on the right to independence of the Saharawi people of the Western Sahara, and on maintaining a close and positive relationship with Timor-Leste. The Timor one has been moved by former Queensland MP Janelle Saffin, with the support of Victorian senator Mark Dreyfus.
10.48am: Unsurprisingly, the capital punishment motion passed.
Now Chris Bowen has moved a motion in support of the Assyrian, Chaldean, Mandaean and Yezidi people, who are suffering treatment amounting to attempted genocide at the hands of Islamic State in Iraq.
Christian Iraqi Lenda Oshalem from Western Australia has seconded the motion.
10.43am: Now we’ve got a motion on capital punishment in the wake of the deaths by firing squad of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran in Indonesia earlier this year. Don’t think there’ll be much dissent on this one. It calls upon future Labor governments to:
- Strongly and clearly state our opposition to the death penalty, whenever and wherever it arises;
- Join forces with other nations to push for universal adoption of a global moratorium on the death penalty;
- Develop Australian government policy aimed at assisting all nations end the death penalty; and
Use Australia’s aid programs to support civil society organisations campaigning for abolition in countries which retain the death penalty.
10.27am: They’ve passed another motion on making sure local governments, as first responders to natural disasters, are properly funded and equipped for the task.
10.26am: Labor senator Kim Carr claims Tanya Plibersek supported the party’s new position on boat turn-backs in shadow cabinet.
Ms Plibersek avoided personally voting on the proposal to allow a future Labor government to adopt a policy of turning back asylum seeker boats at the ALP national conference on Saturday, by instead handing her vote to a proxy. But Mr Carr said Ms Plibersek had strongly supported the position “articulated on behalf of the whole shadow cabinet” Labor Leader Bill Shorten.
“Tanya spoke very strongly in support of the shadow cabinet’s position at the various meetings I attended,” Senator Carr told Sky News on Sunday.
Bill Shorten with Tanya Plibersek at the opening session today.
Bill Shorten with Tanya Plibersek at the opening session today.
10.24am: Former WA Senator Louise Pratt has spoken on a raft of motions in support of the rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex people internationally, which also passed.
10.22am: Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek has opened a chapter on “Australia’s place in a changing world”.
They’ve just carried a motion supporting Australia’s active participation in the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank, and a rather uncontroversial one recognising that torture “fundamentally undermines human dignity and erodes the moral foundation of any institution which engages in it,” and supporting efforts to end all forms of torture.
10.04am: Bill Shorten has opened the final day of the conference by attempting to paint yesterday’s debate over boat turnbacks and offshore detention as an illustration of Labor at its best - hammering out the issues in the open.
“We’re brought up on the stories of the great national conferences, the fierce fights,” Mr Shorten said.
“I say to the delegates of this 47th conference that I couldn’t have been any prouder of the party not 30 years ago, but yesterday.”
He singled out Andrew Giles, for holding his cool yesterday when protesters took to the stage, ironically interrupting Giles’ speech against turnbacks.
Shorten also congratulated party president Mark Butler for respectful moderation of the debate.
“We don’t mind disagreeing with each other, but we won’t let other people tell us how to disagree. We’ll do that our selves,” Shorten said.
He then set the scene for some of today’s key debates, in particular gay marriage and party rules, calling on Tony Abbott to allow the Liberals a conscience vote on marriage equality to which Labor would respond in kind, and saying the ALP should be aiming to become a party of more than 100,000 members.
9.55am: Now he’s speaking on same sex marriage, saying if we expect Tony Abbott to give the Liberals a free vote, we must pursue the same ourselves.
9.52am: Shorten has singled out Andrew Giles and Mark Butler for praise for their role in yesterday’s asylum seeker debate.
9.50am: Bill Shorten is speaking to the audience now, winning them by having a go at yesterday’s turn-back protesters. We’ll bring you the full report on his speech soon.
9.28am: Albanese rejects the proposition that there would be long-term resentments as a result of the asylum seeker debate, writes David Crowe. And he seems to acknowledge that the new party position on border protection will improve Labor’s standing at the next election.
While Albanese raised his hand to vote against turn-backs himself, fellow Left members Tanya Plibersek and Penny Wong gave their votes to proxies who then voted against turn-backs. Albanese makes no criticism of his colleagues and disputes a newspaper story that says he took a shot at Left faction members who “sit on their hands” on big questions.
9.19am: Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese has defended his decision to vote at odds with Bill Shorten on asylum seeker boat tu. rn-backs, saying other measures like offshore detention would stop the boats and there would be no need for turning back boats, David Crowe writes.
“I couldn’t ask people to do something that I would not be willing to do myself,” he tells ABC’s Insiders program.
Tanya Plibersek arrives at the conference today.
Tanya Plibersek arrives at the conference today.
9.03am: Immigration Minister Peter Dutton says Labor’s new policy on asylum-seeker boat turn-backs is a dodgy, watered-down deal.
“People who characterise this as somehow the Labor party agreeing to a carbon copy of the government’s successful policy ... completely misreads the situation. It’s not about the stern approach taken by the government,” Mr Dutton told Sky News this morning.
8.51am: Labor’s Left faction could win its argument that MPs be bound to vote for same-sex marriage.
It’s understood Left faction members have decided to vote as a bloc to enshrine in the party rules that MPs won’t have a conscience vote on the matter, but rather must support it as a matter of social equity and justice.
The issue will be voted on at the ALP’s national conference in Melbourne this afternoon.
8.45am: Just to remind you what happened yesterday at the ALP conference: Bill Shorten gained a vital victory in support of his decision to use boat turnbacks to discourage asylum seekers, amid heated protests against him. You can read the news story, Dennis Shanahan’s analysis and Stefanie Balogh’s sketch here:
The conference also backed Bill Shorten’s ambitious new target of 50 per cent for renewable energy, and cheered the prospect of an election fought on climate change.
You can read the news story and Graham Lloyd’s article on how Europe is now beating a retreat on emissions:
Labor under Bill Shorten seeks to win the next election by re-fighting the climate change issue with a renewable energy spearhead, pledging a fairer nation and using progressive identity politics — yet its fatal flaw is economic policy, writes Paul Kelly.
You can read his article here: Big on promises, short on reality
8.30am: Good morning and welcome to the last day of the ALP conference.
Today the conference will consider whether to force its members to vote for same sex marriage, although the party is expected to retain the conscience vote.
Labor leader Bill Shorten will tell the 397 delegates to the Melbourne conference today that any move for a binding vote on MPs could backfire.
Labor deputy Tanya Plibersek speaks at a function at the Cargo Hall after not being prese
Labor deputy Tanya Plibersek speaks at a function at the Cargo Hall after not being present at the vote on immigration.
He will say it would undermine a bid to convince Tony Abbott to allow his frontbenchers a free vote on the issue when a cross-party bill is brought to parliament.
“I know we can achieve marriage equality by the power of our arguments,” he will say.
Mr Shorten said in his opening speech to the conference on Friday that same-sex marriage would make Australia a more inclusive nation.
Deputy leader and Left faction member Tanya Plibersek has argued in favour of a binding vote.
But Left colleague Anthony Albanese, who supports gay marriage, says the party should respect those who oppose it on religious grounds.
The conference on Saturday voted in favour of gay, lesbian, transgender and intersex couples having the same access to IVF, adoption and domestic surrogacy arrangements as heterosexual couples.
Labor MP Terri Butler plans to co-sponsor a private member’s bill with Liberal MP Warren Entsch to change the Marriage Act. But its success will depend on coalition MPs having a free vote.
With AAP
Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.
268 COMMENTS
135 people listening

Beverley
Beverley
One thing I did pick up on at the Labor conference was that it seems like they are slowly returning to the old White Australia Policy of the '50's & '60's.
Andrew
Andrew
Here's a surprise: Labor wants more government inside our lives, and it wants working Australians to pick up the bill. You could have knocked me down with a feather...,
Malcolm
Malcolm
Unfortunately like we saw in Victoria voters fall hook line and sinker for the motherhood statements and hate the detail. Their will be plenty of voters that see this as a triumph of democracy rather than a staged event for all to be fooled. 
Karin
Karin
An impressive conference, with contribution of members and MPs . Democracy in action for all to see and judge, rather than LNP's secret deals with Abbott's three lines slogans or Hockey's derogative comments. This conference debate and resolutions has in my opinion given Labor a new lease of life.
Chris
Chris
@Karin  Except nothing on the Economy and how Labor is going to manage it
Tax the wealthy was the only thing I heard...........real smart....the wealthy are the only taxpayers left standing

As to the deficit .........what's the plan there?
Brenda
Brenda
What a lot of emotional drivel. imagine the damage they would inflict on us if they were elected based on the nonsense they have generated. Is there anything remotely pragmatic or realistic?
arlys
arlys
Well it must have been a huge success. On Friday the bookies had Abbott at $1.65, Labor $2.50 For a win next election.Tonight? Abbott at $1.50 Labor $2.75. Looks like the punters didn't buy it.
Paul
Paul
@arlys  Thank you for that bit of news Arlys.  Says it all really and cuts through all the Labor  and mainstream media and so called polling B/S!
holy quail
holy quail
This just in from Federal Liberal Director Brian Loughnane. Let me know if you agree as I do ....  The Conference:
  • Made no mention of economic management and had nothing to say about how Labor would deal with the debt and deficit left by the last Labor Government;
  • Adopted a series of additional unfunded spending measures, bringing Labor’s unfunded commitments to over $57 Billion;
  • Endorsed a new tax on electricity which would ramp up electricity costs for families, adding to cost-of-living pressures and threatening jobs and small business;
  • Remains deeply divided on border security, with senior front-benchers voting against Bill Shorten;
  • Endorsed further powers for trade unions, including in relation to independent contractors and small business; and
  • Confirmed a future Labor Government would increase taxes on superannuation. 
  • Labor has no leadership, is divided on key policy, a threat to the living standards of families and small businesses.
  • Under Bill Shorten, Labor has wasted its first two years in Opposition.
holy quail
holy quail
Troy Bramston thinks Shorten comes out of this enhanced in the eyes of voters. What delusion ALP people have. Just because Bill goes all progressive and wins the factional fights within his own conference, that doesn't mean Joe Public automatically gives Shorten a big tick. The wholes shebang was nothing but window dressing and papering over old festering sores, or indeed sending the share price of Band Aids skyrocketing.
Kevin
Kevin
I offer my view of the ALP love-in....
- no mention of how to fix the fiscal mess and deficit that RGR and the majority of the ALp Front bench bestowed on Australia. What.....$600billion and annual deficits for the next how many years?
- the Federal Bureacracy loaded with ALp sycophants eg. Refugee Tribunal, AHCR, Federal Courts
- how to pay for their sponsorship of the illegals that they don't turn back
- how to deal with the50,000 odd illegals that they left to the Abbottgovernment to deal with
- on top of that, how to pay for the doubling of the Humanitarian intake when it will force the Federal Government to borrow more money to pay for welfare of people who have no intention to do anything but remain on welfare
- gay marriage? I would suggest that this is a smokescreen. I'm not gay and I don't give a curse...
bring on Tania Plibersek and her better half and ask for the Australian electorate to legitimise him as a representative of the Government of Australia.
Labor Rules? I don't think so.....
National Security - the ALP has no idea
Boat people - ALP are cowards
Fiscal Responsibility - the ALP does not have any idea. Spend, spend, spen. Oh, and Wayne Swan is cited as an economic genius.Credibility = zero, zilch, nuthin........fools, liars and charlatans.
Big John
Big John
The same-sex marriage debate entered a new phase of intolerance with Labor voting to expel parliamentarians who advocate man-woman only marriage. In two Parliaments time , Labor MPs and Senators who vote against redefining marriage will be expelled from the party


That's the ALP for you  
Loaded Dog
Loaded Dog
In time they will vote that the next Labor PM apologize to the Ottoman Turks for the invasion of Gallipoli and beg that they accept compensation.
Steve
Steve
I also vehemently object to the all day live coverage of this back-slapping bile-fest by ABC 24. My taxes should not be used to promote this leftist propaganda. Time to privatise this drivel; let those who want to watch it, pay for it.
gerald
gerald
@Steve Agree entirely and I cant believe the government of the day can't do a thing about it. Time Tunbull and Hockey got serious about the lefties ABC funding.  
gerald
gerald
Oh well there it is another wind bag feast is over and surprise, surprise Bill is still the chosen one. And Labor apparently now have a boat turn back policy of sorts. Not surprisingly they then wasted the rest of their time on issues that don't effect a great number of Australians. And they still lead in the last opinion polls. Sigh !!
Jon
Jon
After all the histrionics  by this paper and those with a partisan axe to grind,  after all the talk of division that was supposedly going to tear the party apart at this conference, to all intents and purposes things seems to have gone remarkably smoothly.  Labor was holding such conferences long before the Tory times came into existence and will be doing so long after it has ceased to be, if only the liberal party was even a fraction as open. 
Steve
Steve
@Jon Good heavens, how on earth did you reach that bewildering conclusion? Plibersek, Wong, and Albo refuse to back their leader! If that's going 'smoothly', I'd hate to see division!

