‘Owes me': Former Labor senator's message to Anthony Albanese
Fatima Payman quit the Labor Party in July 2024 following heavy criticism over her decision to cross the floor and support a Greens motion for Palestinian recognition.
Anthony Albanese on Monday made the landmark announcement that Australia would join with other western allies in recognising Palestine at next month's United Nations meeting.
It came amid the ongoing war in Gaza and growing global outrage about the conditions faced by civilians in the besieged occupied territory.
Ms Payman shared a video on her social media pages celebrating being 'on the right side of history', which drew one critic to ask if she would apologise to the Prime Minister.
'So will (you) now apologise to Albo and beg to be allowed back in the party?' they asked.
She responded: 'why would I do that lol?'.
'I stuck by the Labor Party Platform and did right by the members. He owes me an apology.'
Ms Payman, who started the Australia's Voice Party, also released a statement saying she was 'thrilled' and that she was 'sanguine' about her treatment by Labor in 2024.
She was at the time slammed by then-government colleagues who believed the disagreement over Labor's stance should have been handled internally.
'Having to cross the floor to vote for such an important issue and then having to endure the resulting fallout from Labor and some in the community was one of the most stressful moments of my life,' Ms Payman said in her statement this week.
'But it is terrific to know that Labor has finally caught up and that my move has been vindicated.'
In making the landmark announcement, Mr Albanese said he had told Mr Netanyahu directly that 'the situation in Gaza has gone beyond the world's worst fears'.
'Today I can confirm that at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in September, Australia will recognise the state of Palestine,'' he said.
'Australia will recognise the right of the Palestinian people to a state of their own predicated on the commitments Australia has received from the Palestinian Authority.
'We will work with the international community to make this right a reality. Australia is making this statement today following our Cabinet meeting. As part of a co-ordinated global effort, building momentum for a two-state solution.'
Mr Netanyahu had decried reports Australia was primed to recognise Palestine as a state as 'shameful' and Israel's ambassador in Canberra said it was 'rewarding' terrorism.
'By recognising a Palestinian state while Hamas continues to kill, kidnap and reject peace, Australia undermines Israel's security, derails hostage negotiations and hands a victory to those who oppose coexistence,' he said.
'By recognising a Palestinian state now, Australia elevates the position of Hamas, a group it acknowledges as a terrorist organisation, while weakening the cause of those working to end violence and achieve genuine, lasting peace.'
Mr Albanese hit back on Tuesday by saying people were 'sick' of seeing the devastation in Gaza. He also accused Israeli officials of being 'in denial' about the humanitarian crisis.
'What it (recognition) does is send a message that the international community is saying enough is enough,' he said on Sunris e.
'This is a conflict that has gone on now for 77 years.
'You can't just keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome.
'This is the best opportunity that there is out of a crisis to actually provide a long-term solution.'
The opposition has pledged to revoke the recognition if elected in three years' time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
37 minutes ago
- ABC News
What the PM thinks about a four day work week
Are you keen for a four-day work week to become the new normal? That's the pitch from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, who want it firmly on the table at next week's National Economic Reform Roundtable. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are at pains to stress they're perfectly aligned on the summit's goals - but are they really seeing eye to eye? Patricia Karvelas and Raf Epstein break it all down on Politics Now. Got a burning question? Got a burning political query? Send a short voice recording to PK and Fran for Question Time at thepartyroom@
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Productivity has been a prickly issue for Australia for more than a century
On August 19, a group of advocates and experts will converge on Canberra for an economic roundtable. "Productivity," announced Treasurer Jim Chalmers, is to be the event's "primary focus". What does this mean? The term "productivity" can intimidate the outsider, but its basic meaning is simple: the effectiveness of productive effort — the extent to which inputs lead to outputs. Greater productivity means we produce more with less. Rising productivity has been crucial to expanding living standards over time. How we might increase productivity is more contentious. As the lobbying before the roundtable demonstrates, there is no firm agreement on the best measures to adopt. Business leaders have suggested reduced regulation and lower tax. Unions have promoted a renovation of the tax system, that might direct investment away from housing and towards other outlets, more likely to enhance efficiency. University vice-chancellors have suggested greater education; Scott Farquhar of software company Atlassian has promoted the potential of artificial intelligence. Though Chalmers has solicited fresh ideas, none suggest new or striking departures. In this context, an historical perspective might offer some insights. Reaching back into the early 20th century, 100 years ago, shows us that government-led debates on "productivity" are not new. It also discloses policy proposals that might raise new questions and new possibilities for government and society. As detailed in my forthcoming book, A Fair Day's Work: The Quest to Win Back Time, "productivity" was also on the minds of the world's statesmen a century ago. As the first world war was fought with terrible intensity, the battle for martial supremacy went from battlefront to home front. Antagonists quickly recognised that victory rested not just on the size of armies, but also on the capacity to produce armaments. In an effort to gain predominance, rivals expanded factories and pushed workers into longer shifts. They commissioned experts in engineering, medicine and the developing social sciences to monitor results and propose reforms. Those studies, undertaken by researchers in the United States, United Kingdom and continental Europe, also made their way to Australia. Longer hours, it was found, reduced productivity. Reduced hours lessened absenteeism and accidents. A shorter