Indigenous, climate advocates put heat on Woodside
A bid to compel the government to consider a heritage application to protect Indigenous rock art is going to court as three environmental activists declare they "successfully hoaxed" Woodside.
The preliminary hearing follows Environment Minister Murray Watt's interim approval of Woodside's North West Shelf extension until 2070, a controversial gas project in Western Australia.
The call has flared tensions, with environmental and Indigenous groups arguing it will slow efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and have a ruinous effect on nearby ancient petroglyphs.
Mardathoonera woman Raelene Cooper said she was thrilled the case against the newly appointed environment minister was moving forward without further delays.
"It's rude to have someone waiting for such a long time," the Save our Songlines co-founder said outside the Federal Court in Sydney.
The court determined Ms Cooper's case would be heard in the week of July 14.
Senator Watt attached heritage and air quality conditions to the approval and those are yet to be formally agreed to by the Australian energy giant.
Ms Cooper said the North West Shelf and other industrial developments at Woodside's Burrup Hub posed risks to the rock art - concerns and evidence laid out in full in a cultural heritage assessment the minister is yet to consider.
The Burrup Peninsula, in WA's Pilbara region and known as Murujuga to traditional owners, contains some of the world's largest and oldest collection of petroglyphs.
The "section 10" heritage application was originally lodged in early 2022.
"I am furious that the minister would make a decision to lock in ongoing and irreversible damage to my country before addressing my application," Ms Cooper said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the conditions attached to the pending approval of the North West Shelf extension would address concerns about the rock art.
"The local Aboriginal corporation there, I've met with them in the past, they're very supportive of industry," he told ABC radio on Friday.
"They want to make sure there's protection, but they support those jobs and that economic activity."
In a separate case, three protesters were fined $10,000 each after targeting a Woodside annual general meeting with stench gas and flares.
Disrupt Burrup Hub's Gerard Mazza, Jesse Noakes and Tahlia Stolarski pleaded guilty to charges laid over their protest at the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre in April 2023.
"Today we were fined for attempting to create false belief — in other words, we pranked Woodside," Ms Stolarski told supporters outside Perth District Court after the verdict.
"We are guilty of pulling off a highly successful hoax.
"One day, perhaps Woodside and the WA government will be pulled before a court like this one (and) be charged with much more serious crimes, and their victims will be future generations and all life on earth."
A bid to compel the government to consider a heritage application to protect Indigenous rock art is going to court as three environmental activists declare they "successfully hoaxed" Woodside.
The preliminary hearing follows Environment Minister Murray Watt's interim approval of Woodside's North West Shelf extension until 2070, a controversial gas project in Western Australia.
The call has flared tensions, with environmental and Indigenous groups arguing it will slow efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and have a ruinous effect on nearby ancient petroglyphs.
Mardathoonera woman Raelene Cooper said she was thrilled the case against the newly appointed environment minister was moving forward without further delays.
"It's rude to have someone waiting for such a long time," the Save our Songlines co-founder said outside the Federal Court in Sydney.
The court determined Ms Cooper's case would be heard in the week of July 14.
Senator Watt attached heritage and air quality conditions to the approval and those are yet to be formally agreed to by the Australian energy giant.
Ms Cooper said the North West Shelf and other industrial developments at Woodside's Burrup Hub posed risks to the rock art - concerns and evidence laid out in full in a cultural heritage assessment the minister is yet to consider.
The Burrup Peninsula, in WA's Pilbara region and known as Murujuga to traditional owners, contains some of the world's largest and oldest collection of petroglyphs.
The "section 10" heritage application was originally lodged in early 2022.
"I am furious that the minister would make a decision to lock in ongoing and irreversible damage to my country before addressing my application," Ms Cooper said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the conditions attached to the pending approval of the North West Shelf extension would address concerns about the rock art.
"The local Aboriginal corporation there, I've met with them in the past, they're very supportive of industry," he told ABC radio on Friday.
"They want to make sure there's protection, but they support those jobs and that economic activity."
In a separate case, three protesters were fined $10,000 each after targeting a Woodside annual general meeting with stench gas and flares.
Disrupt Burrup Hub's Gerard Mazza, Jesse Noakes and Tahlia Stolarski pleaded guilty to charges laid over their protest at the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre in April 2023.
"Today we were fined for attempting to create false belief — in other words, we pranked Woodside," Ms Stolarski told supporters outside Perth District Court after the verdict.
"We are guilty of pulling off a highly successful hoax.
"One day, perhaps Woodside and the WA government will be pulled before a court like this one (and) be charged with much more serious crimes, and their victims will be future generations and all life on earth."
A bid to compel the government to consider a heritage application to protect Indigenous rock art is going to court as three environmental activists declare they "successfully hoaxed" Woodside.
The preliminary hearing follows Environment Minister Murray Watt's interim approval of Woodside's North West Shelf extension until 2070, a controversial gas project in Western Australia.
