Australia opens resettlement to Tuvalu citizens
Citizens of the climate change-threatened Polynesian nation are being encouraged to apply to move to Australia by the High Commission in Funafuti.
The migration pathway will allow 280 applicants - who will be selected at random, rather than on the basis of skills or other criteria - through an online ballot, to move to Australia.
Tuvalu is a clutch of reef islands and atolls roughly halfway between Brisbane and Hawaii and home to just over 10,000 people.
It is the world's most at-risk nation to sea level rise, with a highest point of under five metres.
Fears of being subsided by sea prompted the discussion of the immigration pathway between Australia and Tuvalu.
"The opening of the Falepili Mobility Pathway marks a significant moment for our elevated partnership and demonstrates Australia's ongoing commitment to the government and people of Tuvalu," Australian High Commissioner to Tuvalu David Charlton said.
Given the small population, it is possible that all citizens could use the pathway to relocate in Australia by mid-century, however Prime Minister Feleti Teo said he believed most would stay, and others would return.
"The Falepili Mobility Pathway is not just a one-way traffic," he said.
"Tuvalu stands to benefit greatly from those that return to Tuvalu after exposure to work, study and life in Australia."
Applications open on Monday June 16, and will remain open until Monday July 18.
Ballot winners will be afforded rights to work or study as permanent residents, with access to benefits like Medicare.
It is expected to be popular among locals, given opportunities for higher-paid work in Australia.
Announced in late 2023, the Falepili Union is a multi-faceted pact with the climate change-threatened Polynesian nation which positions Australia as Tuvalu's primary security partner.
In exchange, Australia has promised Tuvalu assistance in response to disasters, development assistance, and the migration pathway.
The treaty - named after a Tuvaluan word meaning good neighbour - has been criticised as neo-colonialist, given Australia's influence over Tuvalu's sovereignty and absorption of citizens.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
37 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Trade is a great peacemaker. Why should we go near another US-led folly?
Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost.
The Advertiser
41 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Wong slams Israel's "unjustified" visa repeal move
Foreign Minister Penny Wong says Israel's decision to revoke the visas of Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority is "unjustified". On Monday, Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said the visas of Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority have been revoked over the nation's recognition of a Palestinian state and for refusing entry to Israeli figures. He has also instructed the Israeli Embassy in Canberra to carefully examine any official Australian visa application for entry into Israel. Senator Wong said the federal government had a right to safeguard communities and protect "all Australians from hate and harm". "At a time when dialogue and diplomacy are needed more than ever, the Netanyahu government is isolating Israel and undermining international efforts towards peace and a two-state solution," Senator Wong said in an early morning statement on Tuesday. "This is an unjustified reaction, following Australia's decision to recognise Palestine." She said Australia will continue to work with partners to contribute to "international momentum to a two-state solution, a ceasefire in Gaza and release of the hostages". "Australia welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace," she said. The Australian government will always take decisive action against anti-semitism, she said. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed Australia's intention to recognise Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September. An estimated 25,000 people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge to protest the war in Gaza at the start of the month. Mr Sa'ar expressed his anger on social media on Monday as he announced the visa cancellations. "This follows Australia's decisions to recognise a "Palestinian state" and against the backdrop of Australia's unjustified refusal to grant visas to a number of Israeli figures, including former Minister Ayelet Shaked and the Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, MK Simcha Rothman," Mr Sa'ar posted on social media platform X on Monday. "While anti-Semitism is raging in Australia, including manifestations of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions, the Australian government is choosing to fuel it by false accusations, as if the visit of Israeli figures will disrupt public order and harm Australia's Muslim population. It is shameful and unacceptable!" Mr Sa'ar's post comes after it was revealed on Monday that Australia denied far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman from entering the country for a speaking tour after provocative comments, including branding children in Gaza as enemies. Australia has also denied entry to former Israeli minister Ayelet Shaked, based on anti-Palestinian comments, and Israeli advocate Hillel Fuld. Canberra has further sanctioned two far-right Israeli ministers, including travel bans. The federal government has denied entry to people who have a history of anti-Semitism, including rapper Kanye West, after he released a song praising Hitler. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636 Foreign Minister Penny Wong says Israel's decision to revoke the visas of Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority is "unjustified". On Monday, Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said the visas of Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority have been revoked over the nation's recognition of a Palestinian state and for refusing entry to Israeli figures. He has also instructed the Israeli Embassy in Canberra to carefully examine any official Australian visa application for entry into Israel. Senator Wong said the federal government had a right to safeguard communities and protect "all Australians from hate and harm". "At a time when dialogue and diplomacy are needed more than ever, the Netanyahu government is isolating Israel and undermining international efforts towards peace and a two-state solution," Senator Wong said in an early morning statement on Tuesday. "This is an unjustified reaction, following Australia's decision to recognise Palestine." She said Australia will continue to work with partners to contribute to "international momentum to a two-state solution, a ceasefire in Gaza and release of the hostages". "Australia welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace," she said. The Australian government will always take decisive action against anti-semitism, she said. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed Australia's intention to recognise Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September. An estimated 25,000 people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge to protest the war in Gaza at the start of the month. Mr Sa'ar expressed his anger on social media on Monday as he announced the visa cancellations. "This follows Australia's decisions to recognise a "Palestinian state" and against the backdrop of Australia's unjustified refusal to grant visas to a number of Israeli figures, including former Minister Ayelet Shaked and the Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, MK Simcha Rothman," Mr Sa'ar posted on social media platform X on Monday. "While anti-Semitism is raging in Australia, including manifestations of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions, the Australian government is choosing to fuel it by false accusations, as if the visit of Israeli figures will disrupt public order and harm Australia's Muslim population. It is shameful and unacceptable!" Mr Sa'ar's post comes after it was revealed on Monday that Australia denied far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman from entering the country for a speaking tour after provocative comments, including branding children in Gaza as enemies. Australia has also denied entry to former Israeli minister Ayelet Shaked, based on anti-Palestinian comments, and Israeli advocate Hillel Fuld. Canberra has further sanctioned two far-right Israeli ministers, including travel bans. The federal government has denied entry to people who have a history of anti-Semitism, including rapper Kanye West, after he released a song praising Hitler. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636 Foreign Minister Penny Wong says Israel's decision to revoke the visas of Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority is "unjustified". On Monday, Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said the visas of Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority have been revoked over the nation's recognition of a Palestinian state and for refusing entry to Israeli figures. He has also instructed the Israeli Embassy in Canberra to carefully examine any official Australian visa application for entry into Israel. Senator Wong said the federal government had a right to safeguard communities and protect "all Australians from hate and harm". "At a time when dialogue and diplomacy are needed more than ever, the Netanyahu government is isolating Israel and undermining international efforts towards peace and a two-state solution," Senator Wong said in an early morning statement on Tuesday. "This is an unjustified reaction, following Australia's decision to recognise Palestine." She said Australia will continue to work with partners to contribute to "international momentum to a two-state solution, a ceasefire in Gaza and release of the hostages". "Australia welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace," she said. The Australian government will always take decisive action against anti-semitism, she said. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed Australia's intention to recognise Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September. An estimated 25,000 people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge to protest the war in Gaza at the start of the month. Mr Sa'ar expressed his anger on social media on Monday as he announced the visa cancellations. "This follows Australia's decisions to recognise a "Palestinian state" and against the backdrop of Australia's unjustified refusal to grant visas to a number of Israeli figures, including former Minister Ayelet Shaked and the Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, MK Simcha Rothman," Mr Sa'ar posted on social media platform X on Monday. "While anti-Semitism is raging in Australia, including manifestations of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions, the Australian government is choosing to fuel it by false accusations, as if the visit of Israeli figures will disrupt public order and harm Australia's Muslim population. It is shameful and unacceptable!" Mr Sa'ar's post comes after it was revealed on Monday that Australia denied far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman from entering the country for a speaking tour after provocative comments, including branding children in Gaza as enemies. Australia has also denied entry to former Israeli minister Ayelet Shaked, based on anti-Palestinian comments, and Israeli advocate Hillel Fuld. Canberra has further sanctioned two far-right Israeli ministers, including travel bans. The federal government has denied entry to people who have a history of anti-Semitism, including rapper Kanye West, after he released a song praising Hitler. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636 Foreign Minister Penny Wong says Israel's decision to revoke the visas of Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority is "unjustified". On Monday, Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said the visas of Australia's representatives to the Palestinian Authority have been revoked over the nation's recognition of a Palestinian state and for refusing entry to Israeli figures. He has also instructed the Israeli Embassy in Canberra to carefully examine any official Australian visa application for entry into Israel. Senator Wong said the federal government had a right to safeguard communities and protect "all Australians from hate and harm". "At a time when dialogue and diplomacy are needed more than ever, the Netanyahu government is isolating Israel and undermining international efforts towards peace and a two-state solution," Senator Wong said in an early morning statement on Tuesday. "This is an unjustified reaction, following Australia's decision to recognise Palestine." She said Australia will continue to work with partners to contribute to "international momentum to a two-state solution, a ceasefire in Gaza and release of the hostages". "Australia welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace," she said. The Australian government will always take decisive action against anti-semitism, she said. Earlier this month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed Australia's intention to recognise Palestinian statehood at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in September. An estimated 25,000 people marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge to protest the war in Gaza at the start of the month. Mr Sa'ar expressed his anger on social media on Monday as he announced the visa cancellations. "This follows Australia's decisions to recognise a "Palestinian state" and against the backdrop of Australia's unjustified refusal to grant visas to a number of Israeli figures, including former Minister Ayelet Shaked and the Chairman of the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, MK Simcha Rothman," Mr Sa'ar posted on social media platform X on Monday. "While anti-Semitism is raging in Australia, including manifestations of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions, the Australian government is choosing to fuel it by false accusations, as if the visit of Israeli figures will disrupt public order and harm Australia's Muslim population. It is shameful and unacceptable!" Mr Sa'ar's post comes after it was revealed on Monday that Australia denied far-right Israeli politician Simcha Rothman from entering the country for a speaking tour after provocative comments, including branding children in Gaza as enemies. Australia has also denied entry to former Israeli minister Ayelet Shaked, based on anti-Palestinian comments, and Israeli advocate Hillel Fuld. Canberra has further sanctioned two far-right Israeli ministers, including travel bans. The federal government has denied entry to people who have a history of anti-Semitism, including rapper Kanye West, after he released a song praising Hitler. Lifeline 13 11 14 beyondblue 1300 22 4636
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
What about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax breaks?
If we want true tax reform we need to start with changes for the lowest balances, not the highest. After the Albanese government's landslide return to government all eyes have been on tax reform and in particular, a proposal to trim tax concessions for the 80,000 Australians with balances over $3 million. In the frenzied debate over the changes to tax concessions for this small group, commentators, news outlets and politicians continue to make noise over what is 'fair'. At the same time, we keep hearing calls for more ambitious tax reform policy that achieves two aims – to help the economy recover and, again, to strike a balance that's fair. So while everyone focuses on the super balances of 80,000 Australians with a handsome $3 million nest egg, what we should be asking is: what about the 1.2 million Australians who receive no super tax concessions whatsoever? Loading Is it fair that the majority of those 1.2 million Australians who miss out on tax concessions are women earning between $37,000 and $45,000? Including aged care workers, childcare workers, apprentices and women working part-time while caring for family. Is it fair that this group pay more in tax on their super than their take-home pay? Is it fair that we provide little to no tax concessions to those who typically have the lowest levels of retirement savings? And that the majority of tax concessions are skewed in favour of men despite the fact that many Australian women retire in abject poverty?
