Home Blog Page 53

Yes, the culture in Parliament House is appalling. But there are systemic problems that also need urgent reform

The Conversation

Scomo and Opp Leader 1

Since news broke last week of Brittany Higgins’ alleged rape in a ministerial office in 2019, three other women have come forward, alleging sexual assault by the same Morrison government ministerial staffer. Higgins is expected to make a formal complaint to police this week.
The Conversation
Each allegation sheds light on a system that privileges political considerations above everything, and enables and emboldens systematic and highly gendered abuses of power.

By Friday, four separate inquiries had been launched. These include


  • a review of culture in Coalition MPs’ offices

  • a review of the formal links between the Department of Finance (which administers ministerial and parliamentary services) and parliamentary offices

  • a review of correspondence to determine when and who within the prime minister’s office had been informed of Higgins’ allegations

  • a cross-party review of workplace culture in Parliament House.


This fourth review seem to be the most substantive, and has drawn qualified support from Labor, the Greens and independents.

Two of these reviews seem designed to address the Coalition’s lingering “woman problem”. The other two focus on the toxic workplace culture of Parliament House.



Read more:
Morrison invokes Chinese walls defence on why staffer didn’t tell him of Higgins’ rape allegation


While it is understandable in the context of these deeply disturbing allegations, the focus on toxic workplace culture risks obscuring more fundamental, structural issues at play. That is, the the ambiguous position that ministerial staff occupy within Australia’s political system, and the recurrent controversies it produces.

The governance framework that applies to ministerial staff is inadequate to a public institution of its size, cost, complexity and importance. There is simply no accountability built into it, and no independent complaints mechanism, however cleverly designed, can help to resolve that.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced several inquiries in the wake of Brittany Higgins’ allegations, but none are aimed at addressing the structural problems associated with ministerial staff.
AAP/Lukas Coch


How ministerial staffing became out of control


My 2007 book Power Without Responsibility traces the growth and evolution of the ministerial staffing system. It highlights how, over time, the system outgrew the conventions and understandings that had underpinned its development. This happened as staff assumed more active roles in policy and political management, and particularly following the move to the new Parliament House in 1988.

Ministerial offices comprise a mix of political, policy and media advisers, administrative and support staff. They all serve and support their minister. The cohort is explicitly partisan, and is employed under specific legislation.

This means ministerial staff are significantly different in career and outlook from the independent, non-partisan public servants in government departments. However, despite the important work they do to advise and support ministers, there are remarkably few rules, conventions, supports or infrastructure to govern staffing arrangements or the operations of ministerial offices.

Each government – indeed each minister – structures their own offices according to their own or the prime minister’s requirements or perceived needs. Political staffers have little training and few underlying systems. There is also little in the way of formalised processes, which accounts for a lack of continuity and institutional memory given high rates of turnover among ministerial staff.

It has been clear for a long time that the model that has evolved to support ministers – and which they have driven – is not serving them well.

We’ve been here before


This is not the first time the system has come under scrutiny and been found wanting. The “children overboard” scandal in 2011 exposed systemic problems of ministerial staff conduct and behaviour. It showed its incongruity with Australia’s Westminster-style system, which is premised on a close, cooperative relationship between ministers and their public service advisers.

Reviews and inquiries into the affair sparked debate about the role of ministerial staff, their relative lack of accountability and concerns they could be used to provide “plausible deniability” for prime ministers and ministers unwilling to accept responsibility for the actions of their staff.

Because ministerial staffers are not elected, they are not subject to the same constitutional responsibilities as MPs, or public servants. So the convention is staff are an extension of their minister, and have no independent constitutional identity. They exercise “delegated authority”, not executive power, on their minister’s behalf. This means they are never called before an inquiry or, in contrast to counterparts in state jurisdictions, subject to other oversight or accountability mechanisms.

Under the convention of ministerial responsibility, it follows that staff act with the knowledge and authority of their minister. So in principle, advising the staff of a matter is the same as advising the minister. This has proved problematic in practice as staff numbers have grown, and senior staff in the prime minister’s office have assumed managerial responsibility for other staff.

This circular logic, particularly in the absence of an independent integrity and corruption authority, explains calls to clarify staff roles and responsibilities.

A 2003 Senate inquiry recommended a suite of reforms. These included that chiefs of staff could be called before parliamentary committees if ministers refused to accept responsibility for the actions of their staff. This was adopted as policy by the Australian Labor Party in 2004, but has never been tested. The political parties continue to observe the “McMullan principle” – that staff should not be called to appear.

The view that something is awry with ministerial staffing arrangements is widely shared among analysts and practitioners alike. But reform has limited support among ministers themselves. The issue was absent from the Independent Review of the Australian Public Service in 2010 and limited to ministers’ relationship with public service departments in the recent Thodey Review.

Despite growing evidence of its shortcomings, successive governments have stubbornly resisted calls to reform ministerial staffing arrangements. Maintaining the notion there may be “a few bad eggs” is an effective means of stone-walling demands for more accountability and closer management of ministerial staff.