Steve in Port Macquarie
Mike R.
Mike R.
@Jon I don't call refusing a conscience vote on gay marriage 'open' at all.
Jon
Jon

More open than refusing to have a vote at all, which is where TA  and the LNP is at. No discussion just no vote.   Which is fine,  it will ultimately fester in the LNP and cause damage as it does so.     Steve says "refuse to back their leader" sounds like a demand for subservience, since when was begin a broad church an anathema to liberalism?   Since they were hijacked by the churchy far right.  So much for being libertarian, menzies would be turning in his grave. 
Steve
Steve
@Jon @Mike R. Oh Jon, that's a load of old mullarkey. Albo said he'd been 'hijacked'; Plibersek and Wong refused to back Shorten on boat turn-backs and arranged proxy votes, and then this dynamic duo insist on a binding vote for homosexual marriage! The hypocrisy of this mob is mind-boggling.

Steve from Port Macquarie
arlys
arlys
It was a great success Jon. The bookies have blown Labor out to $2.75. Abbott firming to $ $1 50. Looks like the punters didn't buy it.
Clifford
Clifford
A simple rundown on the ALP Conference
#Same sex marriage, seems there's not such a rush anymore as they have put off a decision until after they expect it to happen, without their help.
#Turnback the boats, been done, there is none to turn back, (in almost a year!)
# Renewables up to 50%,....Europe is winding it back as the crunch hits, as it is too expensive for Countries.
Labor wants to ramp it up to 50%.
Tell me please, anyone, what was the point of this “Greatest Show on Earth “ that the Labor party just wasted three day's on?
Where there any real policy's
Was there any suggestion of help to get the senate blockade dismantled to help get the country back on it's feet?
Apart from self aggrandizement, was anything achieved at this event?
arlys
arlys
So we get Gay Marriage, whether we want it or not, Bill? No plebiscite, no consultation, just what Labor thinks we should have to satisfy a minority, and the basketweavers? Is that is what you are saying? Well I am glad you have made it clear so far out from the next election. It gives the people time to realise, once Labor gets in, we have no say in our future, only the basketweavers do. Thanks Bill, it really gives us something to think about.
Jon
Jon

Yep, it's a party platform,  don't like it, don't voter for them, but then that is hardly likely anyway right?
Paul
Paul
@Jon @arlys  Hi Jon.  In my opinion, anyone who votes for them is so deluded they should seek professional help!
Jon
Jon

Well that would  be why they say opinions are like the proverbial.  Still the  majority of the electorate do not share your view and have not  for how many successive polls is it now?
Beverley
Beverley
@Jon @arlys Neither are a lot of other people going to vote for them either Jon according to the bookies. I can feel another Labor thumping coming on.
Mike R.
Mike R.
@arlys Right on.  The ALP is a train-wreck of a party, not at all interested in democracy or representing what Australians want.  Arrogant to the core.
Big John
Big John
That was a wasted of time A phone hook would have been cheaper and had the same results 
As for SSM Shorten says vote us in first ....You know take me on trust is Bill's new catch cry ..Well Gillard trusted you and was told not to trust you ...Only A Mug would take you on your word Bill Shorten  

27 July,,,HERE IS OFFICIAL CONF INFO... ISRAEL IS HERE SOMEWHERe...

$
0
0
https://www.laborherald.com.au/politics/labor/47th-national-conference-live-coverage/


47th National Conference

LABOR NEWS • 27TH JULY 2015
This post contains the record of the 47th LaborNational Conference news live blog…

Chapter 12: ALP Constitution and rules debate – Sunday, July 26, 6.09pm

With that amendment passed, a motion is passed to finish the ALP 47th National Conference.
For those who missed it, Bill Shorten announced that he would bring marriage equality to a vote within 100 days of a Shorten-Labor Government being elected.

UPDATE 6.05pm

Following the amendment passing, a rainbow flag was brought onto the stage.
RainbowFlag

UPDATE 6.03pm

And the amendment has been carried, here’s the text of the amendment:
Conference resolves that the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party.  This resolution is rescinded upon the commencement of the 46th parliament.  

UPDATE 5.59pm

Delegate Louise Pratt speaks on the amendment, followed by Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Anthony Albanese.
AnthonyAlbanese
The final speaker is Delegate Dermott Ryan.

UPDATE 5.50pm

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Penny Wong receives another standing ovation as she finishes her speech on marriage equality
Delegate Pat O’Neill takes to the stage and asks all LGBTI members and their family to stand up.
“Everyone look around. We are your sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, cousins and nieces and nephews. We are parents but as yet we can’t be husbands and wives.”
StandingForLGBTI

UPDATE 5.44pm

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Penny Wong tearfully steps up on stage to a standing ovation from conference floor:
PennyWong

UPDATE 5.41pm

Deputy Leader of the Opposition Tanya Plibersek is now on stage speaking in support of the amendment.
TanyaPlibersek

UPDATE 5.39pm

Bill Shorten has called upon Prime Minister Tony Abbott to give Liberal members a free vote on marriage equality.

UPDATE 5.36pm

Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten announces that within 100 days of a Shorten-led Labor government being elected he would move a bill in Australian parliament for marriage equality.

UPDATE 5.31pm

Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten is now speaking on an amendment which reads:
“Conference resolves that the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any state or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party.  This resolution is rescinded upon the commencement of the 46th parliament.”
BillShorten
This motion is seconded by Deputy Leader of the Opposition Tanya Plibersek.

UPDATE 5.28pm

The affirmative action amendment has passed with a standing ovation. Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek are now on the conference floor.

UPDATE 5.22pm

Member for Griffith Terri Butler, Senator for New South Wales Deb O’Neill, AWU Victorian Vice President Benedict Davis have spoken on the amendment.
TerriButler
Member for Griffith Terri Butler
Currently up is Victorian Special Minister of State Gavin Jennings.

UPDATE 5.14pm

Delegate Natalie Hutchins is now speaking on the amendments.

UPDATE 5.12pm

Cheering and standing ovation in support of the rule change moved by Linda White to ensure 50/50 representation across the Labor Party by 2025.

5.08pm

Assistant National Secretary of the ASU Linda White is now speaking in support of a motion that will lift Affirmative Action from 40% where it currently sits. This refers to the amount of women required in Parliament which would lift from 40% to 50%.
“Minimum percentage” means 40%.
The resolution: From 2022 it means 45%; and from 2025 it means 50%.

UPDATE 5.07pm

President Mark Butler has now signalled the beginning of an omnibus series of amendments dealing with Affirmative Action.

UPDATE 5.06pm

President Mark Butler has reaffirmed this is a cognate debate of Amendments 396A and 311A.
He has declared 396A lost.
He has also declared 311A lost.

UPDATE 4.58pm

Delegate Mathew Hilikari is moving amendment 396A that would see Senators selected by a 50/50 ballot of ALP members and union delegates in each state.
Delegate Eric Dearricott:
“I came supporting Bill Shorten’s plans for party reform. For me that means members get at least 50% say in electing their senators.”

UPDATE 4.57pm

A procedural motion to delay the vote on the 70/30 preselection rule has been moved and carried.

UPDATE 4.46pm

Member for Scullin Andrew Giles has risen to speak against the amendment.
“Local members and a central panel like we have in Victoria gets the balance right.”

UPDATE 4.43pm

Delegate Anthony Chisholm has spoken in support of the following amendment:
To insert a new paragraph at 39(d) of the draft national constitution as follows: 
(d) For House of Representatives preselections, if as at 24 July 2015 members who live in the electorate have less than 70% of the total votes, then for electorate with more than 150 members the state branch must increase the proportion of votes for those members by at least 20%.

UPDATE 4.42pm

The Prue Car motion has been declared carried.

UPDATE 4.40pm

The ABC is reporting that an agreement has been reached to have a conscience vote on same sex marriage for two terms of government.
The Guardian is reporting the motion will be moved by Labor leader Bill Shorten and seconded by Deputy leader Tanya Plibersek.

UPDATE 4.37pm

The vote will now will be conducted to decide which motion should be adopted. The motion moved by State Member for Londonderry Prue Car or the motion moved by the Assistant Secretary of NSW Labor John Graham regarding direct election of delegates to National Conference.
President Mark Butler declared it lost on the voices but a count has been requested.

UPDATE 4.36pm

Shadow Infrastructure and Transport Minister Anthony Albanese is now speaking.
” We, as a movement, have to modernise if we are to remain relevant. These things (he says holding a mobile phone) means people have instantaneous access to information.
Their participation must be more relevant and must be more real. That requires people like myself and others in this room to give up some of the power they have traditionally held.
“The future is direct participation. The future is increasing party membership. If we do that the future will be Labor.”

AnthonyAlbanese

UPDATE 4.33pm

Member for Perth and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for WA Allanah McTiernan:
“The principle, I fundamentally support, but I object most strongly to these exemptions in Victoria and Western Australia.
I think it’s appalling that we are allowing the powerful groups in Western Australia to block the democratisation of our party being a national agenda.”

UPDATE 4.28pm

Queensland State Secretary Evan Moorhead:
“Fundamentally our party agrees that we don’t get stronger by getting smaller and whoever wants to be involved is welcome and direct election is an important part of giving people greater say.”

UPDATE 4.26pm

Delegate Michael Pilbrow has risen to speak in support of the amendment.

UPDATE 4.24pm

State Member for Londonderry Prue Car is moving the following amendment.
“For the first time ever this conference includes delegates like myself elected directly by branch members. I will be directly accountable to these branch members when I return from this conference. This model assures that all regions have opportunities to at this supreme national decision making body of our party.”
Insert the following after clause 31 of the draft national constitution and renumber accordingly: 
Election of delegates to National Conference
31 (a) State branch delegates to National Conference (including proxy delegates) must be elected in accordance with the rules of that state branch, subject to clause 15.(b) A proportion of those delegates must be directly elected by local branch members, and include delegates from outside metropolitan areas.

UPDATE 4.20PM

Clarification of the rules for electing the parliamentary Labor leader was just moved by the General Secretary of NSW Jamie Clements and seconded by Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen (433A).

UPDATE 4.17pm

The following motion was just carried.
That the motion be referred to committee made up of the President, Chair of the Women’s Network and the National Returning Officer for drafting of a charter of members rights for incorporation in the National Constitution to be considered at the next National Conference.

UPDATE 4.16pm

The amendment was carried.

UPDATE 4.13pm

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen is now speaking.
“Our objectives should reflect our party’s objective for our country. Our party’s objective should be for a better, fairer country.
That every child regardless of where they come from… should be able to grow, should be invested in so they can reach their absolute potential as an Australian.”
“How about an objective that says every Australian worker should be able to go to work and know that they will come home safely?
How about an objective that says we will not tolerate racism in Australia? That we will be the party of multiculturalism?
How about an objective that says we will not rest until we have a modern, fair multicultural and egalitarian nation?”
ChrisBowen

UPDATE 4.09pm

Shadow Minister for higher education Senator Kim Carr has risen to speak against the resolution.