The call has flared tensions, with environmental and Indigenous groups arguing it will slow efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and have a ruinous effect on nearby ancient petroglyphs.
Mardathoonera woman Raelene Cooper said she was thrilled the case against the newly appointed environment minister was moving forward without further delays.
"It's rude to have someone waiting for such a long time," the Save our Songlines co-founder said outside the Federal Court in Sydney.
The court determined Ms Cooper's case would be heard in the week of July 14.
Senator Watt attached heritage and air quality conditions to the approval and those are yet to be formally agreed to by the Australian energy giant.
Ms Cooper said the North West Shelf and other industrial developments at Woodside's Burrup Hub posed risks to the rock art - concerns and evidence laid out in full in a cultural heritage assessment the minister is yet to consider.
The Burrup Peninsula, in WA's Pilbara region and known as Murujuga to traditional owners, contains some of the world's largest and oldest collection of petroglyphs.
The "section 10" heritage application was originally lodged in early 2022.
"I am furious that the minister would make a decision to lock in ongoing and irreversible damage to my country before addressing my application," Ms Cooper said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the conditions attached to the pending approval of the North West Shelf extension would address concerns about the rock art.
"The local Aboriginal corporation there, I've met with them in the past, they're very supportive of industry," he told ABC radio on Friday.
"They want to make sure there's protection, but they support those jobs and that economic activity."
In a separate case, three protesters were fined $10,000 each after targeting a Woodside annual general meeting with stench gas and flares.
Disrupt Burrup Hub's Gerard Mazza, Jesse Noakes and Tahlia Stolarski pleaded guilty to charges laid over their protest at the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre in April 2023.
"Today we were fined for attempting to create false belief — in other words, we pranked Woodside," Ms Stolarski told supporters outside Perth District Court after the verdict.
"We are guilty of pulling off a highly successful hoax.
"One day, perhaps Woodside and the WA government will be pulled before a court like this one (and) be charged with much more serious crimes, and their victims will be future generations and all life on earth."
A bid to compel the government to consider a heritage application to protect Indigenous rock art is going to court as three environmental activists declare they "successfully hoaxed" Woodside.
The preliminary hearing follows Environment Minister Murray Watt's interim approval of Woodside's North West Shelf extension until 2070, a controversial gas project in Western Australia.
The call has flared tensions, with environmental and Indigenous groups arguing it will slow efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and have a ruinous effect on nearby ancient petroglyphs.
Mardathoonera woman Raelene Cooper said she was thrilled the case against the newly appointed environment minister was moving forward without further delays.
"It's rude to have someone waiting for such a long time," the Save our Songlines co-founder said outside the Federal Court in Sydney.
The court determined Ms Cooper's case would be heard in the week of July 14.
Senator Watt attached heritage and air quality conditions to the approval and those are yet to be formally agreed to by the Australian energy giant.
Ms Cooper said the North West Shelf and other industrial developments at Woodside's Burrup Hub posed risks to the rock art - concerns and evidence laid out in full in a cultural heritage assessment the minister is yet to consider.
The Burrup Peninsula, in WA's Pilbara region and known as Murujuga to traditional owners, contains some of the world's largest and oldest collection of petroglyphs.
The "section 10" heritage application was originally lodged in early 2022.
"I am furious that the minister would make a decision to lock in ongoing and irreversible damage to my country before addressing my application," Ms Cooper said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the conditions attached to the pending approval of the North West Shelf extension would address concerns about the rock art.
"The local Aboriginal corporation there, I've met with them in the past, they're very supportive of industry," he told ABC radio on Friday.
"They want to make sure there's protection, but they support those jobs and that economic activity."
In a separate case, three protesters were fined $10,000 each after targeting a Woodside annual general meeting with stench gas and flares.
Disrupt Burrup Hub's Gerard Mazza, Jesse Noakes and Tahlia Stolarski pleaded guilty to charges laid over their protest at the Perth Convention and Exhibition Centre in April 2023.
"Today we were fined for attempting to create false belief — in other words, we pranked Woodside," Ms Stolarski told supporters outside Perth District Court after the verdict.
"We are guilty of pulling off a highly successful hoax.
