Mevlut Coskun says he is ‘not guilty' as Bali investigators reconstruct scene of Australian father's alleged murder
Mevlut Coskun, 22, and his two co-accused were taken by heavily-armed police on a dramatic re-construction tour of the Munggu villa where Melbourne man Zivan Radmanovic, 32, and his friend Sanar Ghanim, 34, were shot in mid-June.
WATCH THE VIDEO ABOVE: One of three men suspected of murdering Australian father says he is innocent.
Radmanovic died, while Ghanim was seriously injured but survived.
Speaking to media for the first time since the 'Bali 3' were arrested and dragged back to the holiday island, Coskun told 7NEWS he was 'not guilty' and said 'yes' when asked by 7NEWS if he would fight criminal charges, should they be laid.
He also claimed the conditions he was facing in prison are 'terrible'.
Bali's police chief, Daniel Adityajaya, previously alleged Melbourne men Coskun, 22, and Paea-I-Middlemore, 26 carried out the killing.
Sydney man Darcy Francesco Jenson, 27, is alleged to have helped plan and facilitate the murder, including by providing getaway cars.
During the reconstruction on Wednesday, the trio were dressed in the disguises they allegedly wore on the night of the shooting, along with balaclavas and leg chains.
This phase of major investigations in Indonesia often indicates formal charges will be laid soon.
Two guns suspected of being used in the alleged murder of the father-of-six have been recovered, according to authorities.
It is understood police will complete their official investigation soon and then hand the case over to prosecutors and the courts.
If found guilty of pre-mediated murder the Australian men could receive the death penalty and face a firing squad execution.
Radmanovic's wife said last month that he was 'loving' and the 'best dad in the world'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
7NEWS
15 minutes ago
- 7NEWS
Former Big Brother voice and host Mike Goldman and family narrowly escape devastating house fire in Brisbane
Former Big Brother Australia voice and host Mike Goldman and his family have narrowly escaped a house fire in the early hours of Friday morning. Emergency services were called to the two-storey home on Wordsworth St in Bulimba, Brisbane, just after 4am, where they battled the blaze for two hours. Goldman, who has lived at the property for 25 years, told 7NEWS he was woken by smoke alarms. 'We all woke up from the smoke alarm, just ran outside,' he said. Goldman's wife, Bianca, and one-year-old son Jagger also made it out safely, thanks to the early warning from the home's smoke alarms. 'Luckily our son was in bed with us and as you can see, his room's gone up,' he said. 'I'm just so glad we woke up when we did and my son wasn't asleep in the front room.' Goldman recounted re-entering the burning house, frantically trying to save the family dog, Mr Big. 'Ran back in to save the dog and then the fire brigade showed up and put it out basically,' he said. 'I burnt my hair though, get a bit of a singe on the front. 'He used to be white, now he's very grey. 'I bought this place about 25 years ago and I have a lot of memories here ... hopefully we can save it.' The fire is believed to have started near the garage or fuse box, though investigations are ongoing. 'It was raging downstairs when the fire alarm woke us up ... it didn't actually go upstairs. 'I think it was sort of self-contained in like the laundry garage, whatever's in the walls saved the rest of the house. 'But that's where, you know, we kept a lot of old family albums and stuff like that. 'My wife lost all the, you know, school photos and all that kind of stuff, but, you know, luckily we're alive and we're OK.' Goldman said his family would be staying with his parents while the extent of the damage is assessed. Cannon Hill Fire Station Officer Mark Dutton said specialist fire investigators would work to determine what sparked the blaze.
