We need to close the gap. But how? Some things need to happen first
The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation.
We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now.
The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals?
Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones.
In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way.
Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them.
As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old.
The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed?
There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more.
The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with.
The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer.
Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end.
A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well.
There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous.
MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:
Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage.
The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier.
If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible.
There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that.
The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation.
We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now.
The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals?
Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones.
In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way.
Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them.
As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old.
The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed?
There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more.
The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with.
The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer.
Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end.
A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well.
There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous.
MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:
Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage.
The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier.
If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible.
There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that.
The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation.
We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now.
The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals?
Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones.
In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way.
Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them.
As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old.
The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed?
There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more.
The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with.
The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer.
Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end.
A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well.
There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous.
MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:
Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage.
The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier.
If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible.
There's an uncomfortable unease surrounding Indigenous affairs in Australia. You can tell that by watching people chatting. They're likely to pick their company before they say what they really think. It shouldn't be like that.
The dream situation is where Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians can chat openly and freely about all the policy options. That's not generally feasible now. Things are sensitive and you'd pick your company before starting a conversation.
We've always been a bit shy of these discussions. Evelyn Waugh's son Auberon fell in love with Australia. He said he loved the openness, the commitment to "let the other bloke have his say". He added that there was one exception to this openness, namely having open discussion about Aboriginal Australians. He said we just look uncomfortable and change the subject. Some people got mad with him because he pointed out the wheel hadn't been invented. He was right to sense that this is taken as an insult. In any event, that was in the 80s and we're a lot more sensitive now.
The vast majority of Australians want Indigenous Australians to be given the respect they deserve. They also want policies that will close the gap. How, you might ask, do we achieve these two goals?
Indigenous leader Pat Anderson recently called for younger leaders to be brought forward. It's insightful and frankly courageous to point out that your own generation needs to move on. It's a good thing. It's not just that intergenerational change is both important and long overdue. The current crop just hasn't delivered. They've been too aggressive and accusatorial. Going on the attack should always be a last resort. Publicity, self-aggrandisement or stupidity have led many to that path. It's been worse than ineffective. It has turned people of good heart and faith away. Anderson might have called, not just for younger leaders, but for more effective and conciliatory ones.
In any encounter, you can choose to be the angry antagonist and maybe play the victim to boot. It won't go well. Nobody chooses at any event to sit next to the angry grump. Nobody wants to deal with them unless they have to. If you toss onto "angry victim" an aggressive, accusatory tone, then nastiness ensues. You can't effectively argue for reconciliation if you don't have more than a few grams of conciliatory in your personality. People who aren't racist do not warm to being labelled that way.
Aboriginal people need solutions-focused leaders. Take a look at Denise Bowden at the Yothu Yindi Foundation for some inspiration. While you're up that way, look at what the Gumatj clan are doing in mining and forestry. There'd be others - people getting the job done. We need more of them.
As well as some fresh leadership, the varied debate around welcome to and acknowledgment of country needs to be sorted out. We just can't keep walking around with this annoying pebble in our shoe. There's no disagreement that welcome to country was never universal and, in fact, as a ceremonial event Australia-wide, it's only decades old.
The extreme variation in performance of the welcome leads to uncertainty. Will the welcomer be gracious and welcoming or will the welcomed get a healthy reminder of how badly Indigenous Australians have been treated and walk away feeling chastised more than welcomed?
There are two other issues with the welcome. Where it was practised, it was to welcome other clans passing through. Non-Indigenous Australians don't see themselves as passing through the land on which they live, and, for many, on which their forebears have lived for well over 100 years or more.
The other is the fee charged for the welcome. Somehow, saying, "I'm welcoming you" as you sharpen your pencil and whip out an invoice pad from your back pocket seems the sort of stuff John Cleese or Ricky Gervais might have some fun with.
The money, incidentally, doesn't go to some broad fund to help Indigenous Australia. Discard that notion. Think a select few on the gravy train. Personally, I'd just stop it. For all of the above reasons, it is simply causing too much negativity towards Indigenous Australia and for no gain. It's a no-brainer.
Acknowledgment of country is different. It's not a bad thing to acknowledge traditional lands. The problem is at meetings and conferences, at which every person who opens their mouth starts with the breathless revelation that says, "I too acknowledge ...". It's ridiculous, and aggravates everyone else in the room. It sounds platitudinous and hollow, because it is. Largely because it's more about each person wanting to identify as a "good person". Conspicuous compassion is always popular. People get sick of it and feel annoyed. Oh, that we could have a decent acknowledgment at the beginning, and everyone just accept it's been done. The end.
A test might be if, at the same time, we acknowledged two more things. First, the system of government that lets us live in arguably the most stable and peaceful country in the world. That's no small thing. Second, thank all those people from around the world who've helped make Australia what it is today. I think the three acknowledgments would sit together very well.
