logo
#

Latest news with #VoicetoParliament

David Littleproud defends Nationals leadership
David Littleproud defends Nationals leadership

West Australian

time4 hours ago

  • Politics
  • West Australian

David Littleproud defends Nationals leadership

David Littleproud has defended his leadership of the Nationals as he faces pressure from an unlikely alliance of former rivals. Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack dropped a bomb in The Australian on Tuesday when they put aside old rivalries and joined forces to support a private member's bill to repeal net-zero. Mr Joyce and Mr McCormack are both now backbenchers, after being dumped from the shadow ministry following Peter Dutton's emphatic election loss. But leadership ambitions abound in the 19-member group in Canberra, as Mr McCormack refused to rule out a leadership tilt in his interview with The Australian. 'When a journo says 'will you ever rule yourself out of ever ­(becoming leader)', of course you are not going to agree to that,' he said. 'You're not going to rule yourself out in the future.' For his part, Mr Joyce said he would 'happily back Michael for leader', despite saying he was not agitating for any change. It came alongside a bizarre moment in which Mr McCormack described himself and Mr Joyce as 'virile' in an interview with Sky. Under this increasing backbench pressure Mr Littleproud insisted he is not looking 'over my shoulder' in an interview on the ABC. 'I look to making sure I'm focused on my job because if I'm focused on myself, I'm not focused on the people who put me here, and I'll stand by my record as a Leader of The Nationals.' He listed what he saw as his achievements such as introducing nuclear and supermarket divestiture into the Coalition platform and opposition to the Voice to Parliament. He said instead of focusing on dissent from his backbench, he is 'thinking about trying to leave a legacy for the people I lead'. 'No matter how long I'm here for, I want to be able to look back and say I did it in a respectful way. 'And what I'm focused on is delivering outcomes. 'I've created a process for a discussion within our party room. 'Backbenchers can have Private Members' Bills, but I've got a lead for the entirety of my party, not for individuals. 'And so what I'll do is make sure I listen to my party room and draw on the collective wisdom of that party room. 'That's how I lead.' Opposition to net-zero emissions targets by 2050 has become a sticking point for Nationals backbenchers, as it is seen by the party's base to be harmful to their regional communities. It has proved a problem for Liberal leader Sussan Ley who is trying to renegotiate the Coalition's platform following its May 3 election defeat. The division already caused a split in the Coalition as the Nationals and Liberal Party spent a week apart following the election. Both parties reunited a week later with the Liberals making concessions to key Nationals policy priorities.

‘Legacy': Nats leader defends leadership
‘Legacy': Nats leader defends leadership

Perth Now

time4 hours ago

  • Politics
  • Perth Now

‘Legacy': Nats leader defends leadership

David Littleproud has defended his leadership of the Nationals as he faces pressure from an unlikely alliance of former rivals. Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack dropped a bomb in The Australian on Tuesday when they put aside old rivalries and joined forces to support a private member's bill to repeal net-zero. David Littleproud has defended his leadership of the Liberal Party. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Mr Joyce and Mr McCormack are both now backbenchers, after being dumped from the shadow ministry following Peter Dutton's emphatic election loss. But leadership ambitions abound in the 19-member group in Canberra, as Mr McCormack refused to rule out a leadership tilt in his interview with The Australian. 'When a journo says 'will you ever rule yourself out of ever ­(becoming leader)', of course you are not going to agree to that,' he said. 'You're not going to rule yourself out in the future.' For his part, Mr Joyce said he would 'happily back Michael for leader', despite saying he was not agitating for any change. It came alongside a bizarre moment in which Mr McCormack described himself and Mr Joyce as 'virile' in an interview with Sky. Former leadership rivals Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack have put aside their differences. Simon Dallinger/ NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia Under this increasing backbench pressure Mr Littleproud insisted he is not looking 'over my shoulder' in an interview on the ABC. 'I look to making sure I'm focused on my job because if I'm focused on myself, I'm not focused on the people who put me here, and I'll stand by my record as a Leader of The Nationals.' He listed what he saw as his achievements such as introducing nuclear and supermarket divestiture into the Coalition platform and opposition to the Voice to Parliament. He said instead of focusing on dissent from his backbench, he is 'thinking about trying to leave a legacy for the people I lead'. 'No matter how long I'm here for, I want to be able to look back and say I did it in a respectful way. 'And what I'm focused on is delivering outcomes. 'I've created a process for a discussion within our party room. 'Backbenchers can have Private Members' Bills, but I've got a lead for the entirety of my party, not for individuals. 'And so what I'll do is make sure I listen to my party room and draw on the collective wisdom of that party room. 'That's how I lead.' Barnaby Joyce MP holds a doorstop press conference in the press gallery at Parliament House in Canberra. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Opposition to net-zero emissions targets by 2050 has become a sticking point for Nationals backbenchers, as it is seen by the party's base to be harmful to their regional communities. It has proved a problem for Liberal leader Sussan Ley who is trying to renegotiate the Coalition's platform following its May 3 election defeat. The division already caused a split in the Coalition as the Nationals and Liberal Party spent a week apart following the election. Both parties reunited a week later with the Liberals making concessions to key Nationals policy priorities.

I have marital advice for our anti-Semitism envoy
I have marital advice for our anti-Semitism envoy

The Advertiser

time16-07-2025

  • Politics
  • The Advertiser

I have marital advice for our anti-Semitism envoy

Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely. Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely. Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely. Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely.

‘Go it alone': Victoria to bring in its own version of Indigenous Voice
‘Go it alone': Victoria to bring in its own version of Indigenous Voice

Sky News AU

time10-07-2025

  • Politics
  • Sky News AU

‘Go it alone': Victoria to bring in its own version of Indigenous Voice

Sky News host Peta Credlin discusses the Victorian state government planning to pursue its own version of the Voice to Parliament despite public opposition. Concerns regarding the commission's process and historical context around the previously defeated federal Voice highlight the ongoing debates surrounding local and state treaties. Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan is yet to rule out Indigenous compensation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store