Perth Now
15 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Privacy commissioner sues Optus over data breach
Optus seriously interfered with the privacy of about 9.5 million Australians in failing to protect their data, and could face hefty fines for each breach in new court action. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has filed Federal Court proceedings against the telco for the September 2022 cyber attack, which resulted customers' private data - including home addresses, birth dates, phone numbers and email addresses - finding its way to the dark web. Optus failed to take reasonable steps to protect users' data, breaching the telco's obligations under the Privacy Act, chief commissioner Elizabeth Tydd said. "Organisations hold personal information within legal requirements and based upon trust," she said. "The Australian community should have confidence that organisations will act accordingly, and if they don't the OAIC as regulator will act to secure those rights." The action comes after the organisation's investigation following the attack. Optus said it would review and consider the matters raised in the proceedings and would respond to the OAIC's claims in due course. "Optus apologises again to our customers and the broader community that the 2022 cyber-attack occurred," a spokesman said in a statement. "We strive every day to protect our customers' information and have been working hard to minimise any impact the cyber attack may have had." The Federal Court can impose a civil penalty of up to $2.22 million for each contravention of the Act, and the OAIC is alleging one breach for each of the approximately 9.5 million individuals impacted. Imposing the maximum penalty for all victims would be impossible, since Optus' Singapore-listed owner Singtel has a total market value of about $101.5 billion. The breach highlighted some of the risks associated with external-facing websites, particularly when they interacted with internal databases holding personal information, Australian Privacy Commissioner Carly Kind said. "All organisations holding personal information need to ensure they have strong data governance and security practices," she said. "These need to be both thorough and embedded, to guard against vulnerabilities that threat actors will be ready to exploit."
The Advertiser
31 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
From pocket knives to Instagram, a ban just isn't the answer
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The blade was stuck in my knee. There was no pain at first. Just fear and shock. I'd been given a pocket knife for my 12th birthday and while hurling it about, testing its heft in a menacing fashion, it came loose in my hand, burying itself in my right kneecap. I yanked it free and limped home, leaving a trail of blood on the footpath. The backyard hose cleaned the wound. Bandages and a pair of long pants hid the injury. Fearing my prized knife would be confiscated, I never told a soul. Yet the scar remains half a century later, testament to the carefree risks and vulnerabilities of childhood. Bloody kids. Always putting themselves in danger. Our driving instinct is to protect them, which is why we no longer give children pocket knives or let them bounce on rusty trampolines above gravel driveways. These days their injuries aren't always so visible. They're inflicted by notifications and comment threads. Social media, we are warned, is the latest danger zone. So we're banning it. From December Australian law will prohibit children 16 and under from using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The instinct is understandable. The online world at its worst is cruel and addictive. But at its best it is inclusive, educational and even aspirational, which is why this legislation ranks among the most arbitrary, knee-jerk and hypocritical laws conceived by a government in a long time. We don't teach children water safety by banning them from the swimming pool. We give them lessons. We don't teach road safety by taking away their bikes. We hand them helmets and show them how to navigate streets and obey traffic rules. We educate them as best we can while accepting that learning is a gradual, messy and sometimes painful experience. Social media is no longer just a de facto town square. It's a digital playground, meeting place and classroom. It's where friendships are built and maintained and creativity and identity are explored. It also has its dark places where trolls, bullies and predators lurk, preying on adolescent anxieties. In other words, it's not so different from the real world. Removing young people's access to social media will not blunt their desire for connection or self-expression. Many will find a way around it. We're already seeing a rise in the use of VPNs - Virtual Private Networks - that mask your internet address. Even the government has admitted its move is "messy". Uncertainty surrounds the law's enforcement, with age-verification technologies like facial recognition and ID-uploading systems mired in privacy concerns. "Social media companies have a social responsibility," said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Of course they do. Just like the gambling and alcohol industries, whose socially damaging products we continue to excuse by allowing them to air advertisements with lip-service warnings spoken at an incomprehensibly fast rate. But doesn't society carry the greatest responsibility when it comes to childhood safety? By banning young people from social media we're denying them opportunities to learn how to cope with a world they will have to soon confront anyway. Instead of treating them like passive victims of nasty, all-knowing algorithms, why not equip them with the skills to detect misinformation and abuse? A forward-thinking society should treat living in the digital world as seriously as it does maths and English. Classes devoted to privacy, artificial intelligence, self-esteem and online civility should be mandatory in the national curriculum. Courses should involve parents. Even the tech companies, now profiteering off young people's eyeballs while enjoying minimal transparency, could be made to participate and engage with students. The answer isn't prohibition. It rarely is. The answer is education. It's about teaching our children the difference between friends and followers, between reality and superficiality. Kids don't need less access to social media. They need greater access to adults willing to show them how to use it safely, just like most things in our increasingly complicated world. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should under-16s be banned from social media or should we better educate children on how to use it? Have you experienced the negative side of social media or do you believe it has brought us closer? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Police have announced a $1 million reward for information as they hunt for the criminals behind the alleged gangland murder of Robert Issa in 2023. - Australia has pledged an extra $20 million in humanitarian aid for women and children in war-torn Gaza after more than 100,000 people turned out in protest across the country to protest the suffering in the besieged enclave. - A parrot on the brink of extinction could thwart plans for an open-cut coal mine expansion after records of the bird were discovered to be missing from the key database of species sightings. THEY SAID IT: "Social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities." - Narendra Modi. YOU SAID IT: Steve wrote about the entitlement of the rich and some of the appalling behaviour their wealth enables. Deidre wrote: "Powerful stories in your newsletter and your perspective that the entitlement of the rich costs the rest of us, is so true. You wrote - Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? It seems to me that the Australian "fair go" idea is just a handy myth for wealthy to perpetuate. Sadly, I don't see a fair go at play in the latest Close the Gap results." Susan says we tend to be more lenient to the self-made billionaires: "Their offspring, the nepo babies, are the ones being parachuted into serious wealth. Usually with little talent because it doesn't work like that. Have any of the subsequent Rockefellers done anything useful?" Adam wrote about his brother "who ruthlessly chased the almighty dollar in years past. He once told me that he believed in the old saying that 'he who dies with the most toys, wins'. I pointed out to him that he who dies with the most toys is dead, and those that are left get to fight over those toys. We all finish up in the same place one day, so accruing wealth, possessions, and a sense of entitlement will make no difference to our ultimate fate." Arthur looked to the past for a warning: "History reveals we are heading for disaster if we continue to fail to address the problem of the rich becoming richer while the poor become poorer. The best example is the French Revolution. We have been warned." What we do with our money was a question of choice for Jan: "Two good teacher incomes and our choice was to buy land and build a holiday house. Contemporaries chose overseas trips. They are left with a diary, photos and memories. We are left with real estate that has increased in value. Both are valuable and both came about by choice." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The blade was stuck in my knee. There was no pain at first. Just fear and shock. I'd been given a pocket knife for my 12th birthday and while hurling it about, testing its heft in a menacing fashion, it came loose in my hand, burying itself in my right kneecap. I yanked it free and limped home, leaving a trail of blood on the footpath. The backyard hose cleaned the wound. Bandages and a pair of long pants hid the injury. Fearing my prized knife would be confiscated, I never told a soul. Yet the scar remains half a century later, testament to the carefree risks and vulnerabilities of childhood. Bloody kids. Always putting themselves in danger. Our driving instinct is to protect them, which is why we no longer give children pocket knives or let them bounce on rusty trampolines above gravel driveways. These days their injuries aren't always so visible. They're inflicted by notifications and comment threads. Social media, we are warned, is the latest danger zone. So we're banning it. From December Australian law will prohibit children 16 and under from using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The instinct is understandable. The online world at its worst is cruel and addictive. But at its best it is inclusive, educational and even aspirational, which is why this legislation ranks among the most arbitrary, knee-jerk and hypocritical laws conceived by a government in a long time. We don't teach children water safety by banning them from the swimming pool. We give them lessons. We don't teach road safety by taking away their bikes. We hand them helmets and show them how to navigate streets and obey traffic rules. We educate them as best we can while accepting that learning is a gradual, messy and sometimes painful experience. Social media is no longer just a de facto town square. It's a digital playground, meeting place and classroom. It's where friendships are built and maintained and creativity and identity are explored. It also has its dark places where trolls, bullies and predators lurk, preying on adolescent anxieties. In other words, it's not so different from the real world. Removing young people's access to social media will not blunt their desire for connection or self-expression. Many will find a way around it. We're already seeing a rise in the use of VPNs - Virtual Private Networks - that mask your internet address. Even the government has admitted its move is "messy". Uncertainty surrounds the law's enforcement, with age-verification technologies like facial recognition and ID-uploading systems mired in privacy concerns. "Social media companies have a social responsibility," said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Of