Chief elections analyst Casey Briggs explains the state of play in Tasmania
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
22 minutes ago
- ABC News
Advance used unblurred footage of minors taken from education organisations without consent in new ad
Conservative lobby group Advance is under fire for repurposing footage of identifiable children without obtaining consent in a new ad attacking Welcome to Country ceremonies. When contacted by ABC NEWS Verify, many of the schools, child education centres, and organisations that had videos taken for use in the ad, said permission was not granted to use the footage, and they want the ad taken down. Advance started advertising with the ad, titled "Welcome To Your Own Country", on June 15 on Meta platforms. It uploaded the video on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube — where, combined, it has been viewed more than 230,000 times. The ad shows minors taking part in Acknowledgement of Country activities at education facilities — with some of the children clearly identifiable. A face blur has only been used on some of the children. Some adult educators can also be identified. ABC NEWS Verify has chosen not to name any of the education facilities involved. Below are stills of the ad, but the images have been blurred, so children and adults can't be identified. ABC NEWS Verify has analysed the video and, using basic open-source techniques, was able to identify footage taken from the public social media accounts of four childcare and/or early learning centres, one playgroup organisation, two primary schools, and one prep to year 12 school. Footage featuring children filmed by not-for-profit group Reconciliation Australia was also used — as well as a clip featuring children from ABC programming. ABC NEWS Verify contacted the above organisations to ask if permission had been sought by Advance to use the footage in its ad. All but one replied by deadline confirming permission had not been sought. "The ad has been sourced from material publicly available on the internet," a spokesperson for Advance said. Some of the schools referred the inquiry to their respective education departments. "No permission has been granted by the ACT Education Directorate [or the primary school] for the use of this video. No consent has been granted by the parents of the children in the video for it to be used in this way," one said. "We object to footage of our students being used in this way, even more so without their knowledge and without the consent of their parents," it said. The Queensland Education Department said neither it, nor the school featured in the ad, were approached for permission to use the video. "The department is currently supporting the school to report the unauthorised use of footage to YouTube," it said. Reconciliation Australia also provided a statement. "Advance has not sought our permission to use the images contained in their ad," it said. "Written release forms were signed by all parents and guardians giving permission for Reconciliation Australia to use images of the children featured in the original video. "We are very concerned that Advance appears to have used images of minors with no attempt to de-identify many of the children nor to acquire consent from their parents or guardians, and without permission from Reconciliation Australia," it said. At least seven adult educators feature in the video — some have their faces blurred, but a number do not. A staff member from a playgroup organisation is prominently featured at the start of the ad. That organisation's chief executive told ABC NEWS Verify it had lodged an official complaint with YouTube and was seeking advice from the eSafety Commissioner on what to do if the video isn't removed. "I am deeply concerned to learn that footage originating from our official YouTube channel has been used without our consent in a political advertising campaign," they said. "We unequivocally condemn Advance Australia's unauthorised use of [the] material." It is understood the ABC was also unaware of its footage being used in the ad. ABC NEWS Verify contacted Advance and informed them that several organisations had said they would like their footage removed from the ad. In response, Advance said that it had not received any complaints. "We have not been contacted by any individual or organisations with the concerns you refer to in your questions," it said. "In fact, the response to the ad has been overwhelmingly positive." Technology and privacy legal expert James Patto from Scildan Legal said "it's at least arguable" that Advance has breached the Privacy Act in repurposing the footage. But he said it depends on whether the footage is considered "personal information" or "sensitive information" under the act. "If it's personal information — say the children are identifiable but there's no sensitive characteristics — then Advance Australia wouldn't necessarily need consent to collect it," he told ABC NEWS Verify. "But that doesn't mean they're off the hook. "They'd also need to notify individuals, unless that wasn't reasonably practicable. "It's important to remember that just because something's online doesn't mean it's fair game under privacy law." He said it's a different story if the footage is determined to be "sensitive information". "If the footage includes sensitive information, like racial or ethnic origin or biometric features, then consent is required to collect and use it," Mr Patto said. "That consent has to be specific to Advance and for the political purpose. Consent given to a school or film crew wouldn't likely cut it. "I think it's at least arguable that some of the footage could reveal sensitive information, like race and ethnic origin," he said. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is the country's privacy regulator. It was contacted but failed to respond directly to questions concerning the ad.