There's more material for Cleese and Gervais in the meetings where an acknowledgment is rightly done but then looks comedic because the speaker chooses to read one out in whatever the local language was when no one in the room speaks that language. Ridiculous.
MORE AMANDA VANSTONE:
Lastly, we will have to bite the bullet on how to qualify as Indigenous. The current test is too loose. It's allowing big companies and bureaucracies to tick the Indigenous box by employing or giving assistance or whatever to those whose indigeneity is some way back in their heritage.
The consequence of that is that those Indigenous Australians and their offspring who either haven't started a family with non-Indigenous Australians or have only done so recently miss out. Bureaucracies will almost always go for low-hanging fruit. People in regional and remote communities are harder to engage and therefore miss out to someone who had an Indigenous great-grandparent and lives in a big city. It's just easier.
If we can sort these things out, we've got a better chance of moving forward together in a very positive way. Keeping on doing stuff that makes Indigenous Australia the butt of jokes is the unkindest thing we could do. To do it because you want to look good is reprehensible.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
15 minutes ago
- Perth Now
New MP's defiance against racist ex-PM
Ash Ambihaipahar, the high-profile successor to Linda Burney in the Sydney seat of Barton, says her electorate's namesake and Australia's first prime minister Sir Edmund Barton would not have 'envisioned' someone with her backstory. Giving her maiden speech in parliament, while Ms Ambihaipahar didn't make specific reference to Sir Edmund's policies to restrict immigration, not recognise Indigenous Australians and the promotion of white superiority, she vowed to 'stand up against racism, division and hate'. The new MP also spoke about her Papua New Guinean and Tamil-Sri Lankan heritage while noting that Sir Edmund was the 'champion of the White Australia policy'. Ash Ambihaipahar delivered her maiden speech to parliament MP on Wednesday. NewsWire/ Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Her references to Australia's contentious founding father follows recent calls to remove his statue from an Indigenous burial site in Port Macquarie, a regional NSW town. In 2020, his great-granddaughter Anne Barton also backed the campaign, describing Sir Edmund as a 'man of his time and was deeply racist'. Addressing her parliamentary colleagues, Ms Ambihaipahar said 'as the architect of Federation' Sir Edmund would have '(recognised) the work needed to forge not just a nation but a just nation'. 'While Barton championed the White Australia policy, I live and breathe multiculturalism,' she told parliamentary colleagues on Wednesday. 'I stand here because others lifted me. That's why I will always fight for antidiscrimination, for safety, for equity and unity. 'I know what it feels like to be different, to navigate different worlds. I've also seen how political tension can quickly mutate into real-world hate if not called out early.' Ms Ambihaipahar previously campaigned for the NSW state seat of Oatley with Jodie Haydon and Anna Minns. NewsWire/ Supplied Credit: NCA NewsWire In comparison to Sir Edmund, Ms Ambihaipahar described her childhood growing up in the suburb of Hurstville. She said she was 'that dark skinned little girl running through the streets of Barton who never felt out of place'. Ms Ambihaipahar also paid tribute to former minister for Indigenous Australia, Ms Burney, who retired from politics ahead of the May 3 poll and urged fellow MPs to 'ensure' this parliament is 'defined by unity, by courage and by decency'. 'Your advocacy for First Nations peoples has shaped this country's moral conscience,' she said. 'I will walk in your footsteps with awe and admiration.' Despite previously narrowly losing out on winning the NSW state seat of Oatley, Ms Ambihaipahar, who hails from the party's Left faction, was hand-picked by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to run for Barton. While the move angered Labor's Right faction, Ms Ambihaipahar retained the Labor stronghold seat and increased the margin by 4 per cent to 12 per cent.