course they do. Just like the gambling and alcohol industries, whose socially damaging products we continue to excuse by allowing them to air advertisements with lip-service warnings spoken at an incomprehensibly fast rate. But doesn't society carry the greatest responsibility when it comes to childhood safety? By banning young people from social media we're denying them opportunities to learn how to cope with a world they will have to soon confront anyway. Instead of treating them like passive victims of nasty, all-knowing algorithms, why not equip them with the skills to detect misinformation and abuse? A forward-thinking society should treat living in the digital world as seriously as it does maths and English. Classes devoted to privacy, artificial intelligence, self-esteem and online civility should be mandatory in the national curriculum. Courses should involve parents. Even the tech companies, now profiteering off young people's eyeballs while enjoying minimal transparency, could be made to participate and engage with students. The answer isn't prohibition. It rarely is. The answer is education. It's about teaching our children the difference between friends and followers, between reality and superficiality. Kids don't need less access to social media. They need greater access to adults willing to show them how to use it safely, just like most things in our increasingly complicated world. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should under-16s be banned from social media or should we better educate children on how to use it? Have you experienced the negative side of social media or do you believe it has brought us closer? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Police have announced a $1 million reward for information as they hunt for the criminals behind the alleged gangland murder of Robert Issa in 2023. - Australia has pledged an extra $20 million in humanitarian aid for women and children in war-torn Gaza after more than 100,000 people turned out in protest across the country to protest the suffering in the besieged enclave. - A parrot on the brink of extinction could thwart plans for an open-cut coal mine expansion after records of the bird were discovered to be missing from the key database of species sightings. THEY SAID IT: "Social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities." - Narendra Modi. YOU SAID IT: Steve wrote about the entitlement of the rich and some of the appalling behaviour their wealth enables. Deidre wrote: "Powerful stories in your newsletter and your perspective that the entitlement of the rich costs the rest of us, is so true. You wrote - Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? It seems to me that the Australian "fair go" idea is just a handy myth for wealthy to perpetuate. Sadly, I don't see a fair go at play in the latest Close the Gap results." Susan says we tend to be more lenient to the self-made billionaires: "Their offspring, the nepo babies, are the ones being parachuted into serious wealth. Usually with little talent because it doesn't work like that. Have any of the subsequent Rockefellers done anything useful?" Adam wrote about his brother "who ruthlessly chased the almighty dollar in years past. He once told me that he believed in the old saying that 'he who dies with the most toys, wins'. I pointed out to him that he who dies with the most toys is dead, and those that are left get to fight over those toys. We all finish up in the same place one day, so accruing wealth, possessions, and a sense of entitlement will make no difference to our ultimate fate." Arthur looked to the past for a warning: "History reveals we are heading for disaster if we continue to fail to address the problem of the rich becoming richer while the poor become poorer. The best example is the French Revolution. We have been warned." What we do with our money was a question of choice for Jan: "Two good teacher incomes and our choice was to buy land and build a holiday house. Contemporaries chose overseas trips. They are left with a diary, photos and memories. We are left with real estate that has increased in value. Both are valuable and both came about by choice." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The blade was stuck in my knee. There was no pain at first. Just fear and shock. I'd been given a pocket knife for my 12th birthday and while hurling it about, testing its heft in a menacing fashion, it came loose in my hand, burying itself in my right kneecap. I yanked it free and limped home, leaving a trail of blood on the footpath. The backyard hose cleaned the wound. Bandages and a pair of long pants hid the injury. Fearing my prized knife would be confiscated, I never told a soul. Yet the scar remains half a century later, testament to the carefree risks and vulnerabilities of childhood. Bloody kids. Always putting themselves in danger. Our driving instinct is to protect them, which is why we no longer give children pocket knives or let them bounce on rusty trampolines above gravel driveways. These days their injuries aren't always so visible. They're inflicted by notifications and comment threads. Social media, we are warned, is the latest danger zone. So we're banning it. From December Australian law will prohibit children 16 and under from using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The instinct is understandable. The online world at its worst is cruel and addictive. But at its best it is inclusive, educational and even aspirational, which is why this legislation ranks among the most arbitrary, knee-jerk and hypocritical laws conceived by a government in a long time. We don't teach children water safety by banning them from the swimming pool. We give them lessons. We don't teach road safety by taking away their bikes. We hand them helmets and show them how to navigate streets and obey traffic rules. We educate them as best we can while accepting that learning is a gradual, messy and sometimes painful experience. Social media is no longer just a de