‘Extreme agenda': Northern Beaches Greens councillors caught obsessing over woke motions despite slugging ratepayers with massive tax hike
The Northern Beaches Council, which is dominated by the Teal affiliate group Your Northern Beaches, voted in favour of a 29 per cent rate hike in mid-June, drawing the ire of local residents.
The four Northern Beaches Greens councillors who voted in support of the historic rate rise then opted to 'hijack' the same June 17 council meeting and advance a detailed motion titled "support for the Beaches Palestinian community and a ceasefire in Gaza."
The motion, advanced by 21 year-old Greens councillor Ethan Hrnjak, lobbied for the council to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza and boycott companies linked to Israel.
Despite raising rates to cover growing costs, the Mr Hrnjak also tried to push the council to write to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and seven other federal government ministers and MPs "advising them of council's position on the issue.'
Instead of pushing back against the tax increase, which stands as the largest in the council's history, the Greens spent the majority of their designated speaking time during the meeting expressing solidarity with activist groups including the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network and Medical Aid for Palestinians.
'This council has a duty to speak out. While this may be symbolic, it matters to our community,' Mr Hrnjak said after voting to increase ratepayers annual council bills by $168.
Independent councillor Vincent De Luca raised an amendment in response noting there 10,000 foreign conflicts and the local council was "not the appropriate jurisdiction to debate international matters such as international conflicts."
The Greens have seperatly tabled a motion for the upcoming July 15 meeting to debate nuclear weapons and to urge the locality to adopt a raft of recommendations including flying the flag of the International Campaign to Abolish nuclear weapons.
The motion also calls on Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall, the two federal members for the Northern Beaches area, to raise the gesture with the federal government.
Ms Scamps and Ms Steggall have already both signed a declaration to the federal government advocating for nuclear non-proliferation.
The federal government banned nuclear power as an energy source in the 1990s, is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and is a founding member of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.
Instead of interrogating the council allocating $173 million - or 40 per cent of its budget - to fund the salaries of its employees, the Greens councillors put forward a notice of motion on 15 April titled "Clean, Green and Local NSW 2024 Policy Reform".
The motion called on the council to "examine the 'Clean, Green and Local NSW 2024' policy platform of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW and prepare a high-level summary".
The council is guided by the Draft Northern Beaches Environment Study.
Councillor Hrnjak introduced another motion at the March 18 meeting named "Condemnation of Modern Slavery" which argued for council to receive a report on the implications of amending the Procurement and Contracts policy to ensure "modern slavery compliance".
The vote resulted in an even split, with opposing councillors arguing that Australia has some of the strictest anti-modern slavery laws in the entire world.
Mr De Luca railed against the Greens for discarding crucial local issues.
He said were instead focused on their 'extreme agenda to dominate local council with international matters that have no concern for local people'.
'The main concern of our everyday citizen is the cost of living, decreasing rates at the Northern Beaches Council and all of the other works that need to be done such as the resealing of roads and yet the Greens are abusing time and resources at council meetings to push their own agenda," Mr De Luca told SkyNews.com.au.
Mr De Luca, who stands as one of the last points of opposition to the Your Northern Beaches/Greens bloc, labelled the Greens performative stunts in council meetings as 'frustrating' and said they were 'misusing council as a political stepping stone'.
Despite Northern Beaches council overseeing an expanding budget, Greens councillors have continued to flood notices of motions calling for repeated reviews into what Mr De Luca claims are secondary issues.
Greens councillor Miranda Korzy has submitted a motion for the July 15 meeting lobbying for council to commission a complete review of plastic use in council infrastructure.
Mr De Luca said the minor party's councillors were "insulting" Northern Beaches residents who primarily want council to minimise costs and rates.