Read more:
View from The Hill: Linda Reynolds feels the lash after Scott Morrison says he was blindsided by rape allegation


Why reform needs to go beyond culture


What accounts for politicians’ lack of interest in issues that have been at the heart of political scandals that have cost them political capital and undermined trust in politics and political processes?

My research identifies four explanations.

First, ministers value the support they receive from their ministerial staff. They believe they are best served by flexible arrangements, determined by incumbent governments to reflect their own needs and preferences.

Second, they fear reforms will limit their ability to cope with the pressures of contemporary politics. Acutely sensitive to constraints on their capacity to achieve their objectives, they are sceptical of proposals advanced by those they suspect want to limit their discretion.

Third, because of their immersion in partisan politics, and because they are driven by concerns about power rather than institutions, ministers are unable to perceive the organisational dimensions of the ministerial staffing problem. They are careerists not managers, and often have limited experience of working in organisations. This can lead them to be more focused on individual rather than systemic issues.

A final explanation is that arrangements as they stand serve ministers well, providing them with personal insurance in the face of political problems. They can then use this set-up as a shield to deflect responsibility, in the knowledge it will be the prime minister who will determine the final outcome, based on judgments about the political damage being sustained.

There has never been a substantive review of the governance framework that supports ministerial staff, examining the basis on which they are employed and managed, their relationship to the parliament or the community. Unless and until we address this fundamental gap at the heart of Australian governance, the potential for abuses of power will continue. With the shocking allegations made by Brittany Higgins, such a review is more urgent than ever.The Conversation

Anne Tiernan, Professor of Politics. Dean (Engagement) Griffith Business School,

Griffith University. Anne Tiernan, Griffith University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Hanson causes uproar in Senate, Rorting in Indigenous Industry needs to end

Pauline Hanson 1 1

Pauline Hanson attempted to use my Senate time to have the issue of the abuse and corruption that is rife in the indigenous industry debated in the Senate. Sadly, the Greens decided to use every procedural trick in the book to run down the clock and silence debate, as you will see if you watch this video..embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

Senator Hanson: I move: That the Senate agrees that there should be no discrimination based on skin colour, race, religion or ethnic background when determining the level and use of funding in all cases where:

(a) government funding is made available to Australian-based community programs; and

(b) grants are made to assist and empower communities to escape the cycles of poverty, unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse, and violence.

I rise to bring to the attention of senators and the people of Australia, yet again, the inequality that exists in the funding of Indigenous programs, and the continuing desperate circumstances of the victims of this financial bastardry and mismanagement. I’ve learned of this in my many conversations over the years with Indigenous communities across Australia. Unlike many vocal urban Aboriginal elites, I have walked through the streets of remote Aboriginal communities in Queensland, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. I have listened and I have understood. Whether it’s sitting on the beach on Thursday Island or at the base of Uluru, just being in remote communities and listening to elders and residents has been profound and very informative.

There’s not one Indigenous community I’ve met with that isn’t concerned, and they want to share what’s going wrong. A lot of these people can’t even gain access to their own land, which has in many cases been given back to the registered native title bodies corporate, which are often more restrictive than the government was. Many of these bodies, especially in rural and remote areas, are highly restrictive, to the detriment of the Aboriginal people. Some are charged to go on their ancestral land. Worse still, some are denied access altogether.

But those conversations in both the large communities and the rural and remote locations always turn to the needs that their isolation and situation bring—needs reflected in a lack of adequate housing, a deficiency of infrastructure, widespread alcoholism, out-of-control levels of domestic violence, repeated sexual abuse, including of young children, and a lack of effective pathways to escape the cycles of poverty and unemployment that are often normalised and passed on from generation to generation. Those communities live on the other side of what the highly respected Indigenous spokesperson Jacinta Price referred to in The Australian recently as ‘the chasm’. She described in detail how the Aboriginal elite, the activists, the academics from the indoctrination centres posing as universities, those with their hands out for grant money and those with the loudest voices who want to change the date of Australia Day all live in the city on their side of the chasm.

When was the last time you heard one of the members of the elite in this space saying anything positive or uplifting about Indigenous achievements? When was the last time you heard one of the activists who identifies as Indigenous talking up the efforts of those in remote locations working to succeed? The elites, the truth deniers—they know there are a multitude of ways to end the misery. They know there’s a tonne of money being poured into programs. When they call for an Indigenous voice in the parliament they deliberately don’t remind you that there are multiple Indigenous voices already here. In fact, the percentage of those identifying as Indigenous in this place is greater than the percentage in the national population. And why won’t we hear stories of achievement, of encouragement, of empowerment, of Indigenous role models and success stories? Why won’t you hear them remind their people of Neville Bonner, who came from a little island in the Tweed River to become the first Aboriginal to sit in the Commonwealth parliament and who, as Senator Bonner, went on to be re-elected in four subsequent elections? He was also proud to accept the Australian of the Year award in 1979. He’s a stand-out role model for young Indigenous people and their parents, but his story isn’t used by the Aboriginal elites because this hero of his people doesn’t fit their political agenda.