"One day, perhaps Woodside and the WA government will be pulled before a court like this one (and) be charged with much more serious crimes, and their victims will be future generations and all life on earth."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Ex-defence chief tells muted ABC journo 'it'll be over' by 2028 in bizarre climate change rant, as same reporter throws 'misinformation' barb at Tim Wilson
THE LATEST NINE'S JAMES MASSOLA'S STATE OF CONFUSION ABOUT TREASURER JIM CHALMERS' Ph.D. THESIS ON PAUL KEATING James Massola is the chief political correspondent for Nine's The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. His column on Friday 6 June is titled 'Deal or no deal: Chalmers' mistake'. It's about Treasurer Jim Chalmers' proposed tax changes to superannuation – but refers to former Labor Party treasurer and later prime minister Paul Keating. Here is what Comrade Massola had to say: Chalmers' Ph.D., Brawler Statesman , was written about Labor's legendary former treasurer and prime minister, Paul Keating, and how the one-time member for Blaxland implemented and then bedded down ambitious and necessary economic reform over more than a decade. What a load of absolute tosh. One of MWD 's avid readers has studied Chalmers' Ph.D. thesis and knows that the full title is: Brawler Statesman: Paul Keating and Prime Ministerial Leadership in Australia . In short, the thesis is primarily about how Paul Keating wielded power as prime minister. Here is a paragraph from the thesis' abstract to Chalmers' Brawler Statesman : This thesis utilises new material and an interactionist framework to re-examine the prime ministerial power debate and conclude that powerful leadership relies heavily on a willingness of others to be led. Paul Keating's stores of immense authority and influence relied on his personal approach but also, most importantly, on the compliance of his colleagues in the cabinet and caucus. MWD believes that readers would like to know this. CAN YOU BEAR IT? There are not many Australians who have reached the position of Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) and apparently hold the belief that climate change is a greater threat to Australian security than, say, China under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CCP). No wonder, then, that Admiral Chris Barrie is something of a fave at the ABC. From which he receives lots of invitations to be interviewed. A bit like Malcolm Turnbull's open door to criticise the Liberal Party on the ABC any time he likes. Needless to say, Admiral Barrie was sailing on calm seas when interviewed by Sally Sara on ABC Radio National Breakfast on 5 June. He indicated that there was no reason for Australia to increase its level of defence spending at this time. Throwing the switch to alarmism, the former CDF had this to say: Chris Barrie: Now you look around the country and ask yourselves – what would you think if you were living in Taree now, or the Northern Rivers, or the east coast of South East Queensland and in other parts of our country, when the scientists are now telling us, forget 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming? It's already 1.6 degrees Celsius of warming. And we're not headed for 2 degrees anymore. It's now 3 degrees by 2050. And I think the planet is fighting back in ways that we weren't able to predict, and certainly doing it more quickly than we ever thought. Which suggests that your man Barrie believes that virtually every flood and bushfire in contemporary Australia is due to global warming (as it used to be called). It's a big call – which Comrade Sara did not challenge. And then there was this as the Admiral opposed the development of a gas field in the North West Shelf along with emissions-free nuclear energy. Let's go to the transcript: Sally Sara: But the opponents say we need gas for the transition. Chris Barrie: I've heard that argument about nuclear power, too. There are all sorts of options, but frankly, there's got to be a plan. And we've got to come clean and what that plan really looks like. And if we're serious about it, it's got to lay out objectives for each year of this government. This term of the parliament is the most important we've ever faced in dealing with climate change. Because by 2028 at the next election, it'll be over. Sally Sara: Chris Barrie, thank you for coming into the studio this morning. Yes, many thanks indeed. So, there you have it. According to Chris Barrie, if Australia does not develop a climate plan to his liking by 2028 'it'll be all over'. Presumably, he was talking about the planet – despite the fact that Australia produces just one per cent of global emissions. And what did Sally Sara say when Admiral Barrie set sail on the HMAS The-End-Of-The-World-Is-Nigh frigate? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Can You Bear It? It appears that the love-in between the ABC and the Teals has continued beyond the election. On 2 June 2025, it was confirmed by the Australian Electoral Commission that the Liberal Party candidate Tim Wilson had defeated the Teal Independent Zoe Daniel to win the seat of Goldstein in inner metropolitan Melbourne. This was a great result for Wilson – who had been defeated by Daniel at the 2022 election – and a very poor result for Daniel who lost her seat despite a big swing against the Liberal Party. Comrade Daniel, who had claimed victory on election night (when there were still 26,000 votes to be counted) and danced and sang the night away, was the only Teal to lose her seat. As Media Watch Dog has documented, the Teals got very soft coverage on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster before and during the election campaign. This included Daniel, who is a former high-profile ABC presenter. On Tuesday 3 June, Sally Sara interviewed Tim Wilson on ABC Radio National Breakfast . Let's go to the transcript towards the end of the interview when Comrade Sara raised the issue of Tim Wilson's campaign tactics: Sally Sara: Can you say that your, unequivocally, that your campaign