KimCarr

UPDATE 4.06pm

National Secretary of the TWU Tony Sheldon is speaking in support of the resolution.
“The party’s principles and objectives was last reviewed in 1981. The world has changed a lot in that time.
We must ensure that workers and the community are at the centre of this conversation.”
Big corporations payed less tax than the average working family. Precarious working conditions, part time work, labor needs to highlight this… If we want to stop the slide in inequality we must give working families back their voice.
The socialist objective is a critical way of giving back these people their voice.”
TonySheldon

UPDATE 4.04pm

ALP Conf getting rowdy an hour and a half from close as Luke Foley advocates the removal of the socialist objective from the ALP platform
Leader of the Opposition in NSW Luke Foley:
“No one in the party today argues that state ownership is Labor’s central objective. Above all else our party stands for a just and equitable society. That is the outcome.”
“We should be concerned with the end that we are all working for, the achievement of a just and equitable society.”

LukeFoley

UPDATE 4.01pm

Leader of the Opposition in NSW Luke Foley has risen to speak in support of the resolution to commence a review of Labor’s Socialist Objective. It proposes to replace the current language with a ‘modern’ set of principles and objective for the Australian Labor Party.

UPDATE 3.57pm

Delegate Elise Wall is speaking in favour of the resolution.
“I am a 26 year old…an ALP member for 6 years.”
“In my lifetime I want to make a difference… importantly I want more mob to be in parliament.”
We need Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this party, we need diverse Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander views. This always was and always will be Aboriginal land.”
EliseWall

UPDATE 3.54pm

ACT Labor Government Whip Chris Bourke is speaking on the resolution which includes the 5% affirmative action rule for indigenous representation. He says 7 indigenous MPs out of 800 across Australia is not enough.
“Not enough for us to be true to our values.”

UPDATE 3.52pm

ACT Labor Government Whip Chris Bourke is moving the following Resolution 327R.
That this Conference:
The ALP is committed to increasing the representation of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in public office positions the Party holds.  To achieve this National Conference empowers State and Territory branches to make affirmative action rules, in consultation with their State or Territory Indigenous Labor Network, for the preselection of public office holders that require a minimum of relevant positions to be held by Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. The minimum level that can be set by such affirmative action rules is 5%.
To support State and Territory branches in the implementation of this strategy National Conference requires State and Territory branches to:
  • Ensure that application and renewal forms ask prospective and existing ALP members whether they are Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander; and
  • Maintain a contact list of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members that can be provided their Indigenous Labor Network.

UPDATE 3.51pm

The following amendment has also been carried.
Insert the following at 33b of the draft national constitution:
Members of the Party are encouraged to be members of a union or to employ union labour. However, state branch rules must not require members of the Party to be members of a union or to employ union labour.

UPDATE 3.51pm

The following amendment has just been carried.
In part B, amend paragraph 5 (p) to read as follows, with new text highlighted below in bold:
5. (p) elimination of discrimination and exploitation on the grounds of class, race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, religion, political affiliation, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, regional location, economic or household status;

UPDATE 3.41pm

NSW Secretary of the AMWU Tim Ayres is also speaking to open the chapter on the ALP Constitution.

UPDATE 3.39pm

General Secretary of NSW Labor Jamie Clements has risen to open the chapter.

1

UPDATE 3.37pm

Labor’s platform position is to support marriage equality. The chapter being discussed now will deal with whether or not Labor MPs are required to vote according to their conscience or according to the party platform (which supports marriage equality).

Chapter 6: New opportunities for an ageing Australia – Sunday, July 26, 3.36pm

The amendment has been carried.
Chapter 6 has been carried.

UPDATE 3.35pm

Deputy NSW Labor leader Linda Burney is the final speaker for this chapter.
“This additional paragraph goes to the heart of what Labor stands for – Labor will protect the right to a dignified retirement.”

UPDATE 3.14pm

The Guardian is reporting that Labor leader Bill Shorten is attempting to find a compromise on the conscience vote on same sex marriage with the left leadership.
We will be live blogging until the close of conference. Coming up after this chapter will be discussion about whether MPs and Senators will have a conscience vote on marriage equality in Parliament.

UPDATE 3.11pm

The following amendment is now being moved on the Conference floor.
Add a new paragraph after paragraph 5, and renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly
6. There is more to planning for the future than legislating an older retirement age. Senior Australians in physically demanding job, those working in industries in transition, and those who have been out of the workforce for an extended time face extended periods of unemployment and underemployment well before they reach Age Pension age leading to seriously depleted financial resources as they age. Labor will protect their right to a dignified retirement.

UPDATE 3.06pm

Delegate Marilyn Dodkin has spoken on the amendment.

UPDATE 2.52pm

The next amendment 026A on ageing and aged care services reads as follows.
Amend paragraph 23 to read as follows with new text highlighted in bold:
23. Labor recognises the need to provide culturally appropriate aged care, including strategies that address:
  • The propensity of older Australians from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse backgrounds experiencing dementia to revert to their first language;
  • The need for older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to maintain contact with their culture and country; and
  • Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex senior Australians. Accordingly, Labor has amended the Sex Discrimination Act to cover sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, removed exemptions to this law in aged care facilities and implemented strategies that recognise the special needs of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex senior Australians in aged care facilities. Labor will continue to respond to the needs of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex senior Australians.
  • To help promote a genuinely inclusive aged care environment, Labor will work with the aged care sector to assist in eliminating any discrimination  against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees.

UPDATE 2.49pm

The following amendment is now being moved by delegate Jo-Anne Schofield.
Amend existing paragraph 8 to read as follows, with new text highlighted in bold:
8. Older Australians are entitled to affordable, accessible and high quality aged care services that are delivered by a professionally trained and dedicated workforce. Australia has the skills, talents and abilities to protect and grow aged care services and expertise as trade and export opportunities emerge.
Insert new paragraph after paragraph 11 and renumber accordingly: 
12. Labor is committed to ensuring good quality working conditions and working environments and investing in a stable and professional workforce.
Insert new paragraphs after existing paragraph 13 and renumber accordingly: 
14. Labor believes in pursuing proactive policy settings in superannuation and financial services that equitably maximise retirement incomes, particularly for women and low and middle income earners.
15. Labor believes in policy settings in superannuation and financial services that improve retirement incomes, particularly for women and low and middle income earners.
Insert new paragraph after existing paragraph 18 and renumber accordingly: 
19. Labor recognises the many benefits of in-home and consumer directed care and strongly supports the increased choice and flexibility for all Australians in the care they receive and the environment in which it is delivered. Labor is committed to working with stakeholders to help ensure that the aged care workforce adapts sustainably as consumer directed care becomes a larger part of the aged care system.
Amend existing paragraph 21 to read as follows, with new text highlighted in bold:
21. Labor will hear the voice of residents of aged care facilities, their families, the aged care workforceand other interested parties about the quality and nature of care and maintain a strong and robust complaints process.
Add new sentence to paragraph 27: 
Aged care workers deserve a quality, professional, safe and stable working environment.

UPDATE 2.46pm

Member for Lalor Joanne Ryan has taken the stage to speak in further support.

UPDATE 2.38pm

Shadow Assistant Treasurer Andrew Leigh is speaking on the chapter.
“We stood as one to protect the pension.”
We will be live blogging until the close of conference. Coming up after this chapter will be discussion about whether MPs and Senators will have a conscience vote on marriage equality in Parliament.

andrew


UPDATE 2.32pm

Member for Blair Shayne Neumann is speaking about Labor’s commitment to high quality aged care services and independent living.
An amendment is coming up on ‘Retirement Incomes’ to include mention of the “..development of products that maximise income streams for senior Australians in retirement.” (Amendment 378A).

shanejpg

Chapter 5: Decent jobs with fair pay and conditions – Sunday, July 26, 1.17pm

The resolution has been carried.
The chapter has been carried.

UPDATE 1.08pm

“You’re allowed to disagree…but you can’t leave the territory littered with vitriol.”
“Wake up to yourself mate. This is a proud party.” Condemnation of Martin Ferguson
“Let’s get on with the dialectic.”

paddy1


UPDATE 1.01pm

The following resolution will shortly be moved by delegate Paddy Crumlin.
This conference condemns Martin Ferguson whose self-serving public commentary is not in the interest of the party, party members or the Labour movement.


Debate and disagreement is critical in any political party, but that debate must occur at the appropriate Labor forums not in the public domain.
Martin Ferguson has repeatedly spoken publicly against ALP policy and in the case of the NSW election, his actions damaged the party’s chances of success.

Martin Ferguson does not deserve to be considered a Labor elder and must be condemned as a disgraced former Labor politician.

UPDATE 12.45pm

Joe Mcdonald from the CFMEU has given a passionate speech.
fvv

UPDATE 12.34pm

National Junior Vice President Jane Garrett has spoken. The amendments have been carried.
“We are very proud of our longstanding and ongoing links with the industrial wing of this movement.”

UPDATE 12.28pm

National Senior Vice President Tim Hammond has taken the stage to propose amendments to the platform concerning making sure every Australian has decent jobs, pay and working conditions. He has praised “the invaluable contribution of the trade union movement” in ensuring worker safety in Australia.

UPDATE 12.20pm

The following amendment on the retirement age will be discussed.

Amendment 097A
Insert a new paragraph into Chapter 5 after paragraph 46, and renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly

47. Labor recognises the physical toll on men and women employed in physically rigorous occupations that leads to earlier than average retirement ages. In this context, Labor supports exploring the introduction of early access to preserved superannuation accounts for these workers.Insert two new paragraphs after paragraph 58, and renumber subsequent paragraphs accordingly.

59. Labor recognises that firefighters workplace is an unpredictable, volatile and dangerous workplace and is to be recognised as a high risk occupational in health and safety legislation.60. Labor believes in achieving the highest level of workplace safety and that workers rights to a safe workplace should be enshrined in legislation.  Labor recognises that that firefighters face extraordinary hazards and the importance of a regulated requirements of safe crewing on the fireground which includes the principle of two-in two-out.

UPDATE 12pm

ACTU Secretary Dave Oliver says when you want to start questioning the relationship between Unions and the Labor Party just have a look at the outcomes [for workers].
“Make no mistake we’re standing up for working people and their families.”
“This Chapter recognises the right of workers with carer responsibilities…and a 26 week paid parental leave scheme.”

UPDATE 11.54am

Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, Shadow Minister for Employment Services Julie Collins has risen to speak.

UPDATE 11.46am

Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations Brendan O’Connor is opening the chapter.
Coming up in this chapter are amendments that confirm a commitment to 26 weeks paid parental leave and the addition of language to ensure that people with a disability receive a fair wage.
“Labor believes in a strong and vibrant manufacturing industry, which supports 1000s and 1000s of jobs.”

brendon

Chapter 11: Australia’s place in a changing world – Sunday, July 26, 11.44am

The resolution has been carried.
The chapter has been carried.

UPDATE 11.39am

Delegate from Queensland Wendy Turner has risen to second the resolution.
“Delegates, the recognition of Palestine is the right thing to do….Israel has sadly continued to sabotage peace talks by the US by continuing to announce settlements on occupied land.”
“135 nations including the Vatican have moved to recognise Palestine.”
“Now its time, and its long overdue, for the international community along with Australia, to step up and recognise Palestine.”