'The Greens are out of touch with our local community, they voted for the 29 per cent rate increase. If they showed any compassion, they'd be voting against that, instead they are talking about Gaza and they're talking about nuclear weapons disarmament,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
6 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Premier's cold shoulder sparks fears of bigger snub for Kathleen Folbigg
SERIOUS questions are being asked about the NSW state government's commitment to compensation for wrongly convicted Hunter woman Kathleen Folbigg. NSW Premier Chris Minns has raised the spectre of another legal battle for Ms Folbigg, who was jailed for 20 years for crimes she did not commit. The premier has come under attack over what Ms Folbigg's supporters and legal team say has been an onerous delay in determining her application for an ex gratia payment by way of compensation for the jail term she served after being wrongfully convicted of murdering her four children. Mr Minns said Ms Folbigg was "entitled to take her matter to the courts" and sue the NSW government. Ms Folbigg's life has been consumed by police investigations, court appearances and jail terms since the death of her daughter, Laura, on February 27, 1999, which followed on from the deaths of her first three children. Twenty five years later, during a budget estimates hearing in August, 2024, the Premier conceded there'd been a delay. He said the matter was in the hands of Attorney General Michael Daley, but that he himself would look into the circumstances that "have resulted in a delay" in determining Ms Folbigg's application. In February this year, Mr Daley said it was complicated, but that it would "be weeks, rather than months" before Ms Folbigg would have an answer. "That would be my expectation," Mr Daley said. "This is a complex and in some ways unprecedented matter for me to consider, (with) very important considerations both for Ms Folbigg, for the expenditure of public money and for precedent value that the government's decision at the end of the day in relation to quantum will create," he said. He also referred to her application as voluminous. On Monday this week, Mr Minns publicly refused to meet with Ms Folbigg. "There's a lot of difficult calls for me to make as Premier," he said about his refusal to meet with her. "This isn't one of them." Greens MP and spokesperson for justice, solicitor Sue Higginson, has condemned his comments. On Tuesday she went a step further saying he needs to explain himself given that he seemed to have potentially paved the way for the application's refusal. "Is there some other motivation behind those comments, should we all, including Kathleen, be taking this as a sign that they're not going to be honouring an ex-gratia payment of sorts," Ms Higginson said. "That's the real concern." The question of an ex gratia payment was "wholly discretionary territory", Ms Higginson said, which meant the government could, if it was minded to do so, pay Ms Folbigg some compensation before ultimately settling on any final amount. "There are some guidelines ... but it's entirely at the discretion of the government and what we would say is, it's absolutely appropriate that an ex gratia payment of some sort would be the way to provide Kath Folbigg some form of compensation so she can get on with her life," she said. "They could be providing her some compassion, some security, some assurance and some dignity right now and that's why I've come out very strongly on this." Mr Minns, in saying Ms Folbigg had every right to sue the government, was completely tone deaf, Ms Higginson said. "With my lawyer hat on, I find it unfathomable," she said. "It was void of all genuine understanding of the history. He represents the state and thus the system that wrongfully jailed Kathleen Folbigg ... and that had her jailed for 20 years of her life. "It's hard to imagine anything worse than wrongful conviction. The time, the taxation on her being, the cost, to then go and commence a civil case, just tells me that he needs some lessons in the legal system of NSW and he needs to go and undertake some trauma-informed training." Ms Folbigg has refused requests for an interview after coming out on Monday saying she feels as though her life is "still on hold". Ms Folbigg, who lived in Newcastle as a child and went on to live variously in Georgetown, Thornton, Cardiff, and Singleton, was issued an unconditional pardon by NSW Governor Margaret Beazely and released from prison on June 5, 2023. Six months later, on December 14, her convictions were quashed in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Her legal team submitted a claim for an ex gratia payment in July, 2024. Experts have said that Ms Folbigg may receive the state's largest ever compensation payout of up to $10 million, but so far the 58-year-old hasn't seen a cent. It is understood that Ms Folbigg, who is renting in Newcastle, is struggling to manage financially. "Adjusting to 2025 prices has been confronting," Ms Folbigg said. "Even basics like groceries, power bills, and public transport are so much higher than they were in 2003. The world has changed so much while I was away." SERIOUS questions are being asked about the NSW state government's commitment to compensation for wrongly convicted Hunter woman Kathleen Folbigg. NSW Premier Chris Minns has raised the spectre of another legal battle for Ms Folbigg, who was jailed for 20 years for crimes she did not commit. The premier has come under attack over what Ms Folbigg's supporters and legal team say has been an onerous delay in determining her application for an ex gratia payment by way of compensation for the jail term she served after being wrongfully convicted of murdering her four children. Mr Minns said Ms Folbigg was "entitled to take