did not spread any misinformation about Zoe Daniel? Tim Wilson: I'm not aware of any misinformation that was spread at all, but that's – are you making some allegation? Sally Sara: No, not at all. Just there's, it was a very, very tense campaign, and just to ask from your side that it was clean. Tim Wilson: Oh, I'm absolutely confident that we absolutely stood up and spoke to the ambitions…. Sally Sara: Thank you…. How about that? Comrade Sara's demand that Tim Wilson declare 'unequivocally' that his campaign had not spread 'misinformation' with respect to Teal Daniel implied that he had done so. Sara produced no evidence to justify the query. It appears that she was channelling the line of the Zoe Daniel team that Wilson's campaign was not clean. Is this the new acceptable journalism on the ABC? And here's another question: Can You Bear It? While on the topic of the love affair between the taxpayer funded public broadcaster and the Simon Holmes à Court partly-funded Teals – thanks to the Media Watch Dog reader who drew attention to the ABC TV 7.30 program on 28 May. Titled 'Polling Booth Abuse' and presented by 7.30's (then) political editor Laura Tingle, this is how the segment was introduced: Laura Tingle: Australians like to celebrate polling day as a democracy party, complete with ubiquitous democracy sausage and cake stalls. International media reports follow the same script, but 2025 has been different. For a lot of volunteers and AEC workers, it wasn't fun at all. And here's a list of those who spoke to 7.30 with their 7.30 description attached: Leonie Bird [Volunteer for Monique Ryan] Rod Cunlich [Volunteer for Allegra Spender] Here's how La Tingle described this duo: Laura Tingle: Leonie Bird and Rod Cunlich represent some of the everyday Australians who came out to support candidates in the recent federal election. Across the political spectrum, volunteers tell similar stories of abuse, aggression and bullying at pre-polling stations and on election day, of voters being harassed, AEC officials being abused and police being called out. Whatever the impact on the outcome of the election, it has left volunteers shocked and sometimes traumatised. The seats being contested by some of the sitting Teals were the subject of particularly intense campaigning and harassment, and it didn't necessarily just affect people who were handing out how to vote cards. 7.30 also heard from: Peter Dawson [Volunteer for Monique Ryan] John Hooper [Goldstein resident] – Note he volunteered for Zoe Daniel. Malakai King [Greens Volunteer] Carolyn Bryden [Volunteer for Zoe Daniel] – who made a specific reference to 'Tim Wilson's t-shirt wearing supporters'. The focus of the 7.30 report was bad behaviour towards the Teals in the seats of Goldstein (Zoe Daniel), Kooyong (Monique Ryan) and Wentworth (Allegra Spender). Tingle also made reference to outside movements – mainly from the right but occasionally from the left. But this was not the focus of her report. No evidence was provided to support the view that Tim Wilson or the Liberal Party in Goldstein had been involved in unprofessional or threatening behaviour. Yet this was the proposition that Tim Wilson was asked to defend on RN Breakfast – with the implied suggestion from Laura Tingle's report that the Teals were victims. By the way, no reference was made on 7.30 to the fact that Monique Ryan's husband Peter Jordan removed a corflute belonging to the Liberal Party. And 7.30 made no reference to the fact that Comrade Bryden was more than just a 'volunteer' since he was listed as a member of Zoe Daniel's staff with an official parliamentary house email address. Can You Bear It? The ABC's favourable coverage of the Simon Holmes à Court backed Climate 200 Teals continued on Wednesday 4 June when Sarah Ferguson interviewed Nicolette Boele on 7.30 . This is how the (soft) interview commenced: Sarah Ferguson: A month and a day after we all went to the polls, Independent Nicolette Boele has defeated Liberal Gisele Kapterian in Bradfield. The final piece in the Teal puzzle that covers the former Liberal heartland of Sydney's North Shore…. A recount has now seen Boele win by a margin of only 26 votes. She joins me now. Nicolette Boele, welcome to the program. Nicolette Boele: Great to be here. Sarah Ferguson: First woman to win Bradfield. First independent after being a Liberal seat for 75 years. What does this moment mean? And so it went on – more free publicity for the Climate 200 Teals on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. Comrade Ferguson made no mention of the fact that Ms Boele has one vote out of 150 MPs in the House of Representatives where the Albanese Labor government has a majority of 38 seats (94 Labor to 56 the rest). In short, like the other Teals, she will have scant political influence since the Teals are not in a balance of power situation. This is the second time Teal Boele has been interviewed on 7.30 – she was interviewed before the election, on 30 April. On neither occasion did Ferguson raise the matter of Boele's comment during the campaign when, after having her hair washed, she said to a young female hairdresser in the seat of Bradfield: 'That was amazing and I didn't even have sex with you.' She later apologised saying that her comment was 'a poor attempt at humour'. [You can say that again. – MWD Editor.] Imagine how Comrade Ferguson would have conducted the interview if, say, Tony Abbott had made such a statement to a hairdresser. Yet, to the Teal-friendly crew at the ABC, embarrassing comments by Teals are quickly dispatched down what George Orwell called the memory hole. Can You Bear It? FIVE PAWS AWARD Media Watch Dog's Five Paws Award was inaugurated in Issue Number 26 (4 September 2009) during the time of Nancy (2004-2017). The first winner was ABC TV presenter Emma Alberici. Ms Alberici scored for remembering the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939 whereby Hitler and Stalin divided Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union. And for stating that the Nazi-Soviet Pact had