UPDATE 11.38am

Shadow Minister for Finance and Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke:
“Any Australian government has to arrive on a position on these issues in international for a and when it does so it has to speak the truth about what is going on there….The settlement activity which was described when we were in government as illegal cannot continue.”
“We are all aware of the comments by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the last election that there would never be a Palestinian state.”
“I respect how emotional and direct family ties affect people on this issue and everyone can point to wrong doing on both sides.
But it has to be resolved, unlike our opponents who argue East Jerusalem is not occupied we are a party that will speak the truth about what’s happening.”

tony_quote

UPDATE 11.36am

And it’s in – a single resolution on Israel and Palestine. Shadow Minister for Finance and Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke has taken the stage.
 tony1
Mover:
Tony Burke (NSW)
Seconder:
Wendy Turner (QLD)
Resolution 446R
The Australian Labor Party Conference:
AFFIRMS Labor’s support for an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and security within their own state.
DEPLORES the tragic conflict in Gaza and supports an end to rocket attacks by Hamas and the exercise of the maximum possible restraint by Israel in response to these attacks.
SUPPORTS a negotiated settlement between the parties to the conflict, based on international frameworks, laws and norms
RECOGNISES in government Labor retained its commitment to two states for two peoples in the Middle East and specifically
  • Did not block enhanced Palestinian status in the General Assembly;
  • Restated the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied territory;
  • Opposed Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land, recognising that a just, peaceful and enduring resolution will involve a territorial settlement based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps;
  • Held that the settlements are illegal under international law.
RECOGNISES that any resolution will be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, a timeframe to end Israeli occupation, demilitarization of Palestinian territory, agreement on a solution to Palestinian refugee issues, and resolution of the issue of Jerusalem’s final status.
RECOGNISES that settlement building by Israel in the Occupied Territories that may undermine a two-state solution is a roadblock to peace. Labor CALLS ON Israel to cease all such settlement expansion to support renewed negotiations toward peace.
REJECTS the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.
CONDEMNS the comments of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the recent elections where he ruled out a Palestinian state and further condemns his appeals to race during the campaign.
RECOGNISES a lasting peace will require a future State of Palestine to recognise the right of Israel to exist and the State of Israel to recognise the right of Palestine to exist.
RECOGNISES the special circumstances of the Palestinian people, their desire for respect, and the achievement of their legitimate aspiration to live in independence in a state of their own. This is a cause Labor is committed to.
If however there is no progress in the next round of the peace process a future Labor government will discuss joining like minded nations who have already recognised Palestine and announcing the conditions and timelines for the Australian recognition of a Palestinian state, with the objective of contributing to peace and security in the Middle East.

 

UPDATE 11.28am

President Mark Butler “Jennifer I think it would be appropriate if we now hear some words from your co-deputy chair..” Senator Deborah O’Neil has taken the stage to speak.

UPDATE 11.27am

“There is a question how many of these delegates have been to cyprus..” (laughter from the crowd).
Senator McAllister has been speaking for 8 minutes (usual speaking time is 2 minutes).
jenny1

UPDATE 11.21am

Senator Jenny McAllister has risen mid-chapter to speak on the ‘National Policy Forum’ (the body that meets to help shape the draft platform that comes to conference).

UPDATE 11.18am

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Anthony Albanese speaking of Cyprus motion at length while final negotiations on the Israel and Palestine resolution underway in the wings at National Conference.
President Mark Butler: “Wind up please delegate Albanese.”
Albanese: I voted for you (to be National President)
(Cheers and laughter from the crowd).

UPDATE 11.14am

BREAKING: Another speaker has been added to the list to speak in support of the resolution to demilitarise and reunify Cyprus while discussion on the Israel and Palestine resolutions continue to be debated. They are the next resolutions on the agenda.

UPDATE 11.12am

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Anthony Albanese has risen to second the motion.

albo

UPDATE 11.09am

Delegate Michael Forshaw has moved a resolution regarding a commitment from Labor to work to facilitate ‘a just settlement of the Cyprus problem’.
“The island of Cyprus is still divided today, a barbed wire fence and concrete divides it. There are 43,000 Turkish troops in northern Cyprus.
Many of years of negotiations have gone on, a third of Cyprus is occupied by another country.”

UPDATE 11.07am

The following two resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are coming up in just minutes.
Resolution 446R
Labor remains committed to a peaceful, enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Labor condemns the comment of Prime Minister Netanyahu during Israeli elections where he ruled out a Palestinian State and further, condemns his appeals to race during the campaign.
Labor notes that 135 nations have already recognised a Palestinian state.
Labor supports a negotiated settlement to the conflict based on international frameworks, laws and norms.
Labor will work with other nations internationally to offer support to renewed peace negotiations.
Labor recognises and supports the right of the State of Israel and its citizens to live in full security within internationally recognised borders and at peace with its neighbours.
We recognise and support the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to live in peace and security in an internationally recognised sovereign state of their own.
Labor recognises that a lasting peace will require a Palestinian State to recognise the right of Israel to exist.
We call for an end to rocket attacks and other violence by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups and an end  to Israeli incursions  which have led to unconscionable deaths and injuries to many innocent civilians.
Labor welcomes the decision of the Palestinian Authority to commit to a demilitarised Palestine with the presence of international peacekeepers, including US forces.
Labor will support practical steps to national building and statehood for Palestine.
We call on Israel to cease the expansion of illegal settlements which are a roadblock to peace.
Labor recognises that just and acceptable settlement to the conflict will include
  • a Palestinian State on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps;
  • a timeframe to end Israeli occupation;
  • agreement on a solution to the Palestinian refugee issues and
  • resolution of the issue of Jerusalem’s final status
If however there is no progress in the next round of the peace process a future Labor government will join the 135 like minded nations who have already recognised Palestine and announce the conditions and timelines for the Australian recognition of a Palestinian state, with the objective of contributing to peace and security in the Middle East.
Resolution 392A
The Australian Labor Party Conference:
AFFIRMS Labor’s support for an enduring and just two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the right of Israel to live in peace within secure borders internationally recognised and agreed by the parties, and reflecting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to also live in peace and security within their own state. 
DEPLORES the tragic conflict in Gaza and supports an end to rocket attacks by Hamas and the exercise of the maximum possible restraint by Israel in response to these attacks. 
SUPPORTS a negotiated settlement between the parties to the conflict, based on international frameworks, laws and norms 
RECOGNISES in government Labor retained its commitment to two states for two peoples in the Middle East and specifically
  • Did not block enhanced Palestinian status in the General Assembly;
  • Restated the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is occupied territory;
  • Opposed Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land, recognising that a just, peaceful and enduring resolution will involve a territorial settlement based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps;
  • Held that the settlements were contrary to international law.
RECOGNISES that any resolution will be based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, a timeframe to end Israeli occupation, demilitarization of Palestinian territory, agreement on a solution to Palestinian refugee issues, and resolution of the issue of Jerusalem’s final status. 
RECOGNISES that settlement building by Israel in the Occupied Territories that may undermine a two-state solution is a roadblock to peace. Labor CALLS ON Israel to cease all such settlement expansion to support renewed negotiations toward peace. 
REJECTS the boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. 
CONDEMNS the comments of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the recent elections where he ruled out a Palestinian state and further condemns his appeals to race during the campaign. 
RECOGNISES a lasting peace will require a future State of Palestine to recognise the right of Israel to exist and the State of Israel to recognise the right of Palestine to exist.
RECOGNISES the special circumstances of the Palestinian people, their desire for respect, and the achievement of their legitimate aspiration to live in independence in a state of their own. This is a cause Labor is committed to. 
In order to build towards establishing and recognising a Palestinian state as the outcome of direct peace negotiations, Labor will support practical steps to Palestinian nation building and, ultimately, statehood. A future Labor Government will work with the parties, like-minded governments and the UN in establishing agreed timelines for negotiations to achieve this outcome. 

UPDATE 11am

As Shadow Attorney General Mark Dreyfus takes the stage delegates continue to negotiate the upcoming motions on Israel and Palestine on the conference floor. The motions are listed for discussion in the next few minutes.


UPDATE 10.51am

Delegate Damien Kingsbury has seconded the below motion on self determination for the Saharawi people in Western Sahara by delegate Greg McLean. The resolution has been carried.
This conference:
  • Strongly supports the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination;
  • Expresses concerns about reports of human rights abuses in Western Sahara, including by Human Rights Watch and Resolution 282 moved this year by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights;
  • Calls on all parties to work with the international community to develop and implement independent and credible measures to ensure full respect for human rights, bearing in mind their relevant obligations under international law;
  • Urges the UN to use its mission in Western Sahara to monitor and uphold human rights, and ensure that any use of the natural resources of Western Sahara is in accordance with the wishes of the Saharawi people and for their benefit;
  • Calls on the UN to proceed without further delay with the organisation of the long overdue referendum of self-determination; and
  • Urges the Australian Government to extend all due assistance to the UN in its efforts to organise a free and fair referendum in Western Sahara, and to maintain an appropriate dialogue with the Polisario Front, UN-acknowledged representatives of the people of Western Sahara.

UPDATE 10.44am

WA Assistant Secretary Lenda Oshalem has spoken passionately to second the Resolutions. The resolutions were carried.


“I am Assyrian…I spoke to my cousin who told me her family is fine because if ISIS come from them her father had promised he would kill them and kill himself before ISIS could kill them.”

lenda

UPDATE 10.41am

Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen has taken the stage to speak on Resolution 306R.

chris_bowen_2
“Many people have fled Iraq to Syria and then have been forced to flee Syria. We have an obligation to stand up for those persecuted minorities in Iraq. Clergy of all religions have been murdered.
These communities, the Assyrian, Chaldean, Mandaean and Yezidi communities; deserve to be recognised at this conference, many thousands have become great Australian citizens. What is the ultimate outcome is that they no longer have to flee Iraq but can live as Iraq’s indigenous people as they deserve.”
The resolution reads as follows.
That Labor:
1. Condemns the actions of the Islamic State in Iraq which amounts to attempted genocide of minorities including the Assyrian, Chaldean, Mandaean and Yezidi people;
2. Re-affirms the rights of the Christian and other minorities of Iraq to live in peace and freedom and calls for all steps to be taken to ensure that all members of the affected communities can live in freedom in Iraq;
3. When in Government, will continue to provide humanitarian, financial and other forms of appropriate assistance to support those Christian and other minorities who have been internally displaced within Iraq;
 
4. Notes the aspirations of the Assyrian and Chaldean people for the establishment of an autonomous region in the Nineveh plains and welcomes the in-principle agreement of the Iraqi Government to this request earlier this year.


UPDATE 10.40am

Delegate Pierre Yang has seconded the resolution. The resolution has been carried.

UPDATE 10.34am

Chief Opposition Whip Chris Hayes is moving the motion detailed under the image below in relation to the tragic deaths of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. He has condemned their executions.
“In 2005 there were arrests in Indonesia of young people then called the Bali Nine. I followed the case pretty well and was staggered when these young people were given the death penalty.
In Australia we legislated to make it impossible to reintroduce the death penalty to show the rest of the world we have an implacable view against the death penalty.”
“I met with Scott Rush’s father about how he had gone to the AFP and how he felt he had effectively signed his son’s death warrant.”
“I met with Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran and saw who they had become.”
chris_live
This Conference acknowledges the tragic instance of capital punishment this year with the execution of Australian citizens Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, and condemns these executions in the strongest possible terms. This Conference reaffirms Labor’s universal opposition to capital punishment, and calls on a future Labor Government to:
  • Strongly and clearly state our opposition to the death penalty, whenever and wherever it arises;
  • Join forces with other nations to push for universal adoption of a global moratorium on the death penalty;
  • Develop Australian government policy aimed at assisting all nations end the death penalty; and
  • Use Australia’s aid programs to support civil society organisations campaigning for abolition in countries which retain the death penalty.

UPDATE 10.32am

Member for Newcastle Sharon Claydon has spoken in favour of the motion and said that $11.3 billion dollars has been ripped out of foreign aid. She says 1/5th of Abbott Government cuts since coming to government have come out of foreign aid.

UPDATE 10.29am

Reports from the Conference floor are indicating negotiations on the Israeli-Palestinian platform amendments today are “everywhere” including on the conference floor itself.

UPDATE 10.27am

Delegate Amy Smith is speaking on the resolution to recognises the historic investment under the previous Labor Government which doubled our foreign aid program and condemn the $11.3 billion in cuts to Australia’s aid program by the Abbott Government.

UPDATE 10.23am

Resolution 324R “Global vision of gender equality” is now the topic of discussion. The resolution has been carried.

UPDATE 10.18am

Delegate Nicholas Thompson & Former Senator Louise Pratt have spoken on some proposed amendments including an amendment to ensure Australian Aid doesn’t discriminate and supports our objective to ensure everyone can live healthy and prosperous lives regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. They have been carried.

UPDATE 10.13am

Former ALP President and Senator Jennifer McAllister has seconded the motion and said Australia will support the newly established Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank,  “we are optimistic not fearful about our place is Asia.”
The motion has been carried.