her matter to the courts" and sue the NSW government. Ms Folbigg's life has been consumed by police investigations, court appearances and jail terms since the death of her daughter, Laura, on February 27, 1999, which followed on from the deaths of her first three children. Twenty five years later, during a budget estimates hearing in August, 2024, the Premier conceded there'd been a delay. He said the matter was in the hands of Attorney General Michael Daley, but that he himself would look into the circumstances that "have resulted in a delay" in determining Ms Folbigg's application. In February this year, Mr Daley said it was complicated, but that it would "be weeks, rather than months" before Ms Folbigg would have an answer. "That would be my expectation," Mr Daley said. "This is a complex and in some ways unprecedented matter for me to consider, (with) very important considerations both for Ms Folbigg, for the expenditure of public money and for precedent value that the government's decision at the end of the day in relation to quantum will create," he said. He also referred to her application as voluminous. On Monday this week, Mr Minns publicly refused to meet with Ms Folbigg. "There's a lot of difficult calls for me to make as Premier," he said about his refusal to meet with her. "This isn't one of them." Greens MP and spokesperson for justice, solicitor Sue Higginson, has condemned his comments. On Tuesday she went a step further saying he needs to explain himself given that he seemed to have potentially paved the way for the application's refusal. "Is there some other motivation behind those comments, should we all, including Kathleen, be taking this as a sign that they're not going to be honouring an ex-gratia payment of sorts," Ms Higginson said. "That's the real concern." The question of an ex gratia payment was "wholly discretionary territory", Ms Higginson said, which meant the government could, if it was minded to do so, pay Ms Folbigg some compensation before ultimately settling on any final amount. "There are some guidelines ... but it's entirely at the discretion of the government and what we would say is, it's absolutely appropriate that an ex gratia payment of some sort would be the way to provide Kath Folbigg some form of compensation so she can get on with her life," she said. "They could be providing her some compassion, some security, some assurance and some dignity right now and that's why I've come out very strongly on this." Mr Minns, in saying Ms Folbigg had every right to sue the government, was completely tone deaf, Ms Higginson said. "With my lawyer hat on, I find it unfathomable," she said. "It was void of all genuine understanding of the history. He represents the state and thus the system that wrongfully jailed Kathleen Folbigg ... and that had her jailed for 20 years of her life. "It's hard to imagine anything worse than wrongful conviction. The time, the taxation on her being, the cost, to then go and commence a civil case, just tells me that he needs some lessons in the legal system of NSW and he needs to go and undertake some trauma-informed training." Ms Folbigg has refused requests for an interview after coming out on Monday saying she feels as though her life is "still on hold". Ms Folbigg, who lived in Newcastle as a child and went on to live variously in Georgetown, Thornton, Cardiff, and Singleton, was issued an unconditional pardon by NSW Governor Margaret Beazely and released from prison on June 5, 2023. Six months later, on December 14, her convictions were quashed in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Her legal team submitted a claim for an ex gratia payment in July, 2024. Experts have said that Ms Folbigg may receive the state's largest ever compensation payout of up to $10 million, but so far the 58-year-old hasn't seen a cent. It is understood that Ms Folbigg, who is renting in Newcastle, is struggling to manage financially. "Adjusting to 2025 prices has been confronting," Ms Folbigg said. "Even basics like groceries, power bills, and public transport are so much higher than they were in 2003. The world has changed so much while I was away." SERIOUS questions are being asked about the NSW state government's commitment to compensation for wrongly convicted Hunter woman Kathleen Folbigg. NSW Premier Chris Minns has raised the spectre of another legal battle for Ms Folbigg, who was jailed for 20 years for crimes she did not commit. The premier has come under attack over what Ms Folbigg's supporters and legal team say has been an onerous delay in determining her application for an ex gratia payment by way of compensation for the jail term she served after being wrongfully convicted of murdering her four children. Mr Minns said Ms Folbigg was "entitled to take her matter to the courts" and sue the NSW government. Ms Folbigg's life has been consumed by police investigations, court appearances and jail terms since the death of her daughter, Laura, on February 27, 1999, which followed on from the deaths of her first three children. Twenty five years later, during a budget estimates hearing in August, 2024, the Premier conceded there'd been a delay. He said the matter was in the hands of Attorney General Michael Daley, but that he himself would look into the circumstances that "have resulted in a delay" in determining Ms Folbigg's application. In February this year, Mr Daley said it was complicated, but that it would "be weeks, rather than months" before Ms Folbigg would have an answer. "That would be my expectation," Mr Daley said. "This is a complex and in some ways unprecedented matter for me to consider, (with) very important considerations both for Ms Folbigg, for the expenditure of public money and for precedent value that the government's decision at the end of the day in relation to quantum