ABC News
22 minutes ago
- ABC News
World Court climate decision lights match under Australia's fossil fuel industry
A landmark outcome from the world's highest court this week has put major fossil fuel countries like Australia on notice, declaring they could be liable for reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its advisory opinion this week, outlining that nations have an obligation to prevent climate change and listing potential legal consequences for continuing to make the crisis worse. It's been celebrated around the world as a historic turning point for the climate movement. It's also expected to unleash a new wave of climate litigation. Australia, one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters, is likely to face new legal scrutiny. "Under international law, it's huge for Australia. It's going to open us up to a lot more liability," said climate law specialist at the University of Melbourne's law school, Liz Hicks. "There could be claims for reparations brought against Australia. I think this is something that the government hasn't been taking seriously until now." The ICJ was tasked with determining what obligations countries have to protect the climate system for current and future generations, and what the consequences are of failing to do so. In a unanimous finding, the court determined that nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so. But the 500-page opinion goes much further than that; it has been described as a blueprint for climate justice and a reckoning for those countries perpetuating the destabilisation of the planet. "The court has really met the moment in bringing all of those legal obligations and interpreting them in the climate reality, and the urgency of this kind of existential crisis for the entire world," Retta Berryman, climate lead and lawyer for Environmental Justice Australia (EJA), said. The ICJ's decision isn't binding for Australian courts, but its advice is considered highly influential and will inform legal arguments in cases back home. Under the Paris Agreement, the legal framework for climate action over the past decade, countries set their own targets for how they will reduce their domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Domestic. That's the critical word here. By only counting emissions released at home, fossil fuel exporters like Australia could brag about cutting down greenhouse gases whilst continuing to sell coal, oil and gas to international buyers, obligation-free. "What states like Australia — and many, many states — were arguing, was that the Paris Agreement was exhaustive of all our obligations," Melbourne Law School's Dr Hicks explained. "Our exports, the big contribution that we make to climate harms, fell outside of the Paris Agreement." The ICJ judges rejected that outright. They declared that supporting fossil fuels — by the production, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies — constitutes an internationally wrongful act. For Australia, the potential ramifications can't be overstated. Australia produces about 1.1 per cent of global emissions. However, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and a top gas exporter, and a UNSW study has concluded Australia is second globally for emissions from fossil fuel exports. When exports are taken into account, Australia makes up about 4.5 per cent of global emissions, the report found. Ella Vines, a climate law researcher at Monash University, said the ICJ ruling would put those emissions into sharper focus. "It's really significant that we can say that Australia should be responsible for its fossil fuel production even though it's consumed overseas. "A lot of the loopholes that Australia has tended to use to get out of liability are starting to get smaller and smaller," Dr Hicks said. The court took this a step further, stating that states are also responsible for regulating fossil fuel companies operating within their borders, which again exposes Australia to legal liability for its booming fossil fuel industry. In some instances, Australian taxpayers are already forking out for the rehabilitation costs once companies have finished digging up and selling their products. Now, they could also be paying for the climate pollution from that coal and gas. "The ICJ observed that a state's failure to regulate the activities of private actors may amount to a breach of that state's duty to exercise regulatory due diligence," Dr Vines said. The ICJ also shot down another argument used frequently in Australian climate court cases. It goes that no individual project — a gas plant or a coal mine — is responsible for climate change, as it is a cumulative problem, so there is no direct link between its emissions and climate harm. It was an argument used in court last year for the Living Wonders case, which was run by Environmental Justice Australia (EJA). "The judges of the ICJ, after hearing all of that evidence and reading all of the submissions, have confirmed that it is scientifically possible to determine a country's contribution to climate change," said EJA's Retta Berryman. "They've said they acknowledge that it's complex, but that it's not impossible. And notwithstanding the fact that climate change is caused by cumulative emissions, it's scientifically possible to determine each state's contribution." International law is not a perfect vehicle for