UPDATE 10.10am

Member for Kingsford Smith and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration Matt Thistlethwaite is moving the following motion on strengthening our engagement with the countries of the world:
Insert new paragraph in Chapter 11 after paragraph 41. 
Labor supports active Australian participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to ensure input into the governance, objectives and outcomes of this important regional initiative. The AIIB offers a unique opportunity to drive economic growth in our region and improve living standards. The AIIB is an important economic institution that will enhance multi lateral relationships and promote regional cooperation.
Original Paragraph 41
The US alliance is essential to Australia’s national security requirements in critical areas such as intelligence on terrorism, defence equipment and broader stability in the region.

UPDATE 10.04am

Deputy Labor leader in the Senate Stephen Conroy is seconding Deputy leader Tanya Plibersek’s motion.

UPDATE 10.02am

The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting that Labor’s left faction led by Deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, along with leader in the Senate Penny Wong, intend to push ahead with a plan to amend the Labor platform so that MPs would be forced to vote in favour of same-sex marriage in Parliament.

UPDATE 9.59am

Deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek has taken the stage to open the chapter.

tanya2

UPDATE 9.43am

Federal Labor leader Bill Shorten is addressing the final day of Conference.
“I couldn’t have been any prouder of the party (than I was) yesterday.”

bill_quotesz_4


UPDATE 9.30am

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Anthony Albanese has appeared on ABC’s Insiders and reaffirmed his commitment to marriage equality and to a conscience vote ahead of the debate today.

albo insiders


UPDATE 9am

Good morning! Welcome to our live coverage of the last day of Labor’s 2015 National Conference.
Debates to watch out for today will be chapter 11 (the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) and chapter 12 (marriage equality).
Today’s agenda
– Conference commences 9.30am –
Chapter 11: Australia’s place in a changing world
Chapter 5: Decent jobs with fair pay and conditions
– 12.45pm Conference adjourns; 2.15pm Conference resumes –
Chapter 6: New opportunities for an ageing Australia
Chapter 12: ALP Constitution and rules debate
– 5.30pm Conference closes – 

Chapter 9: A fair go for all – Saturday, July 25, 5.43pm

The following is a quick summary of the result of the votes on the four asylum seeker platform amendments. For a more detailed account and to read what the 8 delegates who spoke had to say click here.
The following two amendments were lost:
“Amendment 232A rejects turning away boats of people seeking asylum because it undermines the cooperation required to reach sustainable regional processing arrangements.”
Amendment 235A relates to detention facilities and states that “failure to deliver humane and safe conditions will result in the closure of offshore detention facilities.”
The following amendments have been carried: 262A & 271A.
Amongst other things, amendment 262A changes the platform to acknowledge that the world is experiencing the greatest humanitarian need since the Second World War with the largest number of displaced people since that time.
That amendment also commits Labor to increasing the humanitarian intake of refugees.
Amendment 271A covers many issues; it commits Labor to legislating Australia’s international migration and refugee obligations into domestic law. It also commits Labor to appointing an independent officer who would advocate for the well-being of children seeking asylum.
Additionally, it commits Labor to not detain, process or resettle LGBTI refugees or asylum seekers in countries which have criminal laws against any of these communities. It also commits Labor to legislate mandatory reporting of child abuse in all offshore and onshore immigration detention facilities.

UPDATE 5.31pm

Chapter 9 has closed with the last two asylum seeker platform amendments won and the previous two lost.

UPDATE 4.22pm

The asylum seeker platform amendments will now be debated. You can follow our live coverage of these four amendments here.

UPDATE 4.04pm


NSW State Member for Londonderry Prue Car has oved the following resolution regarding cost of living pressures faced by Australian families. It has been carried.
Cost of Living Pressures
This Conference recognises that:
Labor recognises the cost of living pressures that Australian families are facing. Labor condemns the Abbott Coalition Government for its repeated attacks on the household budgets of low and middle income families, through cuts to Family Tax Benefit payments and the GP tax. Labor rejects an Australia where parents are forced to choose between food on the table and taking their child to the doctor. Labor will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Australian families, to fight the Abbott Government’s continued cuts to their payments and services.

UPDATE 4.03pm

Member for Griffith Terry Butler is speaking favour of the resolution. The amendment has been carried.

UPDATE 3.55pm

Delegate Kate Washington is seconding the motion from Kayee Griffin and spoken in favour of the following resolution.
Family ViolenceThis Conference recognises that:Labor believes the scourge of family violence must addressed and prevented as a national priority. Labor calls on the Abbott Coalition Government to hold a national crisis summit to bring together all levels of governments to implement judicial and social services reform within their areas of responsibility and provide a forum to hear from stakeholders, victims, survivors and their families on ways to better address family violence. Labor condemns the Abbott Coalition Government for budget cuts and resulting uncertainty facing community, legal and homelessness services, hindering efforts on the ground to support people escaping family violence. If elected to office, Labor will commission a National Crisis Summit to inform a strategic approach to family violence that prioritises reform, encourages innovation and enables better coordination.

UPDATE 3.53pm

The following amendment has also been carried:
We need to build a stronger partnership between men and women to achieve our goals. Labor will do this through:

  • Investigating and implementing strategies to improve women’s retirement incomes, including superannuation;

UPDATE 3.48pm

Delegate Darcy Byrne is speaking on an amendment to insert a new paragraph following on from 162 as below. He has spoken about the importance of taking strong action to prevent violence against women and children. The Amendment has been carried.
163. The Gillard Labor Government established the Royal Commission into institutional responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Labor is committed to acting on the recommendations of the Royal Commission, including with respect to a redress scheme, in close consultation with victims. A Labor Government will report annually to the Parliament on its progress in implementing the recommendations of the Commission.

UPDATE 3.45pm

Coming up is a motion to improve women’s retirement incomes including superannuation.

UPDATE 3.37pm

General Secretary of NSW Labor Jamie Clements is speaking in favour of an amendment and reaffirmed Labor’s commitment to sport in our country.

UPDATE 3.35pm

Susan Templeman is speaking to support the following amendment:
Insert new paragraph after 168, and renumber accordingly. 
169. Labor acknowledges that by the United Nations best measure, approximately one in six Australian children are living in relative poverty. In Government Labor is committed to significantly reducing the proportion of children living in relative poverty.

UPDATE 3.31pm

Delegate Darcy Byrne has spoken in favour of the following amendment:
Amend paragraph 175 to add additional text highlighted in bold:
175. Labor will ensure a national voice for the Australian youth sector by maintaining the Minister for Youth.
Add new paragraph after paragraph 175 and renumber accordingly.
176. A Labor Government will ensure the interests of young Australians are represented at the highest levels of government, and work with the states and territories, business and community to:
  • Address issues faced by young Australians;
  • Support young Australians to participate in government and the political process; and
  • Combat youth unemployment.
Original Paragraph 175
Labor will ensure a national voice for the Australian youth sector.

UPDATE 3.26pm

Queensland Minister for Women Shannon Fentiman is speaking on a series of amendments regarding action to tackle family violence and violence against women. These amendments have been carried.

UPDATE 2.23pm

Shadow Minister for the Arts, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business Mark Dreyfus is seconding Jenny’s chapter to commend this chapter to delegates.


UPDATE 3.15pm

Shadow Minister for Families and Payments and Disability Reform Jenny Macklin is opening speaker for the chapter and is talking about Labor’s record of standing up for fairness in our community: from the NDIS to closing the gap.
“Each of us knows that fairness is so much more than a political slogan.”
“It’s this fundamental link between fairness, opportunity and prosperity that is what will continue to make our nation great for future generations.”

Chapter 4: Tackling climate change and our environmental challenges – Saturday, July 25, 3.12pm

Delegate Asren Pugh has seconded the resolution. It has been carried.
“Be proud of the ALP…about the action we are taking on the environment. We are the only party that can deliver for the environment and deliver for working people.”

3.08pm

The Member for Rankin Jim Chalmers is moving the following resolution on Emissions Reduction.
Post 2020 Emissions Reduction
In December 2015, the world’s nations will gather in Paris with the aim of finalising an agreement on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020.
Led by the US and China, momentum is building for an ambitious agreement to be reached. All major developed nations – with the exception of Australia – and most developing nations have released their proposed contributions to the Paris conference.
Australia must also commit to taking a fair share of global action to ensure that global warming does not exceed 2 degrees Celsius beyond pre-industrial levels in keeping with our international commitments under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreement of 2010. That action must be based on the best available independent scientific and economic evidence, as well as the advice of statutory bodies like the Climate Change Authority. Such targets will underpin and inform Labor’s climate change policies including the Emissions Trading Scheme.
Labor will continue to argue the case for Australia to adopt an emissions reduction target and Labor will adopt an emissions reduction target before the next Federal election that reflects the UNFCCC commitment and advice from the Climate Change Authority and other such independent bodies.

UPDATE 3.04pm

The Member for Charlton Pat Conroy is also speaking in favour of the motion below. The motion has been carried.

 UPDATE 2.59pm

Co-convenor of the Labor Environment Action Network (LEAN) Felicity Wade is now also speaking in support of the motion.

UPDATE 2.55pm

Delegate Tony Maher from the CFMEU has seconded the resolution moved by Bill Shorten.
The motion reads as follows.
The Future of Electricity
Australia’s electricity sector is experiencing enormous change driven by a range of global and domestic trends, including;
  • The age of Australia’s existing generators;
  • The rise in domestic gas prices;
  • The growth in distributed energy, especially rooftop solar;
  • Climate change and the need to progressively reduce the electricity sector’s carbon emissions; and
  • Advances in renewable energy, storage and smart metering technology.
The Abbott Government has failed to develop a comprehensive strategy to modernise Australia’s electricity system.  Instead, the sector has been rocked by Tony Abbott’s reckless attacks on the renewable energy industry and a hopelessly inadequate Energy White Paper.
A Shorten Labor Government will work with the industry, unions and other stakeholders to develop an Electricity Modernisation Strategy that;
  • Is consistent with economy wide emissions reduction targets;
  • Minimises any cost impact on business and household consumers;
  • Covers options for delivering on Labor’s goal of 50% of Australia’s electricity being generated from all renewable sources– small and large scale- by 2030;
  • Is based on a consultative and consensus approach to any increase in large renewable energy capacity that ensures investment confidence, and certainty for workers in existing generators;
  • Deals with the impact of the growth in renewable energy on existing generators and networks;
  • Recognises corporate announcements concerning managing the ageing of existing plant and timelines for plant closures;
  • Establishes an agency to oversee redeployment, retraining and income support where necessary for affected workers;
  • Capitalises on the significant new jobs opportunities across the entire renewable energy supply chain from growth in the renewable energy industry;
  • Develops structural adjustment strategies and investment for communities impacted by change in the sector, and
  • Results in a managed, predictable long-term process of modernisation for the electricity sector.
Labor recognises the important linkages between climate change and electricity policy.  Accordingly, Labor will bring those portfolios together in Government.

UPDATE 2.50pm

Opposition leader Bill Shorten has moved a resolution on the future of electricity in Australia vowing to work with the industry, unions and other stakeholders to develop an Electricity Modernisation Strategy that recognises the important linkages between climate change and electricity policy.
 shortenenvironment

UPDATE 2.49pm

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education and for Small Business Julie Collins has moved the amendment and delegate Verity Firth has seconded to delete existing paragraph 88 insert new paragraphs and renumber accordingly. It has been carried.
88. Labor recognises the importance of Australian waters to recreational fishers, commercial fishing industry, tourism and for its conservation value.  Labor is committed to adequately protecting Australian waters from the risks of overfishing and from the use of super trawlers.
89. Labor is particularly concerned about the potential for localised depletion and its environmental and recreational impact. Labor will prevent the operation of all super trawlers in Australian waters, unless a thorough assessment against the most up-to-date science can verify such operations will not undermine small pelagic fisheries and recreational fishing spots.
Original Paragraph 88
Original Paragraph 88
Labor is committed to protect Australia’s waters from the risks associated with the use of super trawlers. Labor will ensure all super trawlers are thoroughly assessed using the most up-to-date science, thereby protecting our oceans and our recreational fishing spots.

UPDATE 2.43pm

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education and for Small Business Julie Collins has spoken about the impact super trawlers have on fishing stocks and marine ecosystems. She has made the point protecting our waters are about conservation but they’re also about jobs. She said the Geelong Star has been on two trips and that has already seen the death of 8 dolphins and four fur seals.
“We need to see proper science before these super trawlers to operate in Australian waters, not after.”