will create," he said. He also referred to her application as voluminous. On Monday this week, Mr Minns publicly refused to meet with Ms Folbigg. "There's a lot of difficult calls for me to make as Premier," he said about his refusal to meet with her. "This isn't one of them." Greens MP and spokesperson for justice, solicitor Sue Higginson, has condemned his comments. On Tuesday she went a step further saying he needs to explain himself given that he seemed to have potentially paved the way for the application's refusal. "Is there some other motivation behind those comments, should we all, including Kathleen, be taking this as a sign that they're not going to be honouring an ex-gratia payment of sorts," Ms Higginson said. "That's the real concern." The question of an ex gratia payment was "wholly discretionary territory", Ms Higginson said, which meant the government could, if it was minded to do so, pay Ms Folbigg some compensation before ultimately settling on any final amount. "There are some guidelines ... but it's entirely at the discretion of the government and what we would say is, it's absolutely appropriate that an ex gratia payment of some sort would be the way to provide Kath Folbigg some form of compensation so she can get on with her life," she said. "They could be providing her some compassion, some security, some assurance and some dignity right now and that's why I've come out very strongly on this." Mr Minns, in saying Ms Folbigg had every right to sue the government, was completely tone deaf, Ms Higginson said. "With my lawyer hat on, I find it unfathomable," she said. "It was void of all genuine understanding of the history. He represents the state and thus the system that wrongfully jailed Kathleen Folbigg ... and that had her jailed for 20 years of her life. "It's hard to imagine anything worse than wrongful conviction. The time, the taxation on her being, the cost, to then go and commence a civil case, just tells me that he needs some lessons in the legal system of NSW and he needs to go and undertake some trauma-informed training." Ms Folbigg has refused requests for an interview after coming out on Monday saying she feels as though her life is "still on hold". Ms Folbigg, who lived in Newcastle as a child and went on to live variously in Georgetown, Thornton, Cardiff, and Singleton, was issued an unconditional pardon by NSW Governor Margaret Beazely and released from prison on June 5, 2023. Six months later, on December 14, her convictions were quashed in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Her legal team submitted a claim for an ex gratia payment in July, 2024. Experts have said that Ms Folbigg may receive the state's largest ever compensation payout of up to $10 million, but so far the 58-year-old hasn't seen a cent. It is understood that Ms Folbigg, who is renting in Newcastle, is struggling to manage financially. "Adjusting to 2025 prices has been confronting," Ms Folbigg said. "Even basics like groceries, power bills, and public transport are so much higher than they were in 2003. The world has changed so much while I was away." SERIOUS questions are being asked about the NSW state government's commitment to compensation for wrongly convicted Hunter woman Kathleen Folbigg. NSW Premier Chris Minns has raised the spectre of another legal battle for Ms Folbigg, who was jailed for 20 years for crimes she did not commit. The premier has come under attack over what Ms Folbigg's supporters and legal team say has been an onerous delay in determining her application for an ex gratia payment by way of compensation for the jail term she served after being wrongfully convicted of murdering her four children. Mr Minns said Ms Folbigg was "entitled to take her matter to the courts" and sue the NSW government. Ms Folbigg's life has been consumed by police investigations, court appearances and jail terms since the death of her daughter, Laura, on February 27, 1999, which followed on from the deaths of her first three children. Twenty five years later, during a budget estimates hearing in August, 2024, the Premier conceded there'd been a delay. He said the matter was in the hands of Attorney General Michael Daley, but that he himself would look into the circumstances that "have resulted in a delay" in determining Ms Folbigg's application. In February this year, Mr Daley said it was complicated, but that it would "be weeks, rather than months" before Ms Folbigg would have an answer. "That would be my expectation," Mr Daley said. "This is a complex and in some ways unprecedented matter for me to consider, (with) very important considerations both for Ms Folbigg, for the expenditure of public money and for precedent value that the government's decision at the end of the day in relation to quantum will create," he said. He also referred to her application as voluminous. On Monday this week, Mr Minns publicly refused to meet with Ms Folbigg. "There's a lot of difficult calls for me to make as Premier," he said about his refusal to meet with her. "This isn't one of them." Greens MP and spokesperson for justice, solicitor Sue Higginson, has condemned his comments. On Tuesday she went a step further saying he needs to explain himself given that he seemed to have potentially paved the way for the application's refusal. "Is there some other motivation behind those comments, should we all, including Kathleen, be taking this as a sign that they're not going to be honouring an ex-gratia payment of sorts," Ms Higginson said. "That's the real concern." The question of an ex gratia payment was "wholly discretionary territory", Ms Higginson said, which meant the government could, if it was minded to do so, pay Ms Folbigg some compensation before ultimately settling on any final amount. "There are some guidelines ... but it's entirely at the discretion