effectively started the Second World War, since it was immediately followed by Germany's invasion of Poland (at a time when the Soviet Union had become an ally of Germany). Over the years, the late Nancy's Five Paws Award has become one of the world's most prestigious gongs – rating just below the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards. It was just after Gin & Tonic time on the evening of Thursday 5 June when Ellie's (male) co-owner noticed this article by the oh-so-zany Samantha Maiden titled 'Sydney University newspaper uninvites Political Editor Samantha Maiden from speaking at event'. It was drawn to MWD's attention by a female comedian reader: It turns out that Ms Maiden – a former editor of the Adelaide University student newspaper On Dit – was invited by a comrade at the University of Sydney student newspaper Honi Soit to take part in a student newspaper conference at Sydney University. [Don't you mean Hanoi Soit? – MWD Editor ]. MWD fave David Marr was also invited. It turned out that Ms Maiden was cancelled due to her position on Palestine – this in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that she has a stated position on Palestine, the Israel-Hamas War and so on. The editorial team at Honi Soit wrote that Maiden's views were not consistent with the position of a left-wing newspaper. In her witty article, Samantha Maiden had this to say about her censors: …The more I thought about [it] I reflected on how troubling it is that these sensitive petals at Sydney University, a good proportion of whom come from wealthy families, private schools and the world of mummy and daddy paying for their rent, are in such a froth about people that they think may think differently to them. Another panellist, the ABC broadcaster David Marr, kindly wrote a letter in support of free speech in solidarity. It turned out that your man Marr wrote to Honi Soit protesting at its censorship and concluded his missive with 'I'm out'. Well done Mr Marr. By the way, MWD just loves the pics supplied by Samantha Maiden in the piece – including one with her and a can of beer and another one with a glass of wine in hand. And, oh yes, there is one pic without Ms Maiden but containing a pic of Adelaide-based journalist David Penberthy channelling Dracula. Samantha Maiden – Five Paws for standing up in an irreverent way for free speech. Feel free to give a couple of these paws to David Marr. AN ABC UPDATE DAVID SPEERS APOLOGISES FOR ABC POLITICAL REPORTER CLAUDIA LONG'S HOWLER ABOUT THE TWO NATIONALS MPS – WITHOUT MENTIONING THE ABC OR THE NAME 'LONG' There was enormous interest in last week's (hugely popular) 'Can You Bear It?' segment which covered ABC political reporter Claudia Long's false claim on the ABC TV's Insiders program. The date was Sunday 25 May. Comrade Long claimed that National MPs Alison Penfold and Pat Conaghan were not in their north-east NSW electorates when the floods were at their most severe and five people died. The statement was totally false – due to the fact that Ms Long made the allegation without checking with either Ms Penfold or Mr Conaghan. How's that for unprofessional and lazy journalism? The ABC's Corrections and Clarifications website acknowledged the error. But Claudia Long was not named – nor was it acknowledged that the journalist who made the howler was the ABC's Canberra-based political reporter. Convenient, eh? In last week's MWD the following comment was made: These Corrections/Clarifications are all very well. But they are no substitute for an on-air correction on the same program – in this case, an apology read out by Comrade Speers on Insiders next Sunday. Media Watch Dog will be watching. Believe it or not, Insiders did make an on-air apology – a rare occasion indeed for the taxpayer funded ABC. Let's go to the transcript: David Speers: Now, just before we hear some 'Final Observations' – on last week's program, there was a suggestion two Nationals MPs had left their electorates during the floods in New South Wales. Alison Penfold and Pat Conaghan were, in fact, in their electorates helping their communities. We apologise for this error. It's always important to admit when you've got something wrong. This apology was better than no apology. But it did fudge the issue. Claudia Long did not make a 'suggestion' – rather her rant presented her criticism of the Nationals MPs as a statement of fact. Moreover, Comrade Long was not named – leaving the impression that the howler might have been made by one of the other panellists – Jennifer Hewett or Jason Koutsoukis or by David Speers himself. Then the apology was placed at the end of Insiders by executive producer Samuel Clark – not towards the start of the program where Claudia Long had made her false allegations the previous week. In the past, Insiders was known for sacking a panellist who made a serious on-air error. But the person in question did not work for the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. In view of this, it would be no surprise if the ABC's political reporter returned to the couch in the not too distant future. YOU MUST REMEMBER THIS 'You Must Remember This' is based on the chorus line in the song As Time Goes By which was popularised by the film Casablanca . It is devoted to reminding the usual suspects (living or dead) of what they and/or those they supported once wrote or said or did. Or, indeed, what they failed to write or say. NINE'S GOOD WEEKEND NEGLECTS TO QUERY AUSTRALIA'S (ALLEGED) 'LEADING DEFENCE AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST' HUGH WHITE ABOUT HIS FALSE PREDICTIONS IN THE PAST Did anyone read the 'Conversations' section of Nine Newspapers' Good Weekend Magazine last Sunday? Headed '18 Questions…with Hugh White', it involved interviewer Greg Callaghan and a flattering photo of your man White by Peter Tarasiuk. The left-hand side of White's (bearded) face was lit – but the right side faded to dark. The subheading was as follows: Our leading defence and intelligence analyst on the new world order, the folly of AUKUS, what we need