Mick Dodson, Aboriginal and professor of law, who also accepted the Australian of the Year award, in 2009, summed up the widespread Indigenous success the elites and their mates don’t want you to hear about when he told The Sun-Herald in 2010:

It’s becoming unexceptional to have successful Indigenous filmmakers, artists, doctors, academics, lawyers, nurses and politicians.

As a nation we love to celebrate the achievements of all Australians. We’re that kind of society and we love, as a nation, to cheer the underdogs. We cheer. We celebrate. And so many of our kids try to be like their heroes—the battlers, the ones who give it a real go, as well as the ones who succeed. That’s the real Aussie.

And it’s not based on the colour of your skin. They want to rewrite history. They have made it their mission in life to reframe Australia, both its history and its present. They spray their venom. They hiss their threats and slurs. They denigrate our great nation and all it stands for. They work hard to indoctrinate our youth with their lies and to divide our country. And their division isn’t between black and white; it’s between black and everyone else.

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

Senator HANSON: So many of them seem to have made it their life’s work to enjoy their substantial salary—Senator Thorpe interjecting—

Senator HANSON: and the profile of their city based positions while they work to ensure Indigenous communities remain trapped in permanent victimhood—

Senator McGrath: On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: a senator in this chamber was shouting abuse at a senator while they were on their feet. I would ask you to call that senator to order, please.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Faruqi ): I remind every senator that they should only speak from their place in the chamber. Any disorderly conduct is not appreciated. Senator Thorpe?

Senator Thorpe: Point of order: I’m finding it quite offensive to hear in my workplace the senator for Queensland speak the language that she is speaking. I find it offensive and divisive, and I ask the senator for Queensland to retract any more attacks on Aboriginal people in this country.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, I do understand what you’re saying, but what you’re raising is a point of debate and not a point of procedure. You could address it when you have an opportunity to speak. Senator Hanson.

Senator HANSON: So many of them seem to have made it their life’s work to enjoy the substantial salary and profile of their city based positions while they work to ensure Indigenous communities remain trapped in permanent victimhood, because, without victims to point to, the elites of the city side of the chasm have no relevance. As Henry Ergas said in The Australian recently, the city based mob’s aim is to incite, not to inform. Ergas also pointed out:

… the “sorry” culture perpetuates a sense of victimhood that gives European settlement no credit for the enormous gains it has conferred.

The Aboriginal elite are creating and tolerating permanent victimhood for their Indigenous Australian brothers and sisters, and they don’t care. They’ll let the Indigenous population pay any price to achieve their goals. Their idea of equality is: ‘We own everything, and the rest get nothing.’ They want 100 per cent of the land. For them the 32 per cent of Australia already under native title isn’t enough. This does not include private Indigenous landownership. They want 100 per cent of Australia to be owned by around three per cent of the population, based on the colour of their skin or their ancestry. That’s called racism. It’s pure and simple racism and it needs to be called out and exposed at every opportunity.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Hanson. Senator Thorpe, is there a point of order?

Senator Thorpe: Yes, there is a point of order. There are a lot of untruths being said in the senator for Queensland’s statement. I understand that it’s coming to 5.30, so we don’t have time to debate. So as long as I’m sitting here in my workplace hearing lies from the senator for Queensland, who obviously has an issue with black people in this country—

Senator HANSON: Madam Acting Deputy President—Senator Thorpe: Aren’t I able to feel safe in my workplace?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, please resume your seat. As I said earlier, I completely understand what you’re saying, but that is a debating point. So we will move back to Senator Hanson.

Senator HANSON: It’s common knowledge that the billions of dollars thrown at Indigenous programs far exceed the funds put into non-Indigenous programs on a per capita basis. Non-Indigenous government spending per capita is $22,000 versus $45,000 for Indigenous Australians. Tens of billions of dollars are spent each year on programs to assist Aboriginal communities both remote and major. From Jacinta Price’s policy paper ‘Worlds apart’, published in January this year by the Centre for Independent Studies, we learned the Productivity Commission estimates that the government spent around $33.4 billion on Indigenous peoples in 2015-16. One stand out of those figures is that around $4.1 billion of that was spent on public order and safety alone. That’s $6,300 per person, which is 10 times—yes, 10—the amount spent on the typical Australian. Isn’t it a coincidence that, from 1971 to 2016, the year of the last official census, the population of Aboriginal Australians increased by 459 per cent during the rollout of these programs while the general population increased by only 83.5 per cent?

The people of Australia know it’s way overdue for those on the Left and the Right to accept that the awful plight of so many Indigenous communities runs across party lines, and the system is being rorted. Indigenous families—any family—should never be political pawns. The hollow prize of hate speech, thrown across this chamber to deflect from the truth, is a badge of honour I and my party wear with pride. One Nation will continue to shine a light on the rorts, the injustice, the inequality and the discrimination— (Time expired)

Attribution: Chamber Senate on 18/02/2021 Item MOTIONS – Government Funding Speaker: Hanson, Sen Pauline Parliament of Australia https://www.aph.gov.au/

Censorship, Military Immunity, Cops For Covid Truth (Australia)

Teresa van Lieshout 1
Teresa van Lieshout


Teresa van Lieshout Mel Silva, Managing Director, Google Australia, in August 2020 wrote an ‘Open Letter To Australians’, warning against extensive censorship by federal politicians, the News Media Bargaining Code. Furthermore, their federal, Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020, gives immunity power from criminal or civil liability to ADF members, other defence personnel (reserves), and members of foreign forces, during politically declared ’emergency and disasters’, forced on the public.
.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

I strongly encourage police, military, other govt workers, and Australian civilians, to sign to side with the public & support, Cops For Covid Truth Project, on the Advocate Me Lawfirm (Victoria), https://advocateme.wixsite.com/copsfo…​ Both letters from Senior Constable Alexander Cooney, & Senior Constable Kevin Dawson, NSW police, are public on the project site, & can be downloaded, read, & distributed to govt workers and the public. Also EMAIL project site link to local police stations, across Australia, etc. voterightsparty.com #copsforcovidtruthhttps://youtu.be/T-9ckzK_eaU

The police have to jail those lockdown politicians, federal & state, before they inject 25 million Australians with pharmaceuticals. And, lockdowns will end by the nation publically promoting my political work, vision, & leadership, voterightsparty.com

Author: Teresa van Lieshout Vote 1, Federal Party Leader
Voter Rights Party (Australia)
voterightsparty.com

Texas freeze shuts down Power “renewable Energy Fails”

Wind Mills in Snow 1


Texas is experiencing a serious deep freeze which is causing people to lose power.

Texas investors larded their state with solar panels and wind turbines to rake in federal subsidies and tax credits.

CFACT’s Marc Morano discussed the Texas freeze with Tucker Carlson on Fox News last night:


Fox News Marc Monro and Tucker Carlson


“Warren Buffett famously said years ago that there’s no reason to build windmills without the tax breaks and without the subsidies… the same thing’s happening in Germany by the way right now Tucker. Their solar panels are covered in snow and Germans are freezing through winter much the way Texans are.  Who would have thought this would have happened in Texas?  But this is what we’re dealing with. And Biden now wants to nationalize this plan of the less than four percent that comes from solar and wind and make it our chief go-to energy source.”

After generations of striving, America at last achieved energy independence.  Forcing America to abandon efficient energy sources such as natural gas and nuclear power and pushing them instead to wind and solar which can’t deliver is a tragic mistake.

As Marc told Tucker Carlson:

“We were in a position where we weren’t just independent, we were dominant. We had our own domestic energy. So the Green New Deal is going to swap that for a reliance on solar and wind and electric cars which, by the way, are going to be using rare earth minerals from China — 90% of which dominates things like cobalt copper, nickel. And we’re going to now be reliant on China for these rare earth minerals to make these unreliable solar and wind power batteries!  So the Green New Deal is lose, lose, lose all the way.  We’re seeing it unfold in Texas like we’ve seen it unfold in California.”

Europe and Australia have already proven that forcing people to subsidize wind and solar energy raises prices for consumers while making energy grids unreliable.

It only took a little cold and snow to show that you can’t depend on them in Texas either.

Relying on wind and solar to power the grid is always a mistake.   Don’t count on the Biden Administration figuring that out.

Author

  • RuckerHeadshotSource: Craig Rucker Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.

Dan Andrews Victoria will go into stage 4 lockdown restrictions at Midnight

Chairman Dan Andrews 1
Dan Andrews
Photo facebook


Andrews: I won’t waste words: today hurts.  Victorians know, better than anyone, just how deeply. 

But as we’ve seen – here in Australia and around the world – we are facing a new kind of enemy.

A virus that is smarter, and faster, and more infectious. 

And until we have a vaccine, we need to do everything we can to keep this virus at bay.

In the past 24 hours, five new cases have been identified.

It shows just how incredibly infectious this virus is. And our public health team tell us it’s only getting faster.

Right now, we are reaching close contacts well within the 48-hour benchmark. But the time between exposure, incubation, symptoms and testing positive is rapidly shortening.  So much so, that even secondary close contacts are potentially infectious within that 48-hour window.

In short: this hyper-infectious variant is moving at hyper-speed.

It’s why on the advice of our public health experts, the whole of Victoria will move to circuit-breaker action from 11:59pm tonight until 11:59pm on Wednesday, 17 February.

This is a short, sharp blast – the same as we’ve seen in Queensland and WA – that will give us the what we need to get ahead of this faster moving virus.

That means there will be four reasons to leave your home: shopping for the things you need, care and caregiving, exercise and work, if it is essential.

Exercise and shopping will be limited to five kilometres from your home. If there’s no shops in your five-kilometre radius, you’ll be able to travel to the ones closest to you.

Face masks will need to be worn indoors and outdoors – whenever you leave home.

You won’t be able to have visitors to your home. And any public gatherings won’t be able to go ahead.

For school students, that means learning from home, unless they need onsite supervision as the children of essential workers. Unis and TAFEs will close or move to remote learning. Childcare and kinders will remain open.

Gyms, pools, community centres, entertainment venues and libraries will all need to close.

And as with Stage 4 restrictions, all non-essential retail will close, but essential stores like supermarkets, bottle shops and pharmacies will remain open. Cafes and restaurants will only be able to offer take-away.

Hotel and accommodation providers will be able to stay open to support guests already staying onsite. No new bookings can be made.

Funerals will be able to go ahead with up to ten people. Weddings will need to be postponed.

A list of who is considered an essential worker will be made available online. But the short answer is – if you were a permitted worker during Stage 4 restrictions – you’ll most likely be an essential worker now too. For everyone else, we need you to work from home.

I know there’ll be plenty of questions about what people can and can’t do. We’ll do our best to answer these as quickly as possible. 



But the most important thing you need to know is this: this is our opportunity – our brief window – to starve the virus of what it wants most. Movement.



By limiting our movement, we limit the potential spread of the virus.



And by going hard and going early – we’re giving ourselves every opportunity to get in front of this.



My message to every single Victorian:



I know today will be hard. Likely, tomorrow will be even harder.



But remember, no one else in the world – anywhere – has achieved what we have.



And just as we had the courage and conviction to win this war before – we can do it again.



Source Premier Dan Andrews State of Victoria

Thorpe, Government connected to Far-Right Nazis. Hanson hits back lies of reality by extremists from the Left

Pauline One Nation Senator Thorpe
Senator Hanson and Thorpe


The Greens Senator Lidia THORPE: MATTERS OF URGENCY – National Security:
I rise to speak on this motion, and I thank Senator Lines for putting it before this chamber. It’s very disturbing to hear the comments that people are making in this chamber. This is absolutely critical right now in this country because it is getting worse, and there is deep division in this country where we are meant to be uniting—as people who represent our constituents and the people of Australia. It’s deeply saddening that we have a government who is so connected to the far-Right, to the fascists, to the Nazis. It’s deeply disturbing.


I have been on the receiving end of these racists, these violent perpetrators that don’t like anybody else but themselves and the whiteness that they bring. When I was 14 and I started my first job, I rocked up to work one day and there was ‘coon’ written across the window, in Gertrude Street, Fitzroy. When I had my first child, in Lakes Entrance, the skate park had a sign with graffiti across it saying ‘all coons must die’. We had the KKK in Paynesville, in Victoria. The far Right are a threat to everybody in this country. They represent hate, they represent violence and they don’t want to unite this country. They’re not part of this country’s identity, nor should they be. I’m just so surprised that so many people on the other side—and we’re going to have the other senator come up after me and blurt out the racist rhetoric that they always do, but it’s got to stop. We have children watching. Our children have to be safe. There are children being beaten up in the schoolyards because of racism. Children are not born racist; they learn it. They’re learning it in their homes and they’re learning it from their government. When are we going to truly mature as a nation? When? Stop racism because racism kills people in this country.



Senator Pauline Hanson (Queensland—Leader of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation): This is an urgency motion by Senator Lines. I’m proud to be speaking for the overwhelming majority of Australians who know that being an Australian means being part of probably the greatest democracy of the world. But one of the ugliest challenges that’s raised its head in recent years is the hypocrisy, lies and rewriting of reality by extremists from the Left—extremists who seek to rewrite our history, lie about our present, deceive our youth and go to any length, it seems, to shame our great democracy.



I’ve said many times in this place that I am against all extremism. I oppose right-wing extremists and I oppose left-wing extremists. This motion before us reflects some of the worst thinking of left-wing extremism. Senator Lines ignores 200 years of nation building and ignores the spirit that bonds us and instead recreates reality to drive a stake of division into the heart of our nation and our people by preaching white privilege. Like so many left-wing extremists, she denies truth for political gain and notoriety.



There can be a few more stunning examples of hypocrisy than the bitter, vitriolic attack by the senator against Australia Day in an ad she paid for on social media recently. Senator Lines calls for Australia Day to be a day of mourning. She could not possibly be more out of step with the overwhelming majority of Australians. If Senator Lines really believes in white privilege, she’ll obviously be happy to immediately hand over her position as Deputy President to Senator Dodson or Senator McCarthy. Senator Lines’s vitriol does Indigenous Australians no service at all. She hides behind a shameful cloak of shallowness, hypocrisy and lies that typifies the worst elements of extremism on both sides. It ignores any truth, tolerates no discussion or debate, is dismissive of reason and deserves the widest condemnation from all sides. I will not be supporting this motion.


Read the full Debate On the Parliament of Australia Website (National Security)

Source: Parliament of Australia

Services Australia Economic Support $250 Payment in March

Australian 100 Currency 1


The Economic Support Payment is an extra payment to support people impacted by coronavirus (COVID-19).

You’ll get the payment from early March if you’re: living in Australia and getting an eligible payment or concession card on 26 February 2021.