working day promoted employee satisfaction and health. It reduced both overt industrial conflict and covert resistance to employer requests. It encouraged cooperation between employees and management. It heightened productivity. In the war's aftermath, workers drew on this research to justify their quest for a shorter working day. Australia was in the vanguard. Just as Australian employees were among the first to win an eight-hour day, from the mid-19th century (which was initially a 48-hour week, worked over six days), they were also at the front of the pack in the achievement of a 44- and a 40-hour week. The reduction of the working week was widely considered a means of heightening productivity. It was also regarded as a means of securing social justice. These dual principles were most famously expressed in a notable case brought before the Commonwealth Court of Arbitration in 1920. Justice H.B. Higgins was required to decide on the claims of timber workers to reduce their standard working hours to 44 per week. In granting their claim, Higgins explained his reasoning. Not only did he draw on international studies that emphasised the link between productivity and hours, he also enunciated a more general principle or idea. Changes to work, and the introduction of new technologies, imposed new burdens on employees, Higgins emphasised. For timber workers, they made work less autonomous and less creative, more repetitive and more fatiguing. Yet despite these difficulties, he noted, employees had not resisted the imposition of new technology. As a consequence, employers had enjoyed greater output and often higher profits. Higgins suggested that the one-sidedness of this exchange created the pressure for some compensatory reward for employees, asking "are they to get no direct advantage from the introduction of labour-saving devices?" Though Higgins's judgement was delivered more than 100 years ago, the principles remain worthy of consideration. In a world where artificial intelligence promises enormous advances in productivity, though also great threats, the interests of employees — and the recompense of reduced time at work — should be central to any collective conversation. This would enhance social acceptance of change. Since the late 1990s, increases in productivity have flagged. But can this be surprising, as employees have increasingly been asked to work longer hours, often unpaid. Research from the Australia Institute suggests that in 2024, full-time employees in Australia worked on average 4.1 hours of unpaid overtime every week. They are also enduring longer commutes, and are drained by the burden of caring for children and increasingly for elderly parents. Australian women — who carry an outsized share of the domestic burden — are especially at the risk of exhaustion. Extended working days have long been associated with declining productivity. Might not reduced hours again offer some corrective? As a succession of international trials demonstrate the practical possibilities of a four-day week, it is somewhat dispiriting that a Labor government has not yet sought to test the matter with its own experiments. The 2023 Senate Inquiry into Work and Care proposed that the Australian government trial a four-day week. ACTU President Michele O'Neil publicly supported the plan. But the government's formal response merely "noted" this recommendation. It has initiated no further action. Attention to working time might help to deliver heightened productivity. It is certainly in harmony with the reforming traditions of Australian social democracy. Sean Scalmer is an associate professor at The University of Melbourne's School of Historical and Philosophical Studies. This piece first appeared on The Conversation.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Kiwi MP booted from parliament over Palestine speech
New Zealand Greens co-leader Chloe Swarbrick has been booted out of parliament for a fiery speech in which she suggested the government was 'spineless' for refusing to sanction Israel. Anthony Albanese announced on Monday that Australia would recognise a Palestinian state but his Kiwi counterpart, Christopher Luxon, has been more hesitant on the issue. On Tuesday Mr Luxon, who recently hosted a visit from the Aussie PM, announced New Zealand would make a decision on whether to recognise Palestine as a state next month. That afternoon in an urgent debate, Ms Swarbrick, who is in opposition, urged government MPs to back her private member's bill allowing New Zealand to apply sanctions on Israel. 'My question for this place is what the hell is the point of our jobs?' she said. ' … I will reiterate my call for the government to pick up our unlawful occupation of Palestine sanctions bill and to sanction Israel for its war crimes. 'If we find six of 68 government MPs with a spine we can stand on the right side of history.' Speaker Gerry Brownlee took exception to that last comment, telling Ms Swarbrick it was 'completely unacceptable to make that statement – withdraw it and apologise'. 'No,' she replied. 'Then leave the house for the rest of the week,' Mr Brownlee said. 'Happily,' said Ms Swarbrick, who along with her Greens colleagues was wearing a Middle Eastern keffiyeh around her neck. Mr Brownlee later explained Ms Swarbrick would be allowed back into parliament on Wednesday if she agreed to withdraw her statement and apologise. Emotions ran high during Tuesday's debate and Ms Swarbrick was not the only MP to attract the ire of Mr Brownlee. The speaker also demanded that ACT MP Simon Curry – part of the coalition government – apologise after he accused Ms Swarbrick of 'hallucinating outrage'. No National MPs spoke during the debate but Mr Curry said in his speech that recognition of a Palestinian state must be conditional on all Israeli hostages being returned and Hamas being removed from power. Speaking to reporters outside parliament after she was ejected, Ms Swarbrick said the speaker had been heavy-handed. 'As far as the robust rebate goes in that place, I think that was pretty mild in the context of the war crimes that are currently unfolding,' she said. 'What the hell is the point of everything that we do if the people if the people in my place, in my job don't do their job? 'If we allow other human beings to be just mercilessly slaughtered, to be shot while waiting for food aid, what hope is there for humanity?' ACT leader and deputy prime minister, David Seymour, had earlier criticised Ms Swarbrick's decision to display a keffiyeh in parliament. 'I invite you to consider what this house might look like if everybody who had an interest in a global conflict started adorning their seats with symbols of one side or another of a conflict,' he said.