facto town square. It's a digital playground, meeting place and classroom. It's where friendships are built and maintained and creativity and identity are explored. It also has its dark places where trolls, bullies and predators lurk, preying on adolescent anxieties. In other words, it's not so different from the real world. Removing young people's access to social media will not blunt their desire for connection or self-expression. Many will find a way around it. We're already seeing a rise in the use of VPNs - Virtual Private Networks - that mask your internet address. Even the government has admitted its move is "messy". Uncertainty surrounds the law's enforcement, with age-verification technologies like facial recognition and ID-uploading systems mired in privacy concerns. "Social media companies have a social responsibility," said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Of course they do. Just like the gambling and alcohol industries, whose socially damaging products we continue to excuse by allowing them to air advertisements with lip-service warnings spoken at an incomprehensibly fast rate. But doesn't society carry the greatest responsibility when it comes to childhood safety? By banning young people from social media we're denying them opportunities to learn how to cope with a world they will have to soon confront anyway. Instead of treating them like passive victims of nasty, all-knowing algorithms, why not equip them with the skills to detect misinformation and abuse? A forward-thinking society should treat living in the digital world as seriously as it does maths and English. Classes devoted to privacy, artificial intelligence, self-esteem and online civility should be mandatory in the national curriculum. Courses should involve parents. Even the tech companies, now profiteering off young people's eyeballs while enjoying minimal transparency, could be made to participate and engage with students. The answer isn't prohibition. It rarely is. The answer is education. It's about teaching our children the difference between friends and followers, between reality and superficiality. Kids don't need less access to social media. They need greater access to adults willing to show them how to use it safely, just like most things in our increasingly complicated world. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should under-16s be banned from social media or should we better educate children on how to use it? Have you experienced the negative side of social media or do you believe it has brought us closer? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Police have announced a $1 million reward for information as they hunt for the criminals behind the alleged gangland murder of Robert Issa in 2023. - Australia has pledged an extra $20 million in humanitarian aid for women and children in war-torn Gaza after more than 100,000 people turned out in protest across the country to protest the suffering in the besieged enclave. - A parrot on the brink of extinction could thwart plans for an open-cut coal mine expansion after records of the bird were discovered to be missing from the key database of species sightings. THEY SAID IT: "Social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities." - Narendra Modi. YOU SAID IT: Steve wrote about the entitlement of the rich and some of the appalling behaviour their wealth enables. Deidre wrote: "Powerful stories in your newsletter and your perspective that the entitlement of the rich costs the rest of us, is so true. You wrote - Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? It seems to me that the Australian "fair go" idea is just a handy myth for wealthy to perpetuate. Sadly, I don't see a fair go at play in the latest Close the Gap results." Susan says we tend to be more lenient to the self-made billionaires: "Their offspring, the nepo babies, are the ones being parachuted into serious wealth. Usually with little talent because it doesn't work like that. Have any of the subsequent Rockefellers done anything useful?" Adam wrote about his brother "who ruthlessly chased the almighty dollar in years past. He once told me that he believed in the old saying that 'he who dies with the most toys, wins'. I pointed out to him that he who dies with the most toys is dead, and those that are left get to fight over those toys. We all finish up in the same place one day, so accruing wealth, possessions, and a sense of entitlement will make no difference to our ultimate fate." Arthur looked to the past for a warning: "History reveals we are heading for disaster if we continue to fail to address the problem of the rich becoming richer while the poor become poorer. The best example is the French Revolution. We have been warned." What we do with our money was a question of choice for Jan: "Two good teacher incomes and our choice was to buy land and build a holiday house. Contemporaries chose overseas trips. They are left with a diary, photos and memories. We are left with real estate that has increased in value. Both are valuable and both came about by choice." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to The blade was stuck in my knee. There was no pain at first. Just fear and shock. I'd been given a pocket knife for my 12th birthday and while hurling it about, testing its heft in a menacing fashion, it came loose in my hand, burying itself in my right kneecap. I yanked it free and limped home, leaving a trail of blood on the footpath. The backyard hose cleaned the wound. Bandages and a pair of long pants hid the injury. Fearing my prized knife would be confiscated, I never told a soul. Yet the scar remains half a century later, testament to the carefree risks and vulnerabilities of childhood. Bloody kids. Always putting themselves in danger. Our driving instinct is to protect them, which is why we no longer give children pocket knives or let them bounce on rusty trampolines above gravel driveways. These days their injuries aren't always so visible. They're inflicted by notifications and comment