The Advertiser
42 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Beware of franchising the Snapchat generation
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to At 16, I knew everything. About history, politics, music, cars, motorbikes, life in general. Adulthood and its attendant right to drive, vote, and stay out late couldn't come fast enough for someone so confident in their own knowledge about the world around them. It finally arrived, legally at least, when I turned 18, just four years after the voting age was lowered in the first substantive legislative change enacted by the Whitlam government. And it was when adulthood arrived - and the law required me to vote in the 1977 federal election - that I realised I actually knew very little. About history, politics, music, cars, etc. The simple certainty of youthful me has been eroded ever since. The acquisition of knowledge is like that - the more you know, the more you realise you don't know. Which is why I'm ambivalent about the UK's decision to lower the voting age to 16. I can see both sides of the argument. Sixteen-year-olds can work and pay taxes. And it's their futures that will be affected by government policies. They can already vote for local representatives in Scotland and Wales, but not in England and Northern Ireland. On the other hand, as pointed out by the Tories who oppose the move, they can't drive, buy alcohol, marry or go to war. Nor can they stand as candidates. The law is likely to pass because of Labour's commanding majority, which will no doubt fuel calls for Australia to follow suit. But before we jump on the bandwagon, we should take note of one key difference. In the UK, 16-year-olds will not be compelled to vote. Here, it would be compulsory. In principle, fine. But in reality, a likely very different story. Earlier this year, national curriculum testing revealed knowledge of civics among young Australians was at its lowest level on record. A worrying percentage of Year 10 students struggled with basic concepts such as the three levels of government and the difference between a referendum and a general election. Add to that the large number of voters casting informal ballots at the last election. Gough Whitlam's old seat of Werriwa recorded the highest number of informal votes out of all electorates. We can assume some of those informal votes were intentional, but the vast majority would have been cast in error, meaning more than 17 per cent of voters in the seat denied themselves their democratic right. These were adults. Would tipping younger teenagers into the mix make matters worse? Probably not if civics were drummed into them as it was in the dark ages of my teen years. It might have been dry as dust, but rote learning about Parliament, the three different levels of government and the courts served us as well as mastering the times tables. Of course, back then there was no internet and no social media platforms roiling with disinformation and toxic ideology. There was a manosphere, but it was out in the open, expressed by "rock apes" as they were known, doing Friday night laps of Canberra's Civic centre in hotted-up EH Holdens. If the federal government can come up with an effective under-16 ban on social media, I'll be more comfortable with lowering the voting age. But until that happens, we're safer with the status quo. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should 16-year-olds be given the vote? If so, should such a move be delayed until the under-16 social media ban comes into force? Should we be concerned about the large number of informal votes at this year's election? Do we need more compulsory civics education? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The Reserve Bank of Australia was blindsided by a surprise jump in unemployment, a read-out of its shock rate-hold meeting has revealed. - Accused pedophile Joshua Dale Brown won't face court again until next year, after a magistrate gave police more time to gather evidence against him. - Australia has decried Israel's "drip feeding of aid and inhumane killing" of civilians in Gaza as pro-Palestine protesters rally in the nation's capital on the first day of Parliament. THEY SAID IT: "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." - Franklin D. Roosevelt YOU SAID IT: As the cheating CEO and his HR executive have learned, it's foolish to misbehave in public with so many cameras about. Paddy remembers how his late father, a linesman working in Woolloomooloo, was caught after availing himself of a keg that had rolled off a brewery truck: "After a while, a crowd of wharfies, dogmen, sailors and passers-by assembled and started to help drink the keg. Believe it or not, they managed to have what would be called a block party today without Twitter or Instagram. A passing reporter snapped several photos of the afternoon's events and whisked them off to the Daily Telegraph." Paddy's dad was upbraided the next day by his boss. "His boss was furious. He ranted and raved at Dad. After about five minutes, he pointed to a phone box in the background of the photo and asked 'Don, why didn't you ring me? I could have used a beer yesterday!'" "About 20 years ago, there was an incident at the Oz Open tennis in Melbourne on Channel 7, which took the cake," writes Bill. The TV director was bored and had his cameras scanning the punters in the far top seats. Suddenly, there was a quick pan back. Yep - there was a young couple having sex on the top rung. The commentators saw it, made mention, and returned to the contest on the court." Lee writes: "I think the only camera that has 'caught' me is a speed camera sending me a fine for doing 55 in a 50 zone. I do feel very sorry for the families involved. They most likely didn't have a clue, and now the whole world knows. How horrible for them. They must be hurting badly." "People talk about poor judgment - but no one is talking about how wrong it is, in my view, to be publicly outed without consent," writes Mike. "That screen didn't just show faces; it blew up lives. He has two children and she has one child." Sue writes: "Everything is caught on camera, but even people who film everything they can seem to think that they are immune to being caught on camera themselves - until they are, and then they complain about a lack of privacy! Go figure!" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to At 16, I knew everything. About history, politics, music, cars, motorbikes, life in general. Adulthood and its attendant right to drive, vote, and stay out late couldn't come fast enough for someone so confident in their own knowledge about the world around them. It finally arrived, legally at least, when I turned 18, just four years after the voting age was lowered in the first substantive legislative change enacted by the Whitlam government. And it was when adulthood arrived - and the law required me to vote in the 1977 federal election - that I realised I actually knew very little. About history, politics, music, cars, etc. The simple certainty of youthful me has been eroded ever since. The acquisition of knowledge is like that - the more you know, the more you realise you don't know. Which is why I'm ambivalent about the UK's decision to lower the voting age to 16. I can see both sides of the argument. Sixteen-year-olds can work and pay taxes. And it's their futures that will be affected by government policies. They can already vote for local representatives in Scotland and Wales, but not in England and Northern Ireland. On the other hand, as pointed out by the Tories who oppose the move, they can't drive, buy alcohol, marry or go to war. Nor can they stand as candidates. The law is likely to pass because of Labour's commanding majority, which will no doubt fuel calls for Australia to follow suit. But before we jump on the bandwagon, we should take note of one key difference. In the UK, 16-year-olds will not be compelled to vote. Here, it would be compulsory. In principle, fine. But in reality, a likely very different story. Earlier this year, national curriculum testing revealed knowledge of civics among young Australians was at its lowest level on record. A worrying percentage of Year 10 students struggled with basic concepts such as the three levels of government and the difference between a referendum and a general election. Add to that the large number of voters casting informal ballots at the last election. Gough Whitlam's old seat of Werriwa recorded the highest number of informal votes out of all electorates. We can assume some of those informal votes were intentional, but the vast majority would have been cast in error, meaning more than 17 per cent of voters in the seat denied themselves their democratic right. These were adults. Would tipping younger teenagers into the mix make matters worse? Probably not if civics were drummed into them as it was in the dark ages of my teen years. It might have been dry as dust, but rote learning about Parliament, the three different levels of government and the courts served us as well as mastering the times tables. Of course, back then there was no internet and no social media platforms roiling with disinformation and toxic ideology. There was a manosphere, but it was out in the open, expressed by "rock apes" as they were known, doing Friday night laps of Canberra's Civic centre in hotted-up EH Holdens. If the federal government can come up with an effective under-16 ban on social media, I'll be more comfortable with lowering the voting age. But until that happens, we're safer with the status quo. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should 16-year-olds be given the vote? If so, should such a move be delayed until the under-16 social media ban comes into force? Should we be concerned about the large number of informal votes at this year's election? Do we need more compulsory civics education? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The Reserve Bank of Australia was blindsided by a surprise jump in unemployment, a read-out of its shock rate-hold meeting has revealed. - Accused pedophile Joshua Dale Brown won't face court again until next year, after a magistrate gave police more time to gather evidence against him. - Australia has decried Israel's "drip feeding of aid and inhumane killing" of civilians in Gaza as pro-Palestine protesters rally in the nation's capital on the first day of Parliament. THEY SAID IT: "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." - Franklin D. Roosevelt YOU SAID IT: As the cheating CEO and his HR executive have learned, it's foolish to misbehave in public with so many cameras about. Paddy remembers how his late father, a linesman working in Woolloomooloo, was caught after availing himself of a keg that had rolled off a brewery truck: "After a while, a crowd of wharfies, dogmen, sailors and passers-by assembled and started to help drink the keg. Believe it or not, they managed to have what would be called a block party today without Twitter or Instagram. A passing reporter snapped several photos of the afternoon's events and whisked them off to the Daily Telegraph." Paddy's dad was upbraided the next day by his boss. "His boss was furious. He ranted and raved at Dad. After about five minutes, he pointed to a phone box in the background of the photo and asked 'Don, why didn't you ring me? I could have used a beer yesterday!'" "About 20 years ago, there was an incident at the Oz Open tennis in Melbourne on Channel 7, which took the cake," writes Bill. The TV director was bored and had his cameras scanning the punters in the far top seats. Suddenly, there was a quick pan back. Yep - there was a young couple having sex on the top rung. The commentators saw it, made mention, and returned to the contest on the court." Lee writes: "I think the only camera that has 'caught' me is a speed camera sending me a fine for doing 55 in a 50 zone. I do feel very sorry for the families involved. They most likely didn't have a clue, and now the whole world knows. How horrible for them. They must be hurting badly." "People talk about poor judgment - but no one is talking about how wrong it is, in my view, to be publicly outed without consent," writes Mike. "That screen didn't just show faces; it blew up lives. He has two children and she has one child." Sue writes: "Everything is caught on camera, but even people who film everything they can seem to think that they are immune to being caught on camera themselves - until they are, and then they complain about a lack of privacy! Go figure!" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to At 16, I knew everything. About history, politics, music, cars, motorbikes, life in general. Adulthood and its attendant right to drive, vote, and stay out late couldn't come fast enough for someone so confident in their own knowledge about the world around them. It finally arrived, legally at least, when I turned 18, just four years after the voting age was lowered in the first substantive legislative change enacted by the Whitlam government. And it was when adulthood arrived - and the law required me to vote in the 1977 federal election - that I realised I actually knew very little. About history, politics, music, cars, etc. The simple certainty of youthful me has been eroded ever since. The acquisition of knowledge is like that - the more you know, the more you realise you don't know. Which is why I'm ambivalent about the UK's decision to lower the voting age to 16. I can see both sides of the argument. Sixteen-year-olds can work and pay taxes. And it's their futures that will be affected by government policies. They can already vote for local representatives in Scotland and Wales, but not in England and Northern Ireland. On the other hand, as pointed out by the Tories who oppose the move, they can't drive, buy alcohol, marry or go to war. Nor can they stand as candidates. The law is likely to pass because of Labour's commanding majority, which will no doubt fuel calls for Australia to follow suit. But before we jump on the bandwagon, we should take note of one key difference. In the UK, 16-year-olds will not be compelled to vote. Here, it would be compulsory. In principle, fine. But in reality, a likely very different story. Earlier this year, national curriculum testing revealed knowledge of civics among young Australians was at its lowest level on record. A worrying percentage of Year 10 students struggled with basic concepts such as the three levels of government and the difference between a referendum and a general election. Add to that the large number of voters casting informal ballots at the last election. Gough Whitlam's old seat of Werriwa recorded the highest number of informal votes out of all electorates. We can assume some of those informal votes were intentional, but the vast majority would have been cast in error, meaning more than 17 per cent of voters in the seat denied themselves their democratic right. These were adults. Would tipping younger teenagers into the mix make matters worse? Probably not if civics were drummed into them as it was in the dark ages of my teen years. It might have been dry as dust, but rote learning about Parliament, the three different levels of government and the courts served us as well as mastering the times tables. Of course, back then there was no internet and no social media platforms roiling with disinformation and toxic ideology. There was a manosphere, but it was out in the open, expressed by "rock apes" as they were known, doing Friday night laps of Canberra's Civic centre in hotted-up EH Holdens. If the federal government can come up with an effective under-16 ban on social media, I'll be more comfortable with lowering the voting age. But until that happens, we're safer with the status quo. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should 16-year-olds be given the vote? If so, should such a move be delayed until the under-16 social media ban comes into force? Should we be concerned about the large number of informal votes at this year's election? Do we need more compulsory civics education? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The Reserve Bank of Australia was blindsided by a surprise jump in unemployment, a read-out of its shock rate-hold meeting has revealed. - Accused pedophile Joshua Dale Brown won't face court again until next year, after a magistrate gave police more time to gather evidence against him. - Australia has decried Israel's "drip feeding of aid and inhumane killing" of civilians in Gaza as pro-Palestine protesters rally in the nation's capital on the first day of Parliament. THEY SAID IT: "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." - Franklin D. Roosevelt YOU SAID IT: As the cheating CEO and his HR executive have learned, it's foolish to misbehave in public with so many cameras about. Paddy remembers how his late father, a linesman working in Woolloomooloo, was caught after availing himself of a keg that had rolled off a brewery truck: "After a while, a crowd of wharfies, dogmen, sailors and passers-by assembled and started to help drink the keg. Believe it or not, they managed to have what would be called a block party today without Twitter or Instagram. A passing reporter snapped several photos of the afternoon's events and whisked them off to the Daily Telegraph." Paddy's dad was upbraided the next day by his boss. "His boss was furious. He ranted and raved at Dad. After about five minutes, he pointed to a phone box in the background of the photo and asked 'Don, why didn't you ring me? I could have used a beer yesterday!'" "About 20 years ago, there was an incident at the Oz Open tennis in Melbourne on Channel 7, which took the cake," writes Bill. The TV director was bored and had his cameras scanning the punters in the far top seats. Suddenly, there was a quick pan back. Yep - there was a young couple having sex on the top rung. The commentators saw it, made mention, and returned to the contest on the court." Lee writes: "I think the only camera that has 'caught' me is a speed camera sending me a fine for doing 55 in a 50 zone. I do feel very sorry for the families involved. They most likely didn't have a clue, and now the whole world knows. How horrible for them. They must be hurting badly." "People talk about poor judgment - but no one is talking about how wrong it is, in my view, to be publicly outed without consent," writes Mike. "That screen didn't just show faces; it blew up lives. He has two children and she has one child." Sue writes: "Everything is caught on camera, but even people who film everything they can seem to think that they are immune to being caught on camera themselves - until they are, and then they complain about a lack of