of the government and what we would say is, it's absolutely appropriate that an ex gratia payment of some sort would be the way to provide Kath Folbigg some form of compensation so she can get on with her life," she said. "They could be providing her some compassion, some security, some assurance and some dignity right now and that's why I've come out very strongly on this." Mr Minns, in saying Ms Folbigg had every right to sue the government, was completely tone deaf, Ms Higginson said. "With my lawyer hat on, I find it unfathomable," she said. "It was void of all genuine understanding of the history. He represents the state and thus the system that wrongfully jailed Kathleen Folbigg ... and that had her jailed for 20 years of her life. "It's hard to imagine anything worse than wrongful conviction. The time, the taxation on her being, the cost, to then go and commence a civil case, just tells me that he needs some lessons in the legal system of NSW and he needs to go and undertake some trauma-informed training." Ms Folbigg has refused requests for an interview after coming out on Monday saying she feels as though her life is "still on hold". Ms Folbigg, who lived in Newcastle as a child and went on to live variously in Georgetown, Thornton, Cardiff, and Singleton, was issued an unconditional pardon by NSW Governor Margaret Beazely and released from prison on June 5, 2023. Six months later, on December 14, her convictions were quashed in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Her legal team submitted a claim for an ex gratia payment in July, 2024. Experts have said that Ms Folbigg may receive the state's largest ever compensation payout of up to $10 million, but so far the 58-year-old hasn't seen a cent. It is understood that Ms Folbigg, who is renting in Newcastle, is struggling to manage financially. "Adjusting to 2025 prices has been confronting," Ms Folbigg said. "Even basics like groceries, power bills, and public transport are so much higher than they were in 2003. The world has changed so much while I was away."
The Age
13 hours ago
- The Age
What is the controversial definition of antisemitism that institutions are being told to adopt?
Antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal released a plan last week with 49 steps to tackle rising discrimination against Jewish Australians. At the core of the report is a definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which has become a lightning rod for criticism. Segal's recommendation to embed the alliance's definition in all public institutions last week came after a host of antisemitic attacks across Australia this year, including the doors of the East Melbourne synagogue being set alight earlier this month, and children at Jewish schools in Sydney being harassed with calls of 'Heil Hitler'. However, pro-Palestinian and some human rights organisations fear the definition may stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and its government by tying antisemitism to anti-Zionism, limiting the free speech. So what is the definition? How widely used is it? And why has it become controversial? What is the IHRA, and its definition of antisemitism? The alliance was established by the Stockholm International Forum, a series of conferences held between 2000 and 2004, and convened by then-Swedish prime minister Göran Persson. The conferences were held to combat 'the growth of extreme right-wing groups' that were spreading propaganda in schools, and to address a survey of Swedish young people that found knowledge of the Holocaust 'was deficient and that a large number of teenagers were not even certain that it had taken place', according to the Swedish government. There are now 35 member states of IHRA, including Australia, Israel, the UK and the US, all of which adopted a 'non-legally binding working definition' of antisemitism in May 2016. The definition adopted by the alliance states:
Sydney Morning Herald
13 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
What is the controversial definition of antisemitism that institutions are being told to adopt?
Antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal released a plan last week with 49 steps to tackle rising discrimination against Jewish Australians. At the core of the report is a definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which has become a lightning rod for criticism. Segal's recommendation to embed the alliance's definition in all public institutions last week came after a host of antisemitic attacks across Australia this year, including the doors of the East Melbourne synagogue being set alight earlier this month, and children at Jewish schools in Sydney being harassed with calls of 'Heil Hitler'. However, pro-Palestinian and some human rights organisations fear the definition may stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and its government by tying antisemitism to anti-Zionism, limiting the free speech. So what is the definition? How widely used is it? And why has it become controversial? What is the IHRA, and its definition of antisemitism? The alliance was established by the Stockholm International Forum, a series of conferences held between 2000 and 2004, and convened by then-Swedish prime minister Göran Persson. The conferences were held to combat 'the growth of extreme right-wing groups' that were spreading propaganda in schools, and to address a survey of Swedish young people that found knowledge of the Holocaust 'was deficient and that a large number of teenagers were not even certain that it had taken place', according to the Swedish government. There are now 35 member states of IHRA, including Australia, Israel, the UK and the US, all of which adopted a 'non-legally binding working definition' of antisemitism in May 2016. The definition adopted by the alliance states:
