Steven Miles says Jimmy Sullivan has been expelled from Labor caucus
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
18 minutes ago
- ABC News
Parramatta councillor unsuccessful in bid to seek more detail on reported ICAC raid
Councillors at Parramatta City Council have knocked back a request to seek more information on a reported raid on its offices by the corruption watchdog last month. Independent councillor Kellie Darley put forward a motion at Monday night's council meeting proposing that the council acknowledge "significant community concern" over the "entry" to the offices by Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) officers. It follows media reports that ICAC officers conducted the raid and seized the mobile phones of senior staff just hours before a council meeting. Councillor Darley told the meeting she wanted to publicly acknowledge concerns that have been raised by community members, and to address an information "void". "Unfortunately when people don't have information and they speculate, they come up with things that are not true," Cllr Darley said. "The reason I wanted to put this on the agenda tonight is to acknowledge that concern but also address the misinformation. The motion was ultimately defeated, but Labor Councillor Patricia Prociv successfully moved an amendment that council "affirms its zero-tolerance approach to fraudulent or corrupt behaviour". Her amendment also noted that council "would continue delivering the highest level of service". The amendment passed unanimously. Following the meeting, Councillor Darley said she was disappointed her motion was unsuccessful, and vowed to continue raising questions about the matter at future meetings. "They're sweeping it under the carpet and putting their head in the sand," she said. The ICAC has declined to comment on the reports.
The Australian
21 minutes ago
- The Australian
PM's Palestine blunder plays to domestic cheer squad
These actions are not likely to have any particular consequence in the Middle East. They're not really concerned with the politics of Gaza City and Ramallah but with Marrickville and Liverpool, Northcote and Broadmeadows. This is about domestic politics, not the Middle East. As Frank Knopfelmacher long ago quipped: Australia foreign policy is often domestic politics by other means. Consider the simple logic. You recognise a state when a state exists. This move would be the equivalent of recognising a Tibetan state. After all, Beijing invaded Tibet and has perpetrated undeniable human rights abuses. The Tibetan government-in-exile claims to be the true representative of the Tibetan people. Are the Tibetan people less worthy of a state than Palestinians? But China is a big power, Israel a small power. Our 'conscience' typically goes quiet with big powers. Australia recognises states rather than governments. If we decline to have diplomatic relations with the Taliban government, we still recognise Afghanistan. International convention, to which Australia subscribes, is that a state must have recognised borders, a clear government in control of its territory and various other attributes, none of which Palestine enjoys. What has happened here is that Israel's military campaign in Gaza, especially in recent months, and the prospect of an intensified campaign in Gaza city are very unpopular. (Incidentally, I strongly support Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas but think in recent months the moral, human and political cost has outweighed any benefit. Therefore it should change the campaign. That view doesn't require early recognition of Palestine.) One way left-of-centre governments are coping with the domestic politics this situation throws up is the empty, symbolic and meaningless gesture of recognition, though the politics of this recognition could be destructive. Russia recognised a Palestinian state decades ago, yet this didn't hasten an actual Palestinian state. As Liberal senator Dave Sharma, a former Australian ambassador to Israel, told Radio National, recognition has 'strengthened Hamas's international position, it's made Hamas less likely to reach a ceasefire. It's made Hamas able to portray itself as making political progress because of its military actions, and that is actually pushing back the resolution of this conflict.' Hamas also credibly claims these moves by Western governments to afford recognition as a huge victory for its violence. Sharma makes the broader point that conflating criticism of Israel's latest military policy with formal recognition of Palestine is illogical and counter-productive. When a new state is established, diplomatic recognition helps legitimatise and normalise it. Thus when what is now the Republic of Ireland broke away from Britain and became the Irish Free State in 1922, international recognition helped underwrite the deal. Similarly when South Sudan became independent. When the former Yugoslavia broke up, the individual nations like Serbia and Croatia were recognised one by one. When Ukraine left the Russian Federation, Moscow and Kyiv negotiated borders and the deal was ratified, among others, by Britain and the US, though Russia under Vladimir Putin later invaded. This move by the Albanese government is more akin to recognising a government-in-exile; the White Russians in the 1920s, for example. Most of the opposition figures who spoke on this were nearly as confused as the government, saying predominantly that the conditions Anthony Albanese mentioned should be satisfied before recognition. The opposition shows its lack of sophistication here. All the conditions Albanese outlined could be theoretically satisfied and it still would be illogical, counter-productive and meaningless to recognise a state that can come into existence only at the end of a complicated negotiation. As has often been stated, the Palestinians have been seriously offered a state on four separate occasions. When Israel and Palestine were first partitioned the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab states refused, rejected the partition and launched a war of annihilation against Israel. Then under the Oslo Accords there were two separate offers to the Palestinians. We needn't rely on Israeli testimony. These are all described at length in the memoirs of Clinton administration officials. Then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert made a further offer in 2008. Again, no