UPDATE 2.37pm

National Secretary for the CFMEU Michael O’Connor has spoken to conference making the point you can do something good for the environment and do something good for jobs at the same time.
“There was a time the Labor Party sold out jobs for greens preferences… Some of the things people celebrate cost jobs, smashed towns, but I’m happy to report that over the past few years that’s changed. We’ve worked together, and that’s the Labor way.”

UPDATE 2.36pm

An amendment has been moved by Member for Rankin Jim Chalmers and seconded by Delegate Asren Pugh to paragraph 16 to add a new dot point, highlighted in bold below. It has been carried.

16. Labor will:
  • Put climate change at the heart of our commitment to deliver jobs, innovation and investment to build a prosperous, safe and fair Australia.
  • Introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme which imposes a legal limit on carbon pollution that lets business work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate within that cap. Labor’s cap on carbon pollution will be based on robust independent advice and reduce over time in accordance with Australia’s international commitments;
  • Develop a comprehensive plan to progressively decarbonise Australia’s energy sector, particularly in electricity generation. A commitment to reinvigorate and grow Australia’s renewable energy industry, encourage energy efficiency and invest in low carbon energy solutions, is essential to that plan;
  • Work to undo the damage that the Coalition Government has done to the renewable energy sector, and be ambitious in growing the renewable energy sector beyond 2020;
  • Restore integrity, independence and capacity to the environment and climate change portfolios and relevant science agencies; and
  • Work with the land sector and other stakeholders to store millions of tonnes of carbon in the land through better land and waste management.
  • Adopt post 2020 pollution reduction targets, consistent with doing Australia’s fair share in limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. Labor will base these targets on the latest advice of bodies such as the independent Climate Change Authority.

UPDATE 2.29pm

Labor’s new commitment to achieving 50% of our electricity generation from renewables by 2030 has become a part of the National Platform. An amendment to dot point 4 of paragraph 16 to include the additional words highlighted in text below has been carried.

16.Labor will:
  • Put climate change at the heart of our commitment to deliver jobs, innovation and investment to build a prosperous, safe and fair Australia.
  • Introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme which imposes a legal limit on carbon pollution that lets business work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate within that cap. Labor’s cap on carbon pollution will be based on robust independent advice and reduce over time in accordance with Australia’s international commitments;
  • Develop a comprehensive plan to progressively decarbonise Australia’s energy sector, particularly in electricity generation. A commitment to reinvigorate and grow Australia’s renewable energy industry, encourage energy efficiency and invest in low carbon energy solutions, is essential to that plan;
  • Work to undo the damage that the Coalition Government has done to the renewable energy sector, and be ambitious in growing the renewable energy sector beyond 2020 by adopting policies to deliver at least 50% of our electricity generation from renewable sources by 2030
  • Restore integrity, independence and capacity to the environment and climate change portfolios and relevant science agencies; and
  • Work with the land sector and other stakeholders to store millions of tonnes of carbon in the land through better land and waste management.

UPDATE 2.24pm

Shadow Minister for Finance and Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke has seconded Mark Butler’s opening comments and spoken about how Labor’s policies have achieved environmental protection on land, in the air with pollution reduction, and in our oceans.

UPDATE 2.15pm

Shadow Minister for the Environment Mark Butler is the opening speaker for this new chapter and has spoken about Labor’s commitment to the environment past and present “Labor will take an emissions trading scheme to the 2016 election.”

Chapter 3: Building Australia’s future – Saturday, July 25, 1.36pm

The Guardian live blog is reporting that Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Penny Wong will not vote against Bill Shorten’s position on turn backs.

UPDATE 12.30pm

Rosie Batty was the key speaker at the Fringe Family Violence Forum where she has just spoken about compassion, education, and the need for ‘gender literacy.’
rosy

UPDATE 12pm

A protest is underway over the position announced by Bill Shorten on asylum seeker boat turn backs outside the Melbourne Convention Centre.

NatConf_150725_1_wtop


UPDATE 11.55am

TWU National Secretary Tony Sheldon  and RTBU National Secretary Bob Nanva have moved and seconded the following resolution which has now been carried:
Safe Rates
330 Australians die in truck crashes every year. Truck driving is Australia’s most dangerous job, with a fatality rate 15 times higher than the national average.
For two decades, truck drivers, academics and the community have highlighted clear evidence of the link between poor pay rates for drivers and the increased risk of truck crashes.
When drivers aren’t paid enough to maintain their vehicles or earn a living wage, they are forced to speed, skip breaks or carry overweight loads just to survive.
And that means more crashes, more deaths, and more families and communities ripped apart.
No one should have to die just to meet a retailer’s delivery deadline.
Yet a 2012 industry survey of one major retail supply chain – Coles – found 48% of drivers faced economic pressure to skip rest breaks and 28% were pressured to speed.
In 2012 Federal Labor established a watchdog – the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal (RSRT), which intervenes when transport clients use economic pressure to force drivers to risk their lives on the roads.
Now, the RSRT is at risk of abolition, with Coles and others lobbying the Liberals, and the Government declaring the road safety tribunal is just ‘red tape.’
Labor must stand firm on road safety, and reject the abolition of this vital safety watchdog. The lives of truck drivers, and all road users, depend on it.
RESOLUTION
That Labor:
Notes the vital role of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal in saving lives on our roads by acting against unfair economic pressure on truck drivers;
  • Opposes Federal Government plans to abolish the Tribunal and reduce road safety nationwide;
  • Urges Federal and State Labor representatives to support the RSRT in their communities and in Parliament, including by opposing motions to repeal the RSRT or restrict its functions; and
  • Congratulates Transport Workers Union members on their ongoing campaign to hold big retailers accountable for their deadly squeeze on their supply chains.

UPDATE 11.45am

WA Labor leader Mark McGowan and member for Perth Alannah MacTiernan have moved and seconded the following Resolution which has now been carried:
“Federal Labor reaffirms our commitment to fund urban rail infrastructure.
Effective partnerships with state governments to build rail are necessary to deal with the increasing levels of congestion in our cities.This conference notes that the current Federal Government’s refusal to fund rail projects has added to congestion, pollution and commute times in our major cities. Rail remains one of the safest and most effective means of delivering major improvements to public transport.”

UPDATE 11.12am

Delegate Paddy Crumlin (NSW) has delivered a passionate speech on the below amendment that has been carried.

Amend paragraph 119, new text highlighted below in bold:
119. Coastal shipping remains an important domestic freight mode competing with road and rail. Coastal shipping requires port access and quality linkages to land transport infrastructure. Labor recognises the key role that shipping plays in helping to secure Australia’s liquid and gas fuel energy trade and will work with industry to ensure that Australia maintains on its shipping register sufficient Australian bulk liquid/gas ships to support continuity of petroleum and gas supply, and exports of LNG.
Amend paragraph 120, new text highlighted below in bold:
120. Labor will deliver policies to revitalise the Australian shipping industry including taxation, regulatory and workforce development measures to provide a level playing field for Australian shipowners to employ more Australian seafarers, and to attract related functions to develop an industry cluster. Labor will foster Australian shipping and jobs, without closing the coast to international ships as many comparable nations have. Labor will build on its domestic shipping regulation to ensure that in order to create a level playing field in a competitive domestic market, where domestic cargo volumes can sustain a suitable Australian ship, there is certainty that such ships will have preferential access to such cargo under efficient arrangements overseen by an independent body. This approach is intended to provide incentives for new investment in Australian ships and maritime skills. Labor will also ensure that taxation measures to encourage investment in ships are internationally competitive.

UPDATE 11.07am

An amendment has been carried to paragraph 46. It will now read as follows, with new text highlighted in bold below:
46. The National Broadband Network is the biggest, most important infrastructure project in Australia’s history. It is vital to the way we will provide health services, deliver a world class education, do business, deliver smart infrastructure and build a strong and growing economy.
Amend paragraph 47 to read as follows, with new text highlighted in bold below:
47. Labor is committed to ensuring that all Australians get fast, reliable and affordable broadband, no matter where they live or do business. Wholesale prices should be the same, whether people live in the city or the bush, and broadband should not be made more expensive for those Australians who can least afford it.

UPDATE 10.55am

Shadow Minister for Infrastructure & Transport, Cities & Tourism Anthony Albanese has told conference that the Government has “trashed” Infrastructure Australia and has reaffirmed Labor’s commitment to Infrastructure Australia.

Chapter 7: A world-class education for all Australians – Saturday, July 25, 10.45am

An amendment was just passed to paragraph 44 to include the additional sentence (below in bold) so the paragraph now reads:
44. “Labor believes our schools must be safe environments that enable all students to learn – including same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse students. Labor will continue working with teachers, students and schools to tackle bullying and discrimination, and ensure our schools are safe and welcoming places for same-sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse students. Labor will continue to support national programs to address homophobia, biphobia, transphobia and intersexphobia in schools. This includes ensuring gender diverse students are able to express the gender they identify with including through preferred name and dress.”

UPDATE 10.35am

Delegate Susan Templeman spoke on education and public schools in the Blue Mountains.

UPDATE 10.30am

Margaret Lewis outlined her amendment for co-operation in schools.

UPDATE 10.25am

Queensland Minister for Education and Minister for Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth Games, Kate Jones has talked about Labor’s commitment to coding in schools: “We know that coding will give our students the opportunity not just to be consumers… but architects.”

UPDATE 10.20am

Andrew Dettmer spoke to an amendment on TAFE and vocational education.

UPDATE 10.15am

Shadow Minister for Vocational Education Sharon Bird spoke to the education chapter on the importance of vocational education and TAFE.

UPDATE 10.15am

Shadow Minister for Education and early childhood Kate Ellis has told Conference Labor will reaffirm its commitment to Gonski.

UPDATE 10.05am

Shadow Minister for Education Kim Carr is delivering the opening address for the Education Chapter.

UPDATE 10am

Bill Shorten has just outlined his position on asylum seekers to the National Conference. READ THE FULL FACT SHEET HERE. 

UPDATE: 9.55am

Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten has told conference, “a Labor Government … must have the option of turning back boats, provided it is safe to do so”.
“But delegates that is also why I say that by 2025 Australia will almost double the humanitarian intake to 27,000.”

UPDATE: 9.47am

Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten is addressing conference.
Former Immigration Minister Tony Burke has written about the awful choices he had to face in 2013.READ HIS PIECE HERE.

A young Asylum Seeker is scared by photographers and comforted by his mother at the Christmas Island Airport where 54 refugees boarded a flight for Sydney.

Saturday, July 25, 9.30am

Good morning! Welcome to day two of Labor’s 47th National Conference.
On the agenda today..
Chapter 7: Building Australia’s future
Chapter 3: A world-class education for all Australians
Chapter 4: Tackling climate change and our environmental challenges
Chapter 9: A fair go for all

Chapter 10: Strong democracy and effective government – Friday, July 24, 4pm

Moved by Shadow Minister for Communications Jason Clare.
NSW MP Jo Haylen has spoken about metadata laws. READ JO HAYLEN’S METADATA SPEECH HERE.

Chapter 8: A health system for all – Friday, July 24, 2.15pm

Shadow Health Minister Catherine King explains the importance of funding dental care.
A delegate has spoken about the right to die at home, and invest more in palliative care.

Friday, July 24, 2pm – A tribute to former prime minister Gough Whitlam

Friday, July 24, 10:50am – Chapter 2: A strong economy for all Australians

Moved by Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen. READ CHRIS BOWEN’S VISION FOR THE ECONOMY HERE.
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure Anthony Albanese has told the Labor National Conference Australia needs a “Warren Buffet rule” to ensure fairness in the tax system. READ ABOUT THE WARREN BUFFET RULE HERE.
He has proposed a rule to ensure high income earners pay at least the same effective tax as low to middle income earners who work under PAYG tax regimes.

Labor Daniel Andrews

Friday, July 24, 9:30am – Chapter 1: Labor’s enduring values

Intro from Australian Labor Party president Mark Butler.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews addresses Labor National Conference.
Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten addressed Conference and vowed to advance Australia.

Superannuation


THE BIG ISSUES COMING UP

Asylum seekers and border protection

This issue will be hotly debated this weekend, particularly over whether Labor will adopt boat turn backs.READ OUR LIVE BLOG HERE.

Climate change and renewables

There will be news and debate around the RET and Labor’s position on climate change. READ WHAT GRASSROOTS MEMBERS SAY HERE.

Conscience vs binding vote on gay marriage

A Labor Fringe event will announce a LGBTI Ambassador. READ TERRI BUTLER’S VIEW ON GAY MARRIAGE EQUALITY IN AUSTRALIA HERE.

Party reform agenda

Labor’s socialist objective will be debated.
Australian Labor Party draft organisational reform agenda.

Labor News
AUTHOR
Labor Herald news delivers updates on the issues of the day from parliament, press conferences and beyond.

Have your say

Log in to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Don't have an account? Register here.
  • JohnB
    John Bloomfield 
    There is not much “Live” here.
    Just occasional reports.
    I will find better elsewhere.
    Why hasn’t the ALP provided a real live feed for interested R&F members.
    Some would even pay for the service.
    But the ALP has learned little about inclusivity, its R&F base membership is incidental it seems.
    Whenever will the ALP treat its supporters and members as if they are a valued part of the Labor movement?
    .
    • Bighead1883
      Bighead 1883 
      A valid point JB as I came here to see an insiders view as R&F member away from the daily online news services
      Has Labor Herald seen the Guardian`s live feed? it`s updated often so as JB suggests,come up to 2015
      • Alex Brooks
        Alex Brooks 
        The Guardian and mainstream media will always have more journalists to dedicate to the coverage. The Labor Herald has just two staff and we are trying to focus on the most relevant stories. We appreciate your patience – we really are doing the best we can to maximise the coverage within our resources.
        • JohnB
          John Bloomfield 
          Alex,
          I know you are doing the best you can with limited resources, but
          for such an event one would think dispersion of live video would be pre-organised – months ago via a portal.
          More resources please ALP.
          It should be promoted as the ‘Olympic’ event of the Labor movement.
          ALP communicators have let yet another opportunity go by to raise the awareness of the masses of how ALP formulates policy – and to include/involve and inform R&F of both unions & ALP.
          The NatCon ‘event’ should be showcased as a recruiting and education tool – properly presented it could be used to raise awareness on the structure and management processes of the ALP and union movement.
          A video stream production should be structured around the conference and fringe events, with interviews , information and education sessions interleaved.
          Public policy formulation is democracy in action – a process to be very proud of.
          We have a good product – the ALP should invest some resources in selling it to the nation.
          Do I need to mention the LNP way – lobbyists, closed door negotiations, laundered donations and media magnates?
  • Monte Smith 
    Congratulations to Labor Herald, — So far our baby Herald has only been able to take some small unsteady steps (like any infant) but today it took off like a “two a year old” in fantastic style to keep us right up to date with the conference as it was taking place. — I felt I was floating in the air after watching the tribute to Geough, but remained in the air while I watched the rest of the show. No I’m still up there, with the knowledge that Labor can now be heard without relying on what dear Rupert allowed us….(Bloody Budy)……
  • David Prior 
    “Stopping The Boats” This is an enormous issue and been made larger than is necessary by a Government hell bent on governing by fear. Many Australians are making personal decisions about the people coming to Australia by boat from articles in the media sanctioned by the current Liberal Government. I believe these articles are floored. Before anyone passes a judgement on Boat People I believe they should ask themselves some simple questions. -like- Why are these people fleeing the country of their birth? Why can’t our government have dialogue with the countries that are loosing their people to find out what is really going on? Do all people deserve to be treated humanely? Why do we the Australian People have to read about this issue in our biased press? So before the ALP splits over this issue I believe all members have an obligation to understand what the main issues are and report it accurately to the Australian people before going off half cocked, by using this approach the Australian people will feel the ALP members have a real sense of understanding of the full issue and be interested enough to be more proactively involved, and be less likely to persecute fellow human beings. Also be less likely to believe the biased information that is being produced from Canberra for Political gain
    • Ian Coffey
      Ian Coffey 
      The hottest debate in the media, the community and importantly at the ALP National Conference at the moment is asylum seeker policy and specifically Boat Turnbacks. Turnbacks is an affront to the thinking of left leaning ALP members but should we be thinking about this in a more holistic manner. Is it Good? NO, but we can adapt and develop it so that it is employed in a more safer, less corrupt and exponentially more humane manner.
      We as ALP members have a great advantage over the LNP in our humaneness. Humaneness and the concept of being humane is lost on LNP members because it is not in their psyche whereas it is the lifeblood and the essence of being an ALP member. It is for this reason we can consider carefully the inclusion of boat turnbacks in a broad and wide ranging asylum seeker policy suite. It doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t be the integral component but rather a piece in the larger puzzle.
      We as ALP members can adapt and develop turnbacks so that they are done safely, not just casting people adrift to fend for themselves in another part of the ocean and not by paying blood money to people smugglers to turn around in their rickety unseaworthy craft and struggle back to where they came from. The terrible thing about paying people smugglers to take asylum seekers back is that you have no oversight of what they do after they have left you. For all we know as soon as they drop over the horizon they might just throw the asylum seekers overboard as shark bait. They’re just that sort of people otherwise they wouldn’t be in the people smuggling business in the first place.
      Don’t mistake me I’m not advocating boat turnbacks but I am urging that we not dismiss it out of hand and that we give careful consideration of all of the different alternatives and in particular the most dangerous alternative which is to leave it in the hands of the LNP which is putting the asylum seekers in the hands people mainly concerned with extending their political tenure and how deeply they can immerse themselves in the trough. Can you imagine leaving the fate of asylum seekers in the hands of someone like George Christensen, that truly is putting their lives in real jeopardy not to mention a cruel and unusual punishment.
  • BrianSanaghan
    Brian Sanaghan 
    The national conference has come to an end and has delivered, whether I agree with all of it or not, a policy platform that the parliamentary leadership can take to the next election with an expectation of winning. For me, the most important outcome of the conference has been the party’s commitment to a Republic, and a rough timeline for its gestation and birth. There is not enough space here for me to outline the political reasons why, but I believe the election campaign should have as its central theme, not the establishment of a Republic per se, but the appointment/election of an Australian Head of State. In fact I believe our slogan should be “For an Australian Head of State: vote Labor”. It will blow monarch loyalist Tony Abbott and the conservatives out of the water, and be the perfect wedge between Abbott and his government, notably Turnbull.
  • Ian Coffey
    Ian Coffey 
    I must say I do not agree with a binding vote on the marriage equality question and indeed on pretty much any subject. To bind the votes of members of parliament is in my view an infringement of the democratic process and their democratic right and the right of their constituents to have an unfettered voice in parliament and that leaves a sour test in a party embracing democracy. I also believe if we bind our members vote it gives legitimacy to the LNP employing the same strategy and we all know what that will mean for the marriage equality bill.
    I believe our members are intelligent and moral enough to be allowed to vote their conscience and that of the people they represent.
  • You published a list of Labor MPs who don’t support marriage equality here, and now you’ve pulled it. Who told you to, and why?
  • Grace Gan 
    I’m in favour of primary schools teaching Moral Education to kids. ‘Primary ‘ because that’s the time children are still innocent and fresh in the mind. Why ‘ moral ‘ ? Because we live in a time of increasing lawlessness and violence. We cannot take for granted simple values such as good manners and mutual respect. Common sense needs to be taught too. When children are not taught good moral values, they grow to pick up wrong values very quickly. Even speaking foul language has become so common in school. The school has a moral obligation not just to impart knowledge but to provide moral education.
  • Ian Coffey
    Ian Coffey 
    Things are going quite well so far without major debate yet but I’m sure it will heat up. It is very pleasing to see vocational education receive strong commitment. It is traditional for the LNP to degrade the VET sector as they look to create skills shortages to justify the disgraceful 457 visas allowing their big business mates to import cheap skilled labour.
    And it is the ongoing struggle of the ALP to re-establish and strengthen vocational education to give the youth of Australia a chance to secure their future through education and training. I would like to see the ALP further strengthen this commitment by developing policy to enforce large businesses to return to the community by providing apprenticeships and traineeships. Less and less opportunities are being offered by large businesses and we need to arrest this decline.
    Also we must not forget our older workers and need to provide education and training to allow them to increase their skills within their own field but also to develop new skills to allow them to transition into new fields and increase their ability to secure better jobs.
  • Peter Hanlon 
    My one word for how I feel about Labor after hearing eight amazing speeches on refugees this afternoon (regardless of the result):
    Proud.
    Peter
  • Grace Gan 
    I don’t agree on two issues, asylum seekers and same sex marriage. Border protection is the sovereign right of the government and anyone wishing to come here should come in a legal way. This is to uphold the law.This is how you can protect your citizens. Not all boat people are asylum seekers. Why protect them? Perhaps it’s better asylum seekers apply to the UN for a place in Australia, instead of coming by boat !
    Same sex marriage is wrong. You cannot right the wrong just because the majority ask for it. Right is right. Wrong is wrong, just as it is wrong to kill!

OCT 2: THE OZ - Malcolm Turnbull to reset terror pitch to Muslims

$
0
0
THE PRINTED VERSION OF THE OZ HAS PAUL MALEY AS THE THIRD AUTHOR: why is he not owning up to this article?
GS

Malcolm Turnbull to reset terror pitch to Muslims


Islamic community leader Jamal Rifi in Canberra. ‘I believe Malcolm Turnbull will be more mature.’ Picture: Gary Ramage
Malcolm Turnbull will seek to ­recast the government’s relationship with Muslims through more co-operative and inclusive policies after warnings from security agencies that relations with the ­Islamic community have sunk to their lowest ebb.
The move will see the new Prime Minister avoid the blunt and often divisive language used by his predecessor Tony Abbott, which alienated many in the ­Islamic community and undermined the ability of agencies to win their trust to help combat ­radicalisation.
The Australian understands that Mr Turnbull will adopt a new, more inclusive tone in dealing with the Islamic community and has discussed the issue with ­Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Justice Minister Michael Keenan, who both urged him to take the fresh approach.
He is expected in coming weeks to emphasise the need to work ­co-operatively with the Muslim ­community in order to rout extremists and extremist ideology from communities.
The move, which represents a departure from the policies of the Abbott government, will be embraced by the country’s Muslims, according to community leader and GP Jamal Rifi.
“It is definitely needed and definitely welcomed — the larger Muslim community will respond with open arms,” Dr Rifi told The Australian.
He said the Muslim community was “elated” at Mr Turnbull becoming Prime Minister as the relationship with the government under Mr Abbott had become “extremely tense and hurtful”.
“Unfortunately, under the ­pre­vious government we felt power­less,” Dr Rifi said. “We felt that the community was fighting radicalisation with our hands tied behind our back, but now we hope that the shackles are off.
“We are hopeful and determined to change the status quo and roll up our sleeves to work with the present government to help protect Australia.
“This means the protection for boys and girls not to fall for the trap of ­Islamic State and the likes … we can’t shield them from the propaganda, but we can empower them to resist it.”
Security agencies told the ­government in the final months of Mr Abbott’s leadership that relations with the Muslim community were at their lowest ebb, making it harder for authorities to gain the trust and co-operation of Muslims to alert agencies to possible threats.
Liberal senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who has been consulting with 160 Muslim groups across the country on national secu­rity policy, told The Australiancommunities were feeling marginalised and there was a “growing distrust” of government.
“At the moment what is ­basically happening is (that) because of a growing distrust and problems in these communities, these communities have moved away from us … they feel very marginalised,” Senator Fierravanti-Wells said.
“Basically what has happened is they have clamped up, they are not really engaging and therefore relationships have dried up. They feel very marginalised. Of course, good intelligence is based on good relationships.”
The senator, who has more than 30 years’ experience working with multicultural groups and has close links to the Muslim community, said the government needed to build a relationship of trust with communities at risk.
She called for the “complex” issue of countering extremism and preventing youth becoming disenfranchised to be dealt with as a social issue. “In my view, we have been dealing with extremism and violent extremism as a national security issue, but what we really need to do is to be looking at it from a different perspective; it is a social issue with a national security angle.”
Dr Rifi said Mr Abbott had alienated many in the Muslim community through poor choice of words. These included his ­comment in February that he wished more Muslim leaders would describe Islam as a religion of peace and mean it, and his use of terms such as “Team Australia” and “death cult”.
“I believe Malcolm Turnbull will be more mature and insightful and that the government he leads will not fall for such short-minded, unwise use of words,” Dr Rifi said.
Since becoming Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull has shunned ­expressions such as “team Australia” and has not described ­Islamic State as a “death cult”.
Dr Rifi, in Canberra yesterday to receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Canberra for leadership of the Muslim community and his stand against ­hatred and social injustice, said he attended a meeting of Islamic leaders on Tuesday to discuss the challenges of radicalisation and that Mr Turnbull’s rise to the leadership was discussed.
“The mood was optimistic about the change,” he said. “Definitely there are some issues that need to be ironed out, some grievances, but we are very optimistic.”
He believed the tone of the government was already changing for the better under Mr Turnbull. He said many Muslims had been offended when the Abbott government indicated it was more likely to accept Christians rather than Muslims in the new intake of 12,000 Syrian refugees announced last month. “It gave the impression that Syrian Muslims are not welcomed and that was another blunder by the government. Such a great announcement (to take 12,000 refugees) should have been used to strengthen the interaction between the communities (yet) it was more divisive than inclusive.”
He said a teleconference this week between Muslim community leaders and Paris Aristotle, the head of the Refugee Resettlement Advisory Council, made it clear the Syrians would be chosen on the basis of need, not religion.
“I believe this new approach (by the government) has already started,” Dr Rifi said.
In July, Mr Turnbull outlined his attitude to countering violent extremism in Australia, saying it was more ­important to respond to the terror threat with effective measures rather than simply being “tough”.
He quoted former ASIO director David Irvine, who had said: “We should not let the phenomenon of violent Islamist ­extremism destroy the community harmony that is such an essential characteristic of Australia’s highly successful multicultural democracy. That is precisely what violent extremism and terrorism want to do.”
Veteran MP Philip Ruddock, who is working with Senator ­Fierravanti-Wells on community engagement, said he would not comment on Mr Abbott’s lang­uage, but he believed it was ­important to ensure diversity in the community was respected.
Additional reporting: Paul Maley
Reader comments on this site are moderated before publication to promote lively and civil debate. We encourage your comments but submitting one does not guarantee publication. We publish hundreds of comments daily, and if a comment is rejected it is likely because it does not meet with our comment guidelines, which you can read here. No correspondence will be entered into if a comment is declined.