You need to get certain payments to get the Economic Support Payment.

Services Australia pays 2 more Economic Support Payments, 1 from December 2020 and 1 in March 2021. You must get an eligible payment or concession card and be living in Australia to get the payments.

Services Australia pay the Economic Support Payments straight into your bank account.


If you have a Cashless Debit Card they will pay the Economic Support Payments onto your card. If you’re income managed, the payments will be 100% income managed.

Generally, you won’t get the Economic Support Payment if you get $1 or more of the Coronavirus Supplement.

You’ll get the payment if you get one of the following:


  • Age Pension
  • Carer Allowance
  • Carer Payment
  • Commonwealth Seniors Health Card
  • Disability Support Pension
  • Double Orphan Pension
  • Family Tax Benefit
  • Pensioner Concession Card



You need to get an eligible payment or have an eligible card on:



  • 27 November 2020 to get the December 2020 payment
  • 26 February 2021 to get the March 2021 payment.



If you claim Family Tax Benefit for 2020-21 as a lump sum, you’ll get the payment with your lump sum. This will be after you’ve claimed and confirmed your income for the 2020-21 financial year.


Source: Services Australia https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/


Image by 3D Animation Production Company from Pixabay

PM Morrison said the F-35A fleet was now 33 strong and ready to deploy on operations

ScoMo with F35 1


ScoMo: The first F-35A aircraft has been inducted into BAE Systems Australia’s (BAESA) maintenance depot as part of the next major milestone in the Joint Strike Fighter Program.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the F-35A fleet was now 33 strong and ready to deploy on operations.

“This is about protecting and securing Australia’s interests but it’s also creating jobs and driving investment right here in the Hunter and across the country too,” the Prime Minister said.

“This induction demonstrates the world-leading capability of our local defence industry here in Australia.

“We want to give as many opportunities to Australian companies as possible which is why there’s already more than 50 local companies sharing in $2.7 billion worth of contracts as part of the F-35 Program.

“As we recover from the COVID recession a key plank of our Economic Recovery Plan is our $270 billion investment in Defence capability over the next decade and our $65 billion commitment in air capabilities which includes the Joint Strike Fighter Program. This investment is keeping Australians safe and secure while creating more jobs and more opportunities for businesses.”

After being selected as the maintenance, repair, overhaul and upgrade depot for the Southeast Asia region, the BAESA facility will host Australian F-35A aircraft and in future other nations’ F-35 aircraft.


The Program is progressing on budget and on schedule and the aircraft is undergoing routine structural modifications to improve the airframe, ensuring it reaches full life, and align it with newer aircraft.

Minister for Defence Linda Reynolds CSC said up to four Australian F-35A aircraft were expected to undergo routine maintenance at BAESA’s facility this year, demonstrating the significant boost the Program was having on the local Hunter economy. 

“The Morrison Government is unashamedly committed to building a robust sovereign defence industry,” Minister Reynolds said.

“We are building our sovereign defence capabilities. We now have 41 fully trained RAAF pilots, nine of whom trained on home soil at RAAF Base Williamtown. We also have more than 225 trained technicians as the RAAF’s F-35A maintenance capability continues to develop.”

This progress is being supported through the sovereign Training Support Services contract awarded to Lockheed Martin Australia, worth approximately $70 million. It will see more than 70 personnel employed at RAAF Base Williamtown and RAAF Base Tindal.

“This demonstrates the extraordinary opportunities this program is providing for Australians and the economy, especially as it continues to bounce back from COVID-19,” Minister Reynolds said.



Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price said the program had helped the people of the Hunter region weather the impact of the economic impact of the pandemic.



“In 2020, job losses in the aeronautics industry due to COVID-19 resulted in the closure of Jetstar’s aircraft maintenance facility here in Newcastle, and many other regional facilities,” Minister Price said.



“BAESA recently hired 25 former Jetstar employees who had been made redundant as a result of the pandemic.

“Not only have these technical workers been retained in the local Hunter aviation industry, but they will also help Defence build its sovereign sustainment capability as the fleet continues to grow.” 

More information about the F-35A Lightning II is available at: F-35A Lightning II and Capability Acquisition & Sustainment Group


Source: Licensed from the Commonwealth of Australia under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.

The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the content of this publication.

Biden advancing the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Persons

USA LGBTI Flag 1
USA LGBT FLAG


Biden: This memorandum reaffirms and supplements the principles established in the Presidential Memorandum of December 6, 2011 (International Initiatives to Advance the Human Rights of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons).  That memorandum, for the first time, directed executive departments and agencies (agencies) engaged abroad to ensure that United States diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons everywhere.  This memorandum builds upon that historic legacy and updates the 2011 memorandum.



All human beings should be treated with respect and dignity and should be able to live without fear no matter who they are or whom they love.  Around the globe, including here at home, brave lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) activists are fighting for equal protection under the law, freedom from violence, and recognition of their fundamental human rights.  The United States belongs at the forefront of this struggle — speaking out and standing strong for our most dearly held values.  It shall be the policy of the United States to pursue an end to violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or sex characteristics, and to lead by the power of our example in the cause of advancing the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world.