to know about Indonesia – and why our leaders need to be frank with the Australian people. Needless to say, the questions were on the soft side. Along the lines of, say, 'Why is it that you are always right when speaking about Australian foreign policy?' For what it is worth [Not much, I anticipate. – MWD Editor], here are a few questions that Ellie's (male) co-owner would like to ask White, if given a chance: Q 19: How's your crystal ball these days? Any better than when you wrote this in the Sydney Morning Herald in March 2005?: 'We may face…a naval battle this year…between the US and Chinese navies, ostensibly over Taiwan's independence, but in reality over which power would emerge pre-eminent in Asia in the 21st century.' Q 20: And what about when you wrote in The Age in December 2012 that we should 'not be too surprised if the US and Japan go to war with China in 2013'. Q 21: And do you still hold this as a possibility? You know, the issue you raised in answer to this question on ABC TV Lateline in November 2014: 'Are we going to see war in our region?' – with your answer 'Look, I think that's a possibility we can't rule out' since the situation was a 'little like what happened in 1914'. Q 22: And why do you continue to use the word 'will' about the future? – which no one can predict. The reference is to your comment to Comrade Callaghan: Many people fear that if America steps back from leadership in Asia, the whole region would be oppressed by an all-powerful China. But that will not happen. [How does he know this? Is he a born-again Nostradamus? – MWD Editor.] Q 23: In view of your crystal ball malfunctions in the past, do you endorse the Good Weekend report of your interview last Saturday? Namely, 'it is hard to overstate Hugh White's standing on issues relating to Australia's national security?' MWD will let avid readers know if Hugh White answers any Questions 19 to 23. In the meantime, it is appropriate to state with reference to who Good Weekend regards as Australia's leading defence and intelligence analyst: You Must Remember This. THE CLICHÉ IN THE ROOM – AN ELEPHANT'S PERSPECTIVE IAN DUNT USES MEANINGLESS CLICHÉ SUGGESTING THAT, UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP, THE US MIGHT JOIN PUTIN'S RUSSIA IN GOING TO WAR WITH EUROPE ABC's Radio National Late Night Live is a manifestation of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster as a Conservative Free Zone. Look at the political commentators. Every Monday there was the left-of-centre Laura Tingle replaced – it would seem, by the left-of-centre Bernard Keane of the left-of-centre Crikey fame – discussing Australian politics. Then every second Tuesday the left-of-centre Bruce Shapiro of the left-of-centre The Nation fame discusses United States politics. Then every other Tuesday the left-of-centre Ian Dunt of the left-of-centre The i Paper discusses British politics – or something like that. You get the picture. On 3 June, Comrade Dunt discussed Britain's recently released Strategic Defence Review . Having described the Trump administration's relationship with NATO as 'The Elephant in the Room' your man Dunt went on to say this: Ian Dunt: I mean, the Defence Review is really quite vacuous because it can't say the thing that it must say in order to start planning sensibly for the future. Which is, you cannot rely on the US anymore. The US will not come to the assistance of Europe. But also, more frighteningly, it could easily find itself in a position where it penalises Europe for fighting against Russia. Or could even conceivably be on the side of Russia in a conflict against Europe. And because of that, because Britain's plans for military strategy have always relied on the idea the US would be leading in Europe. It leaves a black hole in the middle of its defence review. What a load of absolute tosh. Sure, Britain and NATO cannot rely on the US at the time of President Donald J. Trump, in the way it has done in the past. However, Comrade Dunt's assertion that the US 'could even conceivably be on the side of Russia in a conflict against Europe' seems, well, nuts. Does he really believe that Trump would support Putin bombing Buckingham Palace? MWD does not want to see your man Dunt lose his gig on Late Night Left. But a bit of viewpoint diversity would not go amiss on the program. Perhaps LNL could find a right-of-centre political commentator every now and then – preferably one devoid of both clichés and an interest in elephants. THE [BORING] SATURDAY PAPER The Saturday Paper (Morry Schwartz proprietor, Erik Jensen editor-in-chief) is the only newspaper in Australia that contains no news. It is printed on Thursday evenings and arrives in inner-city coffee shops on a Saturday morning. Ellie's (male) co-owner reads it on Mondays at Gin & Tonic Time. What's the hurry? THE SATURDAY PAPER'S JASON KOUTSOUKIS CALLS FOR AUSTRALIA TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCOPE 3 EMISSIONS Wasn't it great to see Jason Koutsoukis on ABC TV Insiders on Sunday 1 June? He is the special correspondent of the leftist Saturday Paper and appears on Insiders in this capacity. Let's go to the transcript when Comrade Koutsoukis discussed Australia's emissions: David Speers (Presenter): But Jason, this gets to, I guess there's often a confusion around, there's a lot of gas, but it's shipped off to Japan and South Korea, and it's used there, and it's that that doesn't count in our domestic emissions. That counts in, you know, those third countries, Japan or South Korea, those countries. What does count in our emissions profile is the emissions caused by actually extracting the gas, turning it into LNG and so on. Jason Koutsoukis: That's right. And, and I think there is an argument, though, that Australia should start taking responsibility for the fossil fuels that it exports overseas. David Speers: Scope 3 emissions. Jason Koutsoukis: Indeed. But yes, and whether or not it adds to it, the production adds to our own greenhouse gas emissions. Yes, that's, that's part of it. But I think in the long