justice, and a longstanding criticism has been its failure to be enforced. But Dr Hicks said that — again — the ICJ addressed this squarely by stating clearly that countries could be liable for penalties, including reparations, if they commit these "wrongful acts" of climate harm. "If there is no clear consequence to breaching [human rights], we are not as good at paying attention. Once you're talking about reparations being a possibility, or other forms of liability and consequences being in play, that is also going to change." The ICJ was asked to consider this issue by Vanuatu and other low-lying island states, which are suffering the consequences and costs of climate change, for which they bear little responsibility. On Friday, Vanuatu's special envoy on climate did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries like Australia. Any theoretical case could potentially be heard in the ICJ's dispute court. A spokesperson for the Australian government told the ABC it is carefully considering the court's opinion. "The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change. "…we remain steadfast in our commitment to working together with the Pacific to strengthen global climate action." International law may not be strictly enforceable, but ignoring it would also affect Australia's international, diplomatic and moral standing, if there were any case. One example of an international legal fight in the ICJ is Australia's case against Japan over its whaling program in Antarctica. Australia successfully argued that Japan was breaching international law, and Japan was ordered to stop the program. "I think it puts the Australian government on notice that the actions that it's taking — particularly connected with exports and downstream emissions — are opening it and future Australian publics and taxpayers up to liability," Dr Hicks said. This legal opinion comes as Australia finalises its 2035 emissions targets, which the ICJ opinion stressed must be its "highest possible ambition". EJA's Ms Berryman believes this legal advice sets out a road map for the federal government's response to climate change. "I think starting with setting a really ambitious target and then working towards a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is really the only way to achieve compliance with the standards that the ICJ has set for the countries." Failure to do so could leave all Australians on the hook for the mounting costs of catastrophic climate change.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Australia, UK to ink 50-year deal to underpin AUKUS
Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997. Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997. Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997. Australia and the UK will ink a 50-year deal to underpin delivery of the AUKUS nuclear submarine agreement, amid concerns about a US review of the trilateral pact. AUKUS, formed in 2021 between Australia, the UK and US to address shared concerns about China's rising military ambition, is designed to enable Australia to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines in the 2040s. But doubts have been raised about the future of the $368 billion program after the Trump administration this year initiated a review of the deal to examine if it met its "American First" criteria. Defence Minister Richard Marles said he remained confident about the future of US involvement on the eve of Australia and the UK signing a multi-decade bilateral deal cementing their commitment. "It is a profoundly important treaty that we will sign," Mr Marles said on Friday alongside Foreign Minister Penny Wong and their British counterparts John Healey and David Lammy. "It forms part of a trilateral agreement that we have and we are really confident about the progress of all three countries in bringing that to fruition." The treaty, to be signed in Geelong on Saturday, would allow "comprehensive co-operation" on the design, build, operation, sustainment, and disposal of AUKUS submarines, the ministers said in a joint statement. It will also support development of personnel, workforce, infrastructure and regulatory systems for Australia's nuclear-powered submarine program, the statement said. Mr Lammy said the treaty showed the strength of Australia and the UK's commitment to AUKUS. "It's clear that the UK-Australia relationship is an anchor in what is a very volatile world, providing stability in troubled waters and a relationship that holds steady whichever way the geopolitical winds are blowing," he said. Mr Healey said the UK was confident it could meet its obligations under the deal on industrial capacity to deliver SSN-AUKUS submarines. "We have the technology and the designs to be able to deliver our commitments to the SSN-AUKUS and we will," he said. Australia will pay $5 billion to support British industry to design and produce nuclear reactors to power the future AUKUS-class submarines. Australia will acquire at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the early 2030s. On Sunday, the ministers will visit Darwin to observe joint military exercises known as Talisman Sabre, which comprise more than 30,000 personnel from 19 militaries. This year, the war games involve the UK's Carrier Strike Group, led by the Royal Navy flagship HMS Prince of Wales - the first UK carrier strike group to visit Australia since 1997.