privacy! Go figure!" This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to At 16, I knew everything. About history, politics, music, cars, motorbikes, life in general. Adulthood and its attendant right to drive, vote, and stay out late couldn't come fast enough for someone so confident in their own knowledge about the world around them. It finally arrived, legally at least, when I turned 18, just four years after the voting age was lowered in the first substantive legislative change enacted by the Whitlam government. And it was when adulthood arrived - and the law required me to vote in the 1977 federal election - that I realised I actually knew very little. About history, politics, music, cars, etc. The simple certainty of youthful me has been eroded ever since. The acquisition of knowledge is like that - the more you know, the more you realise you don't know. Which is why I'm ambivalent about the UK's decision to lower the voting age to 16. I can see both sides of the argument. Sixteen-year-olds can work and pay taxes. And it's their futures that will be affected by government policies. They can already vote for local representatives in Scotland and Wales, but not in England and Northern Ireland. On the other hand, as pointed out by the Tories who oppose the move, they can't drive, buy alcohol, marry or go to war. Nor can they stand as candidates. The law is likely to pass because of Labour's commanding majority, which will no doubt fuel calls for Australia to follow suit. But before we jump on the bandwagon, we should take note of one key difference. In the UK, 16-year-olds will not be compelled to vote. Here, it would be compulsory. In principle, fine. But in reality, a likely very different story. Earlier this year, national curriculum testing revealed knowledge of civics among young Australians was at its lowest level on record. A worrying percentage of Year 10 students struggled with basic concepts such as the three levels of government and the difference between a referendum and a general election. Add to that the large number of voters casting informal ballots at the last election. Gough Whitlam's old seat of Werriwa recorded the highest number of informal votes out of all electorates. We can assume some of those informal votes were intentional, but the vast majority would have been cast in error, meaning more than 17 per cent of voters in the seat denied themselves their democratic right. These were adults. Would tipping younger teenagers into the mix make matters worse? Probably not if civics were drummed into them as it was in the dark ages of my teen years. It might have been dry as dust, but rote learning about Parliament, the three different levels of government and the courts served us as well as mastering the times tables. Of course, back then there was no internet and no social media platforms roiling with disinformation and toxic ideology. There was a manosphere, but it was out in the open, expressed by "rock apes" as they were known, doing Friday night laps of Canberra's Civic centre in hotted-up EH Holdens. If the federal government can come up with an effective under-16 ban on social media, I'll be more comfortable with lowering the voting age. But until that happens, we're safer with the status quo. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should 16-year-olds be given the vote? If so, should such a move be delayed until the under-16 social media ban comes into force? Should we be concerned about the large number of informal votes at this year's election? Do we need more compulsory civics education? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - The Reserve Bank of Australia was blindsided by a surprise jump in unemployment, a read-out of its shock rate-hold meeting has revealed. - Accused pedophile Joshua Dale Brown won't face court again until next year, after a magistrate gave police more time to gather evidence against him. - Australia has decried Israel's "drip feeding of aid and inhumane killing" of civilians in Gaza as pro-Palestine protesters rally in the nation's capital on the first day of Parliament. THEY SAID IT: "Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education." - Franklin D. Roosevelt YOU SAID IT: As the cheating CEO and his HR executive have learned, it's foolish to misbehave in public with so many cameras about. Paddy remembers how his late father, a linesman working in Woolloomooloo, was caught after availing himself of a keg that had rolled off a brewery truck: "After a while, a crowd of wharfies, dogmen, sailors and passers-by assembled and started to help drink the keg. Believe it or not, they managed to have what would be called a block party today without Twitter or Instagram. A passing reporter snapped several photos of the afternoon's events and whisked them off to the Daily Telegraph." Paddy's dad was upbraided the next day by his boss. "His boss was furious. He ranted and raved at Dad. After about five minutes, he pointed to a phone box in the background of the photo and asked 'Don, why didn't you ring me? I could have used a beer yesterday!'" "About 20 years ago, there was an incident at the Oz Open tennis in Melbourne on Channel 7, which took the cake," writes Bill. The TV director was bored and had his cameras scanning the punters in the far top seats. Suddenly, there was a quick pan back. Yep - there was a young couple having sex on the top rung. The commentators saw it, made mention, and returned to the contest on the court." Lee writes: "I think the only camera that has 'caught' me is a speed camera sending me a fine for doing 55 in a 50 zone. I do feel very sorry for the families involved. They most likely didn't have a clue, and now the whole world knows. How horrible for them. They must be hurting badly." "People talk about poor judgment - but no one is talking about how wrong it is, in my view, to be publicly outed without consent," writes Mike. "That screen didn't just show faces; it blew up lives. He has two children and she has one child." Sue writes: "Everything is caught on camera, but even people who film everything they can seem to think that they are immune to being caught on camera themselves - until they are, and then they complain about a lack of privacy! Go figure!"