term, Australia has to start thinking about the impact that its fossil fuels do have on the rest of the world. And so there's sort of a little bit of, the government is kind of weaselling out of this a little bit there by trying to absolve themselves. David Speers: It's only one planet, right, at the end of the day. Many thanks to David ('Please call me Speersy') Speers for telling viewers that there is only one planet. Who would have previously known this? [Funny that. An avid sub-continent reader told me that there are eight planets in the solar system but we only live on one of them. – MWD Editor.] As to Comrade Koutsoukis' view that Australia should take responsibility for fossil fuels that are exported – this overlooks the fact that the likes of Japan, South Korea, India, China and so on would obtain fossil fuels from other countries which may well produce more emissions than the fossil fuels they import from Australia. Australia is responsible for one per cent of global emissions. Add Scope 3 emissions and the Australian contribution to global emissions would remain very low. Perhaps TSP's editor-in-chief Erik Jensen should try to get more of his newspapers to China, India, Indonesia, Russia and the US where someone could act on Speers' message that there is only one planet. [Interesting. If Erik Jensen's special correspondent is so concerned about emissions – why is The [Boring] Saturday Paper published as a printed product. Just a thought. – MWD Editor.] HISTORY CORNER JUDITH BRETT'S ANTAGONISM TO THE LIBERAL PARTY IN GENERAL AND ROBERT MENZIES IN PARTICULAR DOCUMENTED An avid (but not uncritical) Media Watch Dog reader has challenged the comment on 16 May that – contrary to Laura Tingle's claim on ABC TV's 7.30 that Judith Brett is 'a Liberal Party historian' – in reality she is a left-wing academic critical of the Liberal Party in general and its founder Robert Menzies in particular. This is what MWD said on 16 May 2025: Judith Brett is not a 'Liberal Party historian'. Sure, she has written about the Liberal Party of Australia. Most notably her 1992 book Robert Menzies' Forgotten People . As Gerard Henderson documents in his Menzies Child: the Liberal Party of Australia (HarperCollins 1998), Brett was highly critical of the Liberal Party's founder. This is not understood by those who have not read Brett's work from cover to cover. In fact, Judith Brett is a left-of-centre academic. For example, in the early 1980s she co-edited the avowedly leftist Arena Magazine . Here are some facts. In Robert Menzies' Forgotten People , Brett argued that Menzies' anti-communism was a manifestation of his alleged homophobia. Here is what she wrote: The social anthropologist Mary Douglas has looked at the way different societies represent the social whole and the boundary between what is inside and what is outside society. The human body is a particularly rich source of imagery for the understanding and organisation of social life. The body's margins and internal divisions, along with images of bodily pollution and integrity, provide ways of thinking about threats to the social order – the body politic – and means of combating them. Much anti-communist rhetoric has drawn on bodily imagery: the imagery of sickness and disease (a social cancer) and the anal erotic imagery of the attack from behind (rooting rats out of holes). There are occasional uses of such imagery by mainstream Australian non-labour politicians like Menzies, but they are surprisingly few. Brett did not provide any evidence of Menzies' referring to 'the anal erotic imagery of the attack from behind'. But there you go. And this is what Comrade Brett wrote about Menzies' (unsuccessful) attempt to ban the Communist Party of Australia in 1951: Menzies took longer to be convinced of the need to ban the Communist Party than many of his colleagues. Once convinced, however, he was quickly able to reorient his arguments towards the urgent need to rid society of 'this alien and foreign pest'. He drew, as did his colleagues, on the anti-communist ideology already established in Australia. This ideology shared in the general preoccupation of pre-war Australia with keeping foreign, impure and corrupting influences out of the country, whether they were the darker skinned people of Asia, dangerous foreign pests and diseases, seditious literature or communist agitators. The anti-communist discourse which Menzies took up after his decision to ban the Communist Party, was a public discourse shaped to maintain social harmony and order by isolating and expelling threats to the social order. In taking it up, however, Menzies gave it a distinctive shape. Exploring this, we are drawn deep into Menzies' own view of social order and the sorts of threats he most needed to keep it at bay. Brett failed to acknowledge that, whatever the merits of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, Menzies was right about communism. He understood that the Communist Party was intent on obtaining power in Australia and elsewhere. And he understood that Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong and the like were murderous, totalitarian dictators. Some of the strongest anti-communists circa 1950 and later in Australia and elsewhere were former members of the Communist Party. Also, Brett's hostility to Menzies is evident in her claim that the former prime minister wanted to keep 'foreign, impure and corrupting influences out of the country…such as the darker skinned people of Asia'. The fact is that the White Australia Policy enjoyed bipartisan support during Menzies' time in Australian politics. Indeed, the Australian Labor Party and its affiliated trade unions led the opposition to Asian immigration. What's more, the White Australia Policy was administered with greater flexibility from December 1949 when the Menzies government came to office – than it was by the Chifley Labor government from the end of the Second World War until its defeat at the December 1949 election. The above are just a few examples that Judith Brett is a Menzies antagonist. She deserves to be heard in the public debate – but Brett should not be presented as anything but a consistent critic of the Liberal Party. **** Until Next Time ****