Through this memorandum, I am directing all agencies engaged abroad to ensure that United States diplomacy and foreign assistance promote and protect the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons.  Specifically, I direct the following actions, consistent with applicable law:



Section 1.  Combating Criminalization of LGBTQI+ Status or Conduct Abroad.  Agencies engaged abroad are directed to strengthen existing efforts to combat the criminalization by foreign governments of LGBTQI+ status or conduct and expand efforts to combat discrimination, homophobia, transphobia, and intolerance on the basis of LGBTQI+ status or conduct.  The Department of State shall, on an annual basis and as part of the annual report submitted to the Congress pursuant to sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d) and 2304(b)), report on human rights abuses experienced by LGBTQI+ persons globally.  This reporting shall include anti-LGBTQI+ laws as well as violence and discrimination committed by both state and nonstate actors against LGBTQI+ persons.



Sec. 2.  Protecting Vulnerable LGBTQI+ Refugees and Asylum Seekers.  LGBTQI+ persons who seek refuge from violence and persecution face daunting challenges.  In order to improve protection for LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers at all stages of displacement, the Departments of State and Homeland Security shall enhance their ongoing efforts to ensure that LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers have equal access to protection and assistance, particularly in countries of first asylum.  In addition, the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security shall ensure appropriate training is in place so that relevant Federal Government personnel and key partners can effectively identify and respond to the particular needs of LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers, including by providing to them adequate assistance and ensuring that the Federal Government takes all appropriate steps, such as potential increased use of Embassy Priority-1 referrals, to identify and expedite resettlement of highly vulnerable persons with urgent protection needs.



Sec. 3.  Foreign Assistance to Protect Human Rights and Advance Nondiscrimination.  Agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development programs shall expand their ongoing efforts to ensure regular Federal Government engagement with governments, citizens, civil society, and the private sector to promote respect for the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons and combat discrimination.  Agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development programs should consider the impact of programs funded by the Federal Government on human rights, including the rights of LGBTQI+ persons, when making funding decisions, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.



Sec. 4.  Swift and Meaningful United States Responses to Human Rights Abuses of LGBTQI+ Persons Abroad.  The Department of State shall lead a standing group, with appropriate interagency representation, to help ensure the Federal Government’s swift and meaningful response to serious incidents that threaten the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons abroad.  When foreign governments move to restrict the rights of LGBTQI+ persons or fail to enforce legal protections in place, thereby contributing to a climate of intolerance, agencies engaged abroad shall consider appropriate responses, including using the full range of diplomatic and assistance tools and, as appropriate, financial sanctions, visa restrictions, and other actions.



Sec. 5.  Building Coalitions of Like-Minded Nations and Engaging International Organizations in the Fight Against LGBTQI+ Discrimination.  Bilateral relationships with allies and partners, as well as multilateral fora and international organizations, are key vehicles to promote respect for and protection of the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons and to bring global attention to these goals.  Agencies engaged abroad should strengthen the work they have done and initiate additional efforts with other nations, bilaterally and within multilateral fora and international organizations, to:  counter discrimination on the basis of LGBTQI+ status or conduct; broaden the number of countries willing to support and defend the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons; strengthen the role, including in multilateral fora, of civil society advocates on behalf of the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons; and strengthen the policies and programming of multilateral institutions, including with respect to protecting vulnerable LGBTQI+ refugees and asylum seekers.



Sec. 6.  Rescinding Inconsistent Policies and Reporting on Progress.  Within 100 days of the date of this memorandum or as soon as possible thereafter, all agencies engaged abroad shall review and, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, take steps to rescind any directives, orders, regulations, policies, or guidance inconsistent with this memorandum, including those issued from January 20, 2017, to January 20, 2021, to the extent that they are inconsistent with this memorandum.  The heads of such agencies shall also, within 100 days of the date of this memorandum, report to the President on their progress in implementing this memorandum and recommend additional opportunities and actions to advance the human rights of LGBTQI+ persons around the world.  Agencies engaged abroad shall each prepare a report within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, and annually thereafter, on their progress toward advancing these initiatives.  All such agencies shall submit these reports to the Department of State, which will compile a report on the Federal Government’s progress in advancing these initiatives for transmittal to the President.  The Department of State shall make a version of the compiled annual report available to the Congress and the public.



Sec. 7.  Definitions.  (a)  For the purposes of this memorandum, agencies engaged abroad include the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.



(b)  For the purposes of this memorandum, agencies involved with foreign aid, assistance, and development programs include the Departments of State, the Treasury, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, USAID, DFC, the Millennium Challenge Corporation, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and such other agencies as the President may designate.



Sec. 8.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:



(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or



(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.



(b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.



(c)  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.



(d)  The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.


MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.

Source: irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.