1206 COMMENTS
423 people listening


Jason

Jason
Great to see this story still up, I was worried it might have been taken down after yesterdays shooting.

Teddy

Teddy
@Jason Yes, just great Jason. Chamberlain had the same "great" idea in the 1930's. So did the French. So did the Dutch.

Margaret

Margaret
And was yesterday's shooting at Parramatta just another emphatic endorsement of Turnbull's new engagement with our Moslem friends?
Margaret's bestie.
Tim'

Tim'
Perhaps we need both a new conservative political party and a new conservative news paper?
Tired of leftist Crap

Tired of leftist Crap
Well now appeasement really works. Another Islamic murderer but only 15 years old. There are plenty more where he came from and so it will go on one at a time until breeding causes a tipping point then it will be on for young and old. Deakin university is supporting radical Islam by allowing a radical to preach there. What has this country descended to.

Lynda

Lynda
Dr Rifi needs to understand that no amount of taxpayer money for funding programs aimed at disenfranchised youth will persuade them to disobey the prophet Muhammad's teachings from the Quran taught daily in mosques and Islamic schools. The Quran contains over one hundred verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers (people who are not Muslim) for the sake of Islamic dominance ruled by sharia (law). Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill 'infidels' (non believers) wherever they may be.
Until these verses are denounced or removed, Australians will be very wary of Muslim migrants and those who already live amongst us.
Anne N

Anne N
Mr Rifi, who are you to judge maturity? Give me Mr Abbott any day to the comments you have made.. You refused to meet a man who genuinely wanted the best for all Australians.. What do you want Mr Rifi? Seriously can you tell us exactly what you wish for Australia, the one you envisage in 20 years from now? Truthfully now tell us your dream for our Country.

Andy

Andy
The problem is that Islam consists of various groups who themselves do not see eye to eye, yet people tend to view them all as the same when indeed they are not.
I live in a Muslim country and many of the Muslims I know and work with are welcoming, respectful and extremely hospitable. 
Like any religion, group or race, there are good and bad - we need to stop alienating the good by assuming they are all bad. They too resent the damage that minority groups claiming to represent Islam have done. 
A policy of engagement will surely do more good than isolation decent people. I have seen this first hand during my 23 years in the Army.

Peter

Peter
And just who does the isolating, the host country or the Islamic community? Instead of being so hyper sensitive, Muslim leadership could have taken the words "Team Australia" as a call to join the rest of the community to form one nation. But they chose victim hood instead, blaming big bad Tony for their perceived woes.

Andy

Andy
@Peter I can say with certainty that having fought the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents, winning the hearts and minds of good and honest people is imperative. Its not a new concept. Its called common sense rather than being hyper sensitive and its based on experience my friend. 

Colin

Colin
I see some negative comments here but let's not lose our heads and get carried away. We should all be proud that our new Labor Prime Minister is making this appeasement. It will keep us safe in our schools, cafes and police stations.

Roger

Roger
For every muslim apologist there are ten ordinary folks with the wisdom to see Islam for what it is: a dangerous, supremacist, totalitarian ideology. Politicians had better pay attention, because non-mutual tolerance is coming to an end.


This comment has been deleted


This comment has been deleted

luke

luke
@Bob @Sandy Bob, could you let us know what you actually think of Islam? I take it you are of the Left, so how do you reconcile your defence of a religion that blatantly attacks everything you represent and probably stand for? 

luke

luke
@Bob @Sandy I mean, you can't just base your defence of Islam simply because you associate it's followers with a particular race and therefore see an attack on its ideology as an attack based on Racism?


Paul

Paul
Not content with white anteing our Prime Minister, Mal is now going to white ante the whol country thereby getting even with us as well!

StarkRavingSane

StarkRavingSane
News Flash: Abbott is no longer PM (thank Budda.) 

Paul

Paul
@StarkRavingSane @Paul I'm fully aware that Tony Abbott unfortunately is no longer our Prime Minister SRS and if it's good enough for you to speak to me like an idiot the it should be fair enough for me to reply in kind and I know who the idiot is SRS and it ain't me.  I suggest you go and have a good look at yourself in the mirror SRS and you might just see a reflection of what you reckon I am!

StarkRavingSane

StarkRavingSane
That's a pretty good description of the psychological defense mechanism: "Denial and projection". A genuine compliment by me by the way. Naturally, I don't see it applying to me :) 

Peter

Peter
@StarkRavingSane @Paul I think I know what you do for a crust...You do know what they say about Psychologists don't you?

Am I right?

StarkRavingSane

StarkRavingSane
My two kids are wonderful, successful and self assured and we get on very well. So there!
BTW I'm not a psychologist but all the psychologists I know are a mixed bag. Some are loopy but interesting. Most are are really good parents and partners. Beware of commonly-held stereotypes. You're average Muslim is a good egg too.

luke

luke
Shooting outside police station in Sydney. What would be the odds?

Sandy

Sandy
@luke Hmmm, news reports would suggest you jumped the gun, as it were, luke. Not for the first time, of course.

Peter

Peter
@Sandy @luke Sandy, What do you know? You could break it right here for me...can't seem to find anything except two dead, man of ME appearance dressed in black, Intelligence sources had word...all allegedly of course here at The Australian and Daily

Come on, spill!

Deborah

Deborah
Apparently, according to the ABC, 'it's not a terrorist attack'!

Thomas

Thomas
Sounds pretty terrifying to me but the ABC has already virtually concluded it is not a terrorist attack saying the ABC "understands it is not a terrorist attack". How the hell would it know at this stage.

Isabelle

Isabelle
@Thomas Agreed, the MO sounds suspicious. Shot a police IT expert and continued firing at the building until police guards shot him.
Sandy

Sandy
@Peter @Sandy @luke Non-terror related, I hear, Pete. Sorry to disappoint.

Peter

Peter
@Sandy @Peter @luke I'm not disappointed. I know the ABC 'understands' that it is not 'terror' related, but let's not jump to conclusions. ME men in black and prior operational intelligence, special constables, mean it could be anything. And it wouldn't be the first time an Australian policeman had been targeted would it?

luke

luke
@Sandy @luke By the way Sandy, the thing with stereotypes, such as the stereotype of a "Muslim Terrorist attacking a police station", is that it has to actually occur regularly for the stereotype to form. Does that mean that Every Muslim is a terrorist - absolutely not - it does however mean that whenever a Police station is attacked, the odds are in favour of it being carried out by a Muslim terrorist.

I don't see how deliberately blinding oneself to such probabilities in the name of political correctness can possibly help in solving the matter.    


Sandy

Sandy
@luke @Sandy Facts, as they are, still to be established, luke. But who cares, right?

Peter

Peter
@Sandy @luke Who was that bloke? Held up a flag with the Shahada on it? Had a bandana with some call to something-or-other, asked to be identified with that misunderstood mob overseas?

As I recall that didn't have anything to do with terror for many, many pundits. You know, crazed individual. Lone wolf. Nothing to with you know what. It's a pretty high bar in some circles for something to be named 'terrorism.'

But you're right. Lets wait for the facts before we worry about Australia's Islamophobia. I mean this crazed gunman's motivations. Or not.

Paul

Paul
@Peter @Sandy @luke "It's a pretty high bar in some circles for something to be named 'terrorism.'"

To be classified as terrorism it needs to be a politically motivated act of terror.

Peter

Peter
@Paul @Peter @Sandy @luke Thanks, Yoda. So the bit where our erstwhile lone wolf asked for his actions to be associated with IS didn't count as 'political motivation?'

Paul

Paul
@Peter @Paul @Sandy @luke No.  It was a confected request.

Peter

Peter
@Paul @Peter @Sandy @luke Ah...so he was making up his wish to be associated with IS because he was an unwell lone wolf? The whole flag and bandana and list of demands was mere window dressing?

Who's that guy at UNWA that did that bogus 'all global warming denialists' are right wing loonies? He was wrong.

Paul

Paul
@Peter @Paul @Sandy @luke "Ah...so he was making up his wish to be associated with IS because he was an unwell lone wolf? The whole flag and bandana and list of demands was mere window dressing?"

Yep.
luke

luke
@Sandy @luke Matter of perspectives, isn't it Sandy?  But perspectives should be informed, where possible, by facts and reality. We know that Islamic ideology promotes the idea of Jihad, that can be legitimately interpreted as either a personal internal struggle or a religious condoned act of physical aggression/violence against pre-ordained (koranic verses) targets - non-believers, Apostates, infidels etc. We also know that individuals from the areas that are heavily ideologically Islam (not exclusive however), show far more aggression and discrimination towards minorities (both religious and sexual), women and children. We also know that such individuals that fit into these categories have a very hard time adjusting to Australian Liberal values (like respecting Australian Law) and often have a higher level of Law breaking than the native population. 

Taking what we know, we can then either ignore the probabilities of allowing such individuals who follow such an ideology into our Country, or we can make informed decisions to minimize the risk to our fellow Australians.

This is where our perspectives come in. My perspective is to protect my Fellow Australians and my liberal society from such violence and backward ideology because I view what we have as far better (advanced, moral etc) than what these "newcomers" come from/bring with them. This means that I would limit their numbers to preserve what we have.  

Your perspective I would assume is one of moral equivalence and white guilt, and therefore would try hard to ignore what is going on.         


Isabelle

Isabelle
@Sandy Actually no, it is reported in the Australian that the shooter was of Middle Eastern appearance, dressed in black. 
Thomas

Thomas
Latest reporting suggests that the police station had been alerted to a possible attack on the police building by intelligence sources. Witnesses are reporting that a man dressed in a black gown sprayed the building with bullets before being shot by police.
Viewing all 585 articles
Browse latest View live