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Nationals Leader David Littleproud demand Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rules out kowtowing on US beef imports
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese 'needs to' immediately rule out kowtowing to Donald Trump on biosecurity laws on US beef imports, Nationals Leader David Littleproud has demanded. Government officials reportedly told The Sydney Morning Herald that Australia could alter its biosecurity laws to allow US beef exports without risks to local industry, in a move to appease Trump as he wages his trade war. Australia banned US beef in 2003 after a mad cow disease outbreak before undoing this in 2019 when the outbreak subsided. Cattle raised in Mexico and Canada but slaughtered in the US is still banned, however, this could be changed according to the report. Mr Littleproud raised concerns about Australia's cattle industry on Friday and urged the Prime Minister not to use the sector as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the US President. 'There needs to be certainty. The Prime Minister needs to rule it out immediately,' the Nationals Leader said on Sky News. 'He needs to make sure that he's very clear with Australian producers that our biosecurity standards will not be reduced and that … if we want to get imports that originated from Mexico or Canada, that there's some traceability on it like Australian producers have.' He called for the Prime Minister to be transparent with Australian beef producers as concerns fester about the nation's biosecurity following this report. 'I don't think Australian producers are asking for anything unfair here, they're just trying to protect their production systems, making sure that they can not only feed Australians but feed the world,' Mr Littleproud said. 'The Prime Minister and his department who are mooting these things need to be very, very clear with Australian beef producers that it's not on the table and it won't be on the table at all. 'But when you start getting these reports - you don't start seeing these reports unless there's smoke and when there's smoke, there's fire.' Australia exports more than $4b of beef to the US annually, making it the largest market for Aussie beef exports behind China. After Trump revealed his sweeping tariffs and invited impacted nations to negotiate, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vowed to protect the nation's biosecurity laws, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and news publishers against tech giants. 'We will not weaken the measures that protect our farmers and producers from the risks of disease or contamination,' he said in a statement. Cattle Australia chief executive Chris Parker issued a statement highlighting the importance of traceability for foreign-produced beef. 'Our position is that the US needs to be able to demonstrate it can either trace cattle born in Mexico and Canada, or has systems that are equivalent to Australia's traceability, before imports of meat could occur from non-US cattle,' Mr Parker said. 'Cattle Australia is in ongoing communication with the Federal Government regarding this issue and the vital importance that our science-based biosecurity system is not compromised as part of trade discussions with any country.' Mr Albanese is expected to have a meeting with Trump either on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada or in the US later in June where the Prime Minister will make Australia's case for tariff exemptions. Australia faces 50 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminium alongside a broad 10 per cent levy on all goods, which is still paused by the Trump Administration.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
Betrayal over breakfast: How Dorinda Cox's shock defection was a year in the making
Hours before the beleaguered Greens were set to choose a new leader after a rough election, the crossbench party's First Nations spokeswoman, Senator Dorinda Cox, was spotted having breakfast with unusual dining companions. She was eating 10 minutes away from the Treasury building in inner east Melbourne, near the MCG, where the party's remaining 12 MPs, including Cox, would vote that afternoon on the party leadership, following Adam Bandt's shock loss. Cox planned to put herself forward to be the Greens' deputy. But the West Australian senator wasn't dining with her Greens colleagues. Instead, she was joined by Labor senator Jana Stewart and her husband Marcus Stewart, the first co-chair of Victoria's First Peoples' Assembly. It was one of several conversations that Labor figures had with Cox before she stood next to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday to announce she would be joining the party. Her defection shocked many; Greens leader Larissa Waters, voted in at the May 15 meeting, was told just 90 minutes before Cox went public. But the decision was 12 months in the making, and involved discussions with both Albanese and former Labor senator Pat Dodson, the 'Father of Reconciliation', sources familiar with the process but who asked to remain anonymous have told this masthead. Her departure deals another blow to the progressive crossbench party, already battered from losing its leader and two other lower house MPs in last month's election. The Greens retain the balance of power in the Senate but go backward, again, in number. The loss of their only Indigenous senator raises uncomfortable questions about representation. But that narrative belies the more complicated backdrop to her departure. Cox has been the subject of numerous complaints about her conduct and several Greens staffers were relieved the party would no longer have to defend her. She also had a fractious relationship with the Greens' internal Indigenous network, which exposed dysfunctional elements of the at-times secretive political party. The