Family of US pilot imprisoned in NSW pleads for his release after 1000 days
Australia
Anthony Albanese
law
legal
World CONTACT US
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
38 minutes ago
- The Age
Be careful in changing rules on voting
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@ Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published. The question of extending Australian voting rights to 16- and 17-year-olds has recently been mooted. As has been noted, there are some politically informed and interested young people and there are also many who have little interest in politics at this busy stage of their lives. It has also been suggested that voting for this age group may not be compulsory. There may be people in other age groups or categories who would view the special exemption from compulsory voting for 16- and 17-year-olds as discriminatory and seek exemptions. Where do we draw the line? Australia has one of the most stable democracies in the world. Changes of government happen smoothly and without bloodshed. Many of the most important elements of our democracy derive from the political reform movements in 19th-century Britain. Hard-won policies such as compulsory voting and the secret ballot means that people cannot be prevented from voting by bribes or threats from powerful people and we have the freedom to vote in private for the candidate or party we choose. We also have the great advantage of elections being run by a respected independent body, the Australian Electoral Commission, which manages the electoral process including the vote count. Political parties or candidates also have the option of providing volunteer scrutineers to monitor vote counting. Changing the rules for some groups of people is a dangerous precedent that may have many unintended consequences. April Baragwanath, Geelong Little currency in cash condition Your correspondent's suggestion (Letters, 22/7) that 16-year-olds are allowed to vote 'when they have a taxable dollar in their pockets' raises some interesting issues. Would pensioners and others who don't pay tax lose their vote? Then, of course, there's the pesky part-pensioners? Perhaps they could get a part-vote, voting for the House of Representatives but not for the Senate, or should it be the other way round? It all sounds a bit too complicated to me. Jo Bond, South Melbourne What about a more nuanced approach? At 20, I was required to register for National Service with the possibility of conscription to Vietnam but not allowed to vote as I turned 21 two months after the election. So I can understand the frustration of young people who take an interest in politics but are not allowed to vote. However, I suspect that many 16- and 17-year-olds aren't all that interested in voting and shouldn't be forced to do so. What about a 'nuanced' position? Allow discretionary voting for 16- to 24-year-olds and bring compulsory voting from 25 years on. But then I am not sure that we do 'nuance' too well in Australia. Graeme Head, Newport The more votes the merrier If we are to allow 16-year-olds to vote, perhaps we should amend the voting system so that voters can become eligible for extra votes as they contribute more to the successful running of our society. People could perhaps earn extra votes when they obtain full-time jobs, do charitable work, get married, have children, buy a house or reach certain levels of education. On the other hand they might lose votes if convicted of crimes. Why does it have to be one vote one person? Tony O'Brien, South Melbourne The young need to be encouraged The Liberal Party, as well as encouraging more female representation, could also pay close attention to encouraging more young voters to contribute to changing the mindset of party politics and enter politics to make a difference and mentor them to do so. Thinking outside the box on issues that will make a difference for their future and our present concerns, can provide vitality and ideas in discussing opportunities for change. Unless change happens, nothing changes. We will all benefit. Christine Baker, Rosanna THE FORUM
7NEWS
38 minutes ago
- 7NEWS
Melbourne star Steven May banned for three games for high hit on Carlton's Francis Evans
The AFL tribunal has taken an eternity to make decision on Melbourne star Steven May, who was cited for a controversial collision that concussed Carlton's Francis Evans on Saturday night. May faced the tribunal via a video hook-up on Wednesday night, with the tribunal eventually deciding — after deliberating for more than hour — the All-Australian defender was banned for three games. May was cited for rough conduct in an incident that divided the AFL world. It was reported that insiders at the AFL believed the case to be the most challenging they had seen in years. Experts were also divided, with some believing that May had to make a contest of the situation, while others have suggested he needed to slow down or deviate when he realised he was on a collision course with Evans. Star Channel 7 commentators Daisy Thomas and Kane Cornes both believe May had little choice but to contest the ball and make contact. Thomas said ahead of the tribunal: 'My mind would be blown if he does not get off. This is a footballing act to its core.' But North Melbourne great David King said May needed to be punished because Evans was hit 'with the absolute point of the shoulder' and May hit him 'flush' The AFL's match review officer Michael Christian graded May's contact as careless conduct, severe impact and high contact. But May told the tribunal on Wednesday that he could not believe he didn't take possession of the ball. 'I thought I did everything right, so I'm just a bit shocked,' he said. May and Evans clashed at speed, but Evans arrived a fraction of a second earlier than his opponent, getting his hands to the ball before May caught him high. Melbourne lawyer Adrian Anderson said there were nine reasons why the incident wasn't rough conduct, which included both players were travelling at pace, May was 'contesting the ball', the ball's bounce was 'unexpected', May didn't move off line, he didn't jump off ground, and May was significantly taller than Evans. Before the final decision was handed down, the tribunal deliberated for over an hour leading one tribunal reporter to wonder if the panel had gone into ghost mode. 'Has the Tribunal f***n ghosted me?' Fox Footy reporter David Zita wondered on social media, while a fan said: 'Ghosted all of us ...' Zita continued as he waited for the verdict: 'I'm sorry, but what the actual f***.' Eventually, the tribunal panel released its findings, deciding May was banned for three games. Even immediately after the incident there was debate on the hit, with Blues coach Michael Voss saying May's act was fair. 'Both players were in line with the ball and seemed to be attacking it,' he said post-match. 'Both sort of making a play at the ball, maybe one person was one step late, and obviously then the incident happens. 'But for Frankie (Evans) to be able to hold his line with a pretty strong man coming the other way was a pretty important moment in the game.' And Melbourne coach Simon Goodwin said May's intent was 'clearly' to win the ball. 'If you just look at his pure intent, it was purely for the ball and it was unfortunate,' he said. Goodwin said the AFL was doing an 'unbelievable' job in trying to eradicate concussion from the game. 'It's important that we limit it as much as we can but there will be football incidents where someone is concussed,' he said. May was concussed himself in a separate incident and was already ruled out of the Round 20 game.