The Advertiser
43 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Nats 'steers' rumbling in party paddock over net zero
A powder keg has been dropped within the coalition over climate policy as dissenters push for a net zero emissions target to be dropped. Opponents of the 2050 target are ramping up pressure on their leaders to ditch the target, saying it's hurting regional Australia and driving up power bills as Australia phases out coal and boosts renewable energy investment. The debate reignited after former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce flagged a private member's bill to scrap the legislated target. "The last two elections we went forward with a policy supporting net zero and we've been handed our political derriere on a plate," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. He argued Australia should focus on economic viability with big emitters like China, India and the US not making major cuts to emissions while Australia's power prices increased. India has a net zero by 2070 target, China by 2060 and the US had a 2050 target under the Biden administration but climate action has been largely scrapped under President Donald Trump. "Even if you believe every chapter, verse, what net zero was going to achieve, it's not going to achieve it because the world's not participating in it," Mr Joyce said. "So why are we on this sort of singular crusade by ourselves that has no effect on the climate but is incredibly deleterious to the standard of living and the cost of living of the Australian people - it's insane." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley refused to say whether the target will remain coalition policy as a review into its policies continues following their May election defeat. Liberals largely want to keep the net zero emissions policy; they lost a swathe of inner city seats amid concerns they weren't taking climate change seriously enough. "The electorate has told us in multiple elections that this is what they want, and we do have an obligation to leave the planet in a better place," Liberal senator Jane Hume told AAP. Labor has seized on the split over climate policy, with Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen saying the Liberals are being held hostage by their junior coalition partner. Mr Joyce has been joined by an unlikely ally in Michael McCormack, another former Nationals leader whom he rolled for the job in 2021. But the two have broken bread over a shared disdain for current leader David Littleproud after both were dumped from his frontbench. Mr Joyce, who was rolled by Mr Littleproud after the 2022 election loss, said he'd support a leadership bid by Mr McCormack, which he hasn't ruled out but acknowledged no imminent challenge. Mr McCormack denied the duo are white-anting their leader, arguing he's standing up for regional Australians who are bearing the negative impacts of renewable energy projects on their land and near their towns. Despite the duo touting leadership troubles for Mr Littleproud, other Nationals MPs hosed down the speculation, saying the talk was from a vocal minority aggrieved over climate policy and personal snubs. Liberal frontbencher Dan Tehan compared the two Nationals MPs railing against their leader as "two steers in a paddock". Mr McCormack said he took umbrage with the comments, joking that steers had been emasculated and he was "quite virile and ready to go as far as politics is concerned". A powder keg has been dropped within the coalition over climate policy as dissenters push for a net zero emissions target to be dropped. Opponents of the 2050 target are ramping up pressure on their leaders to ditch the target, saying it's hurting regional Australia and driving up power bills as Australia phases out coal and boosts renewable energy investment. The debate reignited after former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce flagged a private member's bill to scrap the legislated target. "The last two elections we went forward with a policy supporting net zero and we've been handed our political derriere on a plate," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. He argued Australia should focus on economic viability with big emitters like China, India and the US not making major cuts to emissions while Australia's power prices increased. India has a net zero by 2070 target, China by 2060 and the US had a 2050 target under the Biden administration but climate action has been largely scrapped under President Donald Trump. "Even if you believe every chapter, verse, what net zero was going to achieve, it's not going to achieve it because the world's not participating in it," Mr Joyce said. "So why are we on this sort of singular crusade by ourselves that has no effect on the climate but is incredibly deleterious to the standard of living and the cost of living of the Australian people - it's insane." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley refused to say whether the target will remain coalition policy as a review into its policies continues following their May election defeat. Liberals largely want to keep the net zero emissions policy; they lost a swathe of inner city seats amid concerns they weren't taking climate change seriously enough. "The electorate has told us in multiple elections that this is what they want, and we do have an obligation to leave the planet in a better place," Liberal senator Jane Hume told AAP. Labor has seized on the split over climate policy, with Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen saying the Liberals are being held hostage by their junior coalition partner. Mr Joyce has been joined by an unlikely ally in Michael McCormack, another former Nationals leader whom he rolled for the job in 2021. But the two have broken bread over a shared disdain for current leader David Littleproud after both were dumped from his frontbench. Mr Joyce, who was rolled by Mr Littleproud after the 2022 election loss, said he'd support a leadership bid by Mr McCormack, which he hasn't ruled out but acknowledged no imminent challenge. Mr McCormack denied the duo are white-anting their leader, arguing he's standing up for regional Australians who are bearing the negative impacts of renewable energy projects on their land and near their towns. Despite the duo touting leadership troubles for Mr Littleproud, other Nationals MPs hosed down the speculation, saying the talk was from a vocal minority aggrieved over climate policy and personal snubs. Liberal frontbencher Dan Tehan compared the two Nationals MPs railing against their leader as "two steers in a paddock". Mr McCormack said he took umbrage with the comments, joking that steers had been emasculated and he was "quite virile and ready to go as far as politics is concerned". A powder keg has been dropped within the coalition over climate policy as dissenters push for a net zero emissions target to be dropped. Opponents of the 2050 target are ramping up pressure on their leaders to ditch the target, saying it's hurting regional Australia and driving up power bills as Australia phases out coal and boosts renewable energy investment. The debate reignited after former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce flagged a private member's bill to scrap the legislated target. "The last two elections we went forward with a policy supporting net zero and we've been handed our political derriere on a plate," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. He argued Australia should focus on economic viability with big emitters like China, India and the US not making major cuts to emissions while Australia's power prices increased. India has a net zero by 2070 target, China by 2060 and the US had a 2050 target under the Biden administration but climate action has been largely scrapped under President Donald Trump. "Even if you believe every chapter, verse, what net zero was going to achieve, it's not going to achieve it because the world's not participating in it," Mr Joyce said. "So why are we on this sort of singular crusade by ourselves that has no effect on the climate but is incredibly deleterious to the standard of living and the cost of living of the Australian people - it's insane." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley refused to say whether the target will remain coalition policy as a review into its policies continues following their May election defeat. Liberals largely want to keep the net zero emissions policy; they lost a swathe of inner city seats amid concerns they weren't taking climate change seriously enough. "The electorate has told us in multiple elections that this is what they want, and we do have an obligation to leave the planet in a better place," Liberal senator Jane Hume told AAP. Labor has seized on the split over climate policy, with Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen saying the Liberals are being held hostage by their junior coalition partner. Mr Joyce has been joined by an unlikely ally in Michael McCormack, another former Nationals leader whom he rolled for the job in 2021. But the two have broken bread over a shared disdain for current leader David Littleproud after both were dumped from his frontbench. Mr Joyce, who was rolled by Mr Littleproud after the 2022 election loss, said he'd support a leadership bid by Mr McCormack, which he hasn't ruled out but acknowledged no imminent challenge. Mr McCormack denied the duo are white-anting their leader, arguing he's standing up for regional Australians who are bearing the negative impacts of renewable energy projects on their land and near their towns. Despite the duo touting leadership troubles for Mr Littleproud, other Nationals MPs hosed down the speculation, saying the talk was from a vocal minority aggrieved over climate policy and personal snubs. Liberal frontbencher Dan Tehan compared the two Nationals MPs railing against their leader as "two steers in a paddock". Mr McCormack said he took umbrage with the comments, joking that steers had been emasculated and he was "quite virile and ready to go as far as politics is concerned". A powder keg has been dropped within the coalition over climate policy as dissenters push for a net zero emissions target to be dropped. Opponents of the 2050 target are ramping up pressure on their leaders to ditch the target, saying it's hurting regional Australia and driving up power bills as Australia phases out coal and boosts renewable energy investment. The debate reignited after former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce flagged a private member's bill to scrap the legislated target. "The last two elections we went forward with a policy supporting net zero and we've been handed our political derriere on a plate," he told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. He argued Australia should focus on economic viability with big emitters like China, India and the US not making major cuts to emissions while Australia's power prices increased. India has a net zero by 2070 target, China by 2060 and the US had a 2050 target under the Biden administration but climate action has been largely scrapped under President Donald Trump. "Even if you believe every chapter, verse, what net zero was going to achieve, it's not going to achieve it because the world's not participating in it," Mr Joyce said. "So why are we on this sort of singular crusade by ourselves that has no effect on the climate but is incredibly deleterious to the standard of living and the cost of living of the Australian people - it's insane." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley refused to say whether the target will remain coalition policy as a review into its policies continues following their May election defeat. Liberals largely want to keep the net zero emissions policy; they lost a swathe of inner city seats amid concerns they weren't taking climate change seriously enough. "The electorate has told us in multiple elections that this is what they want, and we do have an obligation to leave the planet in a better place," Liberal senator Jane Hume told AAP. Labor has seized on the split over climate policy, with Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen saying the Liberals are being held hostage by their junior coalition partner. Mr Joyce has been joined by an unlikely ally in Michael McCormack, another former Nationals leader whom he rolled for the job in 2021. But the two have broken bread over a shared disdain for current leader David Littleproud after both were dumped from his frontbench. Mr Joyce, who was rolled by Mr Littleproud after the 2022 election loss, said he'd support a leadership bid by Mr McCormack, which he hasn't ruled out but acknowledged no imminent challenge. Mr McCormack denied the duo are white-anting their leader, arguing he's standing up for regional Australians who are bearing the negative impacts of renewable energy projects on their land and near their towns. Despite the duo touting leadership troubles for Mr Littleproud, other Nationals MPs hosed down the speculation, saying the talk was from a vocal minority aggrieved over climate policy and personal snubs. Liberal frontbencher Dan Tehan compared the two Nationals MPs railing against their leader as "two steers in a paddock". Mr McCormack said he took umbrage with the comments, joking that steers had been emasculated and he was "quite virile and ready to go as far as politics is concerned".