threads. Social media, we are warned, is the latest danger zone. So we're banning it. From December Australian law will prohibit children 16 and under from using Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other platforms. The instinct is understandable. The online world at its worst is cruel and addictive. But at its best it is inclusive, educational and even aspirational, which is why this legislation ranks among the most arbitrary, knee-jerk and hypocritical laws conceived by a government in a long time. We don't teach children water safety by banning them from the swimming pool. We give them lessons. We don't teach road safety by taking away their bikes. We hand them helmets and show them how to navigate streets and obey traffic rules. We educate them as best we can while accepting that learning is a gradual, messy and sometimes painful experience. Social media is no longer just a de facto town square. It's a digital playground, meeting place and classroom. It's where friendships are built and maintained and creativity and identity are explored. It also has its dark places where trolls, bullies and predators lurk, preying on adolescent anxieties. In other words, it's not so different from the real world. Removing young people's access to social media will not blunt their desire for connection or self-expression. Many will find a way around it. We're already seeing a rise in the use of VPNs - Virtual Private Networks - that mask your internet address. Even the government has admitted its move is "messy". Uncertainty surrounds the law's enforcement, with age-verification technologies like facial recognition and ID-uploading systems mired in privacy concerns. "Social media companies have a social responsibility," said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Of course they do. Just like the gambling and alcohol industries, whose socially damaging products we continue to excuse by allowing them to air advertisements with lip-service warnings spoken at an incomprehensibly fast rate. But doesn't society carry the greatest responsibility when it comes to childhood safety? By banning young people from social media we're denying them opportunities to learn how to cope with a world they will have to soon confront anyway. Instead of treating them like passive victims of nasty, all-knowing algorithms, why not equip them with the skills to detect misinformation and abuse? A forward-thinking society should treat living in the digital world as seriously as it does maths and English. Classes devoted to privacy, artificial intelligence, self-esteem and online civility should be mandatory in the national curriculum. Courses should involve parents. Even the tech companies, now profiteering off young people's eyeballs while enjoying minimal transparency, could be made to participate and engage with students. The answer isn't prohibition. It rarely is. The answer is education. It's about teaching our children the difference between friends and followers, between reality and superficiality. Kids don't need less access to social media. They need greater access to adults willing to show them how to use it safely, just like most things in our increasingly complicated world. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should under-16s be banned from social media or should we better educate children on how to use it? Have you experienced the negative side of social media or do you believe it has brought us closer? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - Police have announced a $1 million reward for information as they hunt for the criminals behind the alleged gangland murder of Robert Issa in 2023. - Australia has pledged an extra $20 million in humanitarian aid for women and children in war-torn Gaza after more than 100,000 people turned out in protest across the country to protest the suffering in the besieged enclave. - A parrot on the brink of extinction could thwart plans for an open-cut coal mine expansion after records of the bird were discovered to be missing from the key database of species sightings. THEY SAID IT: "Social media is reducing social barriers. It connects people on the strength of human values, not identities." - Narendra Modi. YOU SAID IT: Steve wrote about the entitlement of the rich and some of the appalling behaviour their wealth enables. Deidre wrote: "Powerful stories in your newsletter and your perspective that the entitlement of the rich costs the rest of us, is so true. You wrote - Where will it all end? Whatever became of Australia's famed egalitarianism? It seems to me that the Australian "fair go" idea is just a handy myth for wealthy to perpetuate. Sadly, I don't see a fair go at play in the latest Close the Gap results." Susan says we tend to be more lenient to the self-made billionaires: "Their offspring, the nepo babies, are the ones being parachuted into serious wealth. Usually with little talent because it doesn't work like that. Have any of the subsequent Rockefellers done anything useful?" Adam wrote about his brother "who ruthlessly chased the almighty dollar in years past. He once told me that he believed in the old saying that 'he who dies with the most toys, wins'. I pointed out to him that he who dies with the most toys is dead, and those that are left get to fight over those toys. We all finish up in the same place one day, so accruing wealth, possessions, and a sense of entitlement will make no difference to our ultimate fate." Arthur looked to the past for a warning: "History reveals we are heading for disaster if we continue to fail to address the problem of the rich becoming richer while the poor become poorer. The best example is the French Revolution. We have been warned." What we do with our money was a question of choice for Jan: "Two good teacher incomes and our choice was to buy land and build a holiday house. Contemporaries chose overseas trips. They are left with a diary, photos and memories. We are left with real estate that has increased in value. Both are valuable and both came about by choice."