need to rely on Israeli sources. This was described in Condoleezza Rice's memoirs. In each case the offer was essentially the same: a Palestinian state on almost all the West Bank, about 94 per cent of it, with only the Jewish settlements adjacent to Jerusalem kept by Israel but with compensating land swaps from Israel proper; plus all of Gaza; plus a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem. In return the Palestinians had to accept that this was the end of all claims against Israel and that they give up the idea that millions of Palestinians living overseas could come back to live in Israel, and of course they had to put an end to terrorism and anti-Semitic incitement in their education systems. But the whole ideology of Palestinianism, as some call it, is that they have been removed from the whole land of Israel, which belongs to them, and that there's no legitimacy to a Jewish state in the Middle East. Therefore they could never finally agree to any possible deal. The extremists among them responded with anti-Israeli terrorism. Not only that, it was clear that any Palestinian leader who made peace on those terms would be assassinated, just as Egypt's president, Anwar Sadat, was assassinated by extremists who objected to his peace with Israel. For much of the period since the Olmert offer the Palestinian leadership has refused to negotiate so-called final status issues with Israel at all. The 'right of return' is the most ridiculous Palestinian demand. Under this, every descendant or blood relative of any family that historically once lived in the territory of Israel would have a right to return and live permanently in Israel. Years ago I interviewed senior Palestinian intellectual Sari Nusseibeh, who told me he thought the right of return was simply completely unrealistic. By now it's probably seven million people who would qualify under the right of return to live in Israel. No Palestinian leader will give this up. No Israeli will ever accept it. Its only real purpose is to offer an excuse for Palestinian representatives to reject any realistic offer of a state. All this rejectionism has moved Israeli politics to the right. Indeed, while ever Palestinian leaders hold these positions a two-state solution is indeed impossible. Yet all of Albanese's blather doesn't even mention any of the three final status issues – accepting the 1967 borders with land swaps, the status of Jerusalem and forgoing the right of return. It is of course inconceivable that even the conditions Albanese claims now accompany recognition will be met. Reform of the Palestinian Authority? Now there's a novel idea. Similarly, what happens if there is an election and, as likely, Hamas wins? Support for an eventual two-state solution has been bipartisan in Australia but not support for early recognition of a Palestinian state. No Australian government can solve the Israel-Palestine dispute. Australian governments can cynically manipulate these issues for domestic political purposes. That's what's happening here. Greg Sheridan Foreign Editor Greg Sheridan is The Australian's foreign editor. His most recent book, Christians, the urgent case for Jesus in our world, became a best seller weeks after publication. It makes the case for the historical reliability of the New Testament and explores the lives of early Christians and contemporary Christians. He is one of the nation's most influential national security commentators, who is active across television and radio, and also writes extensively on culture and religion. He has written eight books, mostly on Asia and international relations. A previous book, God is Good for You, was also a best seller. When We Were Young and Foolish was an entertaining memoir of culture, politics and journalism. As foreign editor, he specialises in Asia and America. He has interviewed Presidents and Prime Ministers around the world.
SBS Australia
an hour ago
- SBS Australia
'A distraction': Palestinians in Australia say statehood recognition isn't enough
For Palestinian-Australian Mussa Hijazi, Australia's announcement that it intends to recognise a Palestinian state is a "distraction" from the realities on the ground in the Palestinian territories. The Canberra-based lawyer, who was born in Australia and grew up in the Occupied West Bank, described Monday's announcement by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as a "symbolic move". "I think the recognition itself is probably important from a symbolic point of view, but to be honest, it's not what we've been calling for the last two years, or indeed for the last 57 years, or for 77 years since 1948," he told SBS News. 'We're not marching for recognition' "We haven't been marching for recognition. We have been marching and calling out for an end to the genocide that is taking place in Palestine." "All this is doing in the meantime is creating a distraction from what is happening on the ground," he said. The Israeli government, backed by the United States, fiercely denies the charge and says it is fighting to defeat Hamas and to bring back Israeli hostages still held in Gaza. The conflict escalated in October 2023 when Hamas militants attacked southern Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostage, according to Israeli tallies. Israel's subsequent military campaign has since killed more than 61,000 people in Gaza, according to the Palestinian enclave's health authorities. When announcing the decision on Monday, Albanese said that recognition of Palestinian statehood would hinge on a guarantee that Hamas, the Palestinian political and militant group that de facto governs Gaza and which Australia has proscribed as a terror group, played no role in its future government. Hijazi said there were "conditions" placed on the recognition that are unlikely to be met, and there were more "meaningful" actions the government could take. "So, apparently, that [recognition] is going to achieve something? However, stopping the supply of weapon parts or armoured steel to Israel, apparently, will not make a difference?" he said. "The reality is, if we and everyone else did that, if we stopped the export of arms to Israel, this would stop." Will recognising Palestinian statehood lead to change on the ground? Dr Jessica Genauer, a senior lecturer in international relations at Flinders University, agreed that the decision to recognise Palestinian statehood was largely symbolic. "This decision is symbolically important, and it indicates a shift in momentum in the international arena around galvanising support to ensure that the humanitarian crisis ongoing in the Gaza Strip is addressed," Genauer told SBS News. While Genauer says the recognition of Palestinian statehood was significant in showing there's an increase in support to end the conflict, she says it won't directly lead to a change in Gaza. "It's significant, but it doesn't have a lot of practical implications," she said. "It's not going to have a mechanism to create an immediate tangible effect on the ground in terms of, for example, a truck being able to get through into the Gaza Strip or a cessation of hostilities." The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) said on Monday that the recognition of statehood was being used as a distraction. "Recognition without decisive action is an insult to Palestinians, and nothing but a veneer that allows Israel to continue brutalising Palestinians with no consequences," APAN president Nasser Mashni said. More than 140 of 193 UN member states already recognise Palestine. Source: SBS News "Australia must stop enabling apartheid and genocide by cutting all military ties, imposing sanctions akin to those we've placed on Russia, and standing up for Palestinian self-determination in their historic homeland." But Genauer can't see Australia imposing any of these calls — including sanctions. She says the Albanese government is still taking a centrist approach and is unlikely to impose extra limitations on Israel, especially if other countries are not doing so. "I don't think the Australian government [is] necessarily wanting to take steps that we don't see other partners taking." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticised plans by Australia and other countries to recognise a Palestinian state on Monday. "To have European countries and Australia march into that rabbit hole, just like that, fall right into it and buy this canard is disappointing, and I think it's actually shameful," Netanyahu said, adding that it wouldn't change Israel's position. More than 140 of 193 UN member states already recognise Palestine. Genauer says a public sentiment shift may have also been behind the recognition. "I think that this doesn't represent a massive shift in policy or approach for the Australian government," Genauer said. "The Albanese government is going to follow what they see to be a majority opinion within the Australian domestic population." Australia will recognise a Palestinian state at the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in September. Credit: LUKAS COCH/AAPIMAGE Earlier this month, a poll by DemosAU suggested a shift in Australians' views on Palestinian statehood. The survey of more than 1,000 people found that 45 per cent of respondents supported Australia recognising a Palestinian state before a negotiated peace agreement, with 23 per cent opposed. Levels of support were highest among those aged 18-34 at 57 per cent, while people aged 55 and above were more likely to be opposed, at 28 per cent. It marked an increase in support since May 2024, when a separate poll from the same firm found 35 per cent of Australians supported recognition of a Palestinian state, with 22 per cent opposed. On 3 August, tens of thousands of people marched across Sydney's Harbour Bridge in opposition to the war — Australia's largest protest since it began. Organisers said around 300,000 people participated in the protest, while NSW Police put the figure lower, at 90,000. Pro-Palestinian protesters marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge earlier this month. Source: AAP / Ayush Kumar / SOPA Images / Sipa USA No real change without UN recognition In order for a country to be formally recognised in the United Nations, it needs to pass through the UN Security Council. The State of Palestine is currently a non-member observer state, a de facto recognition of statehood granted by the General Assembly in 2012. "Even though Australia might recognise Palestine as a state, this is not the same thing as Palestine getting that important international recognition as a state in the United Nations," Genauer said. Should Palestine be formally recognised as a state in the United Nations, it would mean they would have access to channels and mechanisms of support that they wouldn't have as a territory or non-member observer, Genauer says. The move would also come with questions about what the internationally recognised borders of that state would be. "That gets into the heart of the dispute in the entire conflict between Israelis and Palestinians — resolving or addressing that question would be incredibly significant for Palestinians on the ground," Genauer said. The decision would also mean questions about the government would be ignited, including what the governance structures would be and how a centralised government would operate. But there's still a big obstacle in the way of that — the United States. On the UN council, the five countries that are permanent members have veto power: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. That means they can reject any resolution of the Security Council, regardless of the level of support from other members. While Genauer says that four of those countries are likely to let the recognition of Palestinian statehood pass — France, the United Kingdom, China and Russia — the US will likely still veto the vote. In April last year, the US wielded its veto power to block the United Nations from recognising a Palestinian state. It was the sole country of the 15-member council to vote against it — two countries abstained, while the remaining 12 voted in favour of it. But she does say that she can see that shifting in the future, which could lead to formal recognition. "The US is the only country that is applying a veto to that recognition. If there's a change of administration in the United States ... or if there's a real U-turn in policy from the Trump presidency, all the other pieces are in place for Palestine to get recognised as a state. "We are one small, but very important, step away." But despite UN obstacles, Australia's decision still carries weight. "Australia is a very strong and important middle power in the international arena," Genauer said. "The decisions that we make do matter and provide weight and support to an international direction."