West Australian
38 minutes ago
- West Australian
Student debt cuts: Government talks as Opposition steps up attack on super tax plans
Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers have avoided ruling out ever taxing unrealised capital gains beyond existing plans for multimillion-dollar superannuation accounts, fuelling accusations Labor has secret plans to go after family homes and trusts. Legislation for the reduced tax breaks for superannuation balances above $3 million is yet to be re-introduced to Parliament but it was the key lines of attack from an Opposition regrouping after its election loss. The first question time of the 48th Parliament got off to a slow start as Mr Albanese and new Opposition Leader Sussan Ley took each other's measure. Coalition strategists had planned to focus on Treasury advice that flagged a need for higher taxes or spending cuts to tackle deficits but ultimately canvassed the superannuation tax plan that has been in Parliament for almost two years. Ms Ley misfired with a question that failed to mention the word 'superannuation.' 'The name of the tax would be helpful for future questions,' Speaker Milton Dick advised. It was Nationals leader David Littleproud – under fire internally from would-be rivals – who asked new Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulin a specific question about how the changes would affect farmers in a failed season. The Prime Minister and Treasurer continued their reluctance to bind themselves to 'never ever' positions ahead of next month's economic roundtable discussions. 'The time to run a scare campaign is just before an election, not after one,' Mr Albanese said when shadow treasurer Ted O'Brien asked if Labor was considering going after capital gains on family trusts and family homes next. 'It's a bit early, on day one … to start the rule-in-rule-out game that they themselves said on Sunday said was juvenile and absurd.' Mr O'Brien claimed a win, suggesting the Government should be embarrassed about its performance. 'Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer refused to rule out expanding Labor's tax on unrealised capital gains to include family homes and family trusts. This should send a chill down the spine of every Australian family,' he said. The super tax was a key revenue measure from the previous term, slated to raise $2.3 billion in its first year in effect from about 80,000 people but it was stalled in the Senate. Dr Chalmers is hopeful of winning support from the Greens. The minor party wants the threshold lowered to $2 million and indexed, paving the way for a possible compromise. 'This is not his Tinder profile, this is his dream ticket. He's not looking to swipe right, he's looking to swipe out (Mr Littleproud),' Mr Bowen said. The Government used the political theatre to highlight its almost-fulfilled promise to cut student debts by 20 per cent. Education Minister Jason Clare said it was 'a lot of help for a lot of people just out of uni, just getting started, help them to buy a home, thinking about starting a family'. He also put forward measures to strengthen childcare safety regulation in the wake of the allegations that a Melbourne childcare worker committed dozens of instances of child abuse. Under the bill, care providers could have childcare subsidies – which make up the bulk of their funding – blocked over a single breach of quality standards. Regulators would also have the power to conduct snap inspections of centres and there would be more transparency around breaches and sanctions. 'This is not about leaving parents stranded without care for their children because of fixable or minor shortcomings at their service. But this legislation is also not an idle threat to services,' Mr Clare said, adding the ultimate aim was to lift standards. The Coalition had signalled broad support for improving safety at childcare centres but raised concerns about whether the measures went far enough, while the Greens want the Government to bolster its plan by creating a national watchdog. 'I can't think of many issues in my time in this Parliament that have made me feel as physically sick as this one has,' Ms Ley said. 'This is an issue well and truly above politics. We will all work incredibly hard to get this right.' Late night sittings are already planned for next week to get the vital legislation through swiftly as Parliament gets down to business.