Image by janeb13 from Pixabay

Yeh, nah, maybe. When it comes to accepting the COVID vaccine, Australia fence-sitters we should pay attention to

Female Fingures up to Covid 1logo Conversation

As we prepare to roll out COVID-19 vaccines, we need to know where Australians stand. Our recent study shows that as the pandemic progresses, people we surveyed are becoming less certain about whether they’re willing to accept a vaccine.

While overall it seems most people are willing to be vaccinated, the “maybe” or “fence-sitter” group has grown.

We are particularly interested in this group. That’s because researchers know that when it comes to vaccination policy, we should focus on reaching them.

For that, we need to understand why some people are becoming less certain about their intention to vaccinate, and tailor our approach to communicating with them.

Here’s what we found


Our initial survey in May 2020 was part of a larger project aimed at gauging people’s values on a range of topics.

Back then, some 65% of about 1,300 Australians surveyed said they would accept the COVID-19 vaccine, and 27% were uncertain.

When we revisited about half our sample in November, the number of people with a firm intention to vaccinate had dropped to 56% and the number of maybes had risen to 31%.




Read more:
Australians’ attitudes to vaccination are more complex than a simple ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ label


Understanding the attributes of the maybes, and what they think, is essential if we want to address their concerns. To do this, we compared the vaccine maybes to those who would accept or refuse.

Compared with committed vaccinators, the maybes were more likely to be female, to not perceive COVID-19 as a severe infection, were less trusting of science, and were less willing to vaccinate against the flu.

Compared with committed refusers, the maybes were more likely to see the disease as severe and not a hoax, to trust in science, and to vaccinate against the flu.

So attitudes towards disease severity, science, and flu vaccination point to people’s position along a spectrum between COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and refusal.

The relationship works in the way you’d imagine: worrying about COVID-19 infection, trusting science, and accepting flu vaccines orients you to accept — or at least consider accepting — the COVID-19 vaccine.

Women were concerned


Gender is an interesting wild card from our study. A recent poll commissioned by the Commonwealth found women in their 30s are most likely to be hesitant about COVID-19 vaccine safety.

Astute commentary said women who were uncertain might be concerned about the impact of a vaccine on their fertility, or concerned that most medical products are oriented towards male bodies and conditions.

However, our sample skewed towards older Australians. So it may not just be younger women who are more uncertain.


It may not just be younger women who are more uncertain about vaccination.




Read more:
The government is spending almost A$24m to convince us to accept a COVID vaccine. But will its new campaign actually work?


What are the implications?


We are not overly worried about the drop in firm support for vaccination between May and November.

Two other studies conducted shortly before and after ours (in April and June 2020) found 86% and 75% of Australians intended to accept the vaccine. So while, we report a rise in uncertainty, this is against a backdrop of high rates of vaccine acceptance overall.

The rollout of vaccine programs overseas, and Australia’s own on the brink of being launched, also appear to have also prompted generally high levels of intended acceptance in recent Australian polls. We take heart from this.

Why do different studies about intentions to vaccinate report different results?
They are conducted in different population samples, ask different questions, and create different categories about people’s attitudes.

For example, another study conducted in August separated “maybes” into “high” and “low likelihood” of vaccination, finding that 36% of their sample fit into one of these categories.
Other studies group the “high likelihood” people with the “yes”, showing how difficult it can be to compare. This also makes it difficult to account for changes over time.




Read more:
5 ways we can prepare the public to accept a COVID-19 vaccine (saying it will be ‘mandatory’ isn’t one)


Even though our study registered a change within the same study population, we must interpret this change cautiously.

Many things have been in a state of flux since COVID-19 began, such as our knowledge of the disease, community outbreaks, scary new strains, and state lockdown policies. So people’s attitudes to vaccination will also be informed by this ever-changing scenario. If we polled people today, we might well get different results.

How do we reach the ‘maybes’?


Our follow-up study found about half of those who no longer said “yes” were still saying “maybe” rather than a flat “no”. So reaching these folks will be important.

To do this, policy-makers need to consider the needs of women, especially those of childbearing age. This may help inform strategies to communicate with them, particularly about vaccine safety and the importance of COVID-19 vaccination.

But to truly understand how to reach those on the fence, we need to conduct in-depth interviews to unpack their beliefs and what factors might motivate them to vaccinate. Our Coronavax project is doing this in Western Australia.

In the meantime, we recommend empathetic communications with and about those who are hesitant. People who have ongoing reservations about vaccinating against COVID-19 are not “anti-vaxxers” and shouldn’t be branded as such.

It is the job of governments, technical experts, health professionals and researchers to provide COVID-19 vaccine “fence-sitters” with the confidence and motivation to vaccinate.



Read more:
A short history of vaccine objection, vaccine cults and conspiracy theories


Katie Attwell, Senior Lecturer, University of Western Australia; Christopher Blyth, Paediatrician, Infectious Diseases Physician and Clinical Microbiologist, University of Western Australia, and Julie Anne Lee, Professor in Marketing and the Director of the Centre for Human and Cultural Values, University of Western Australia

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.Image by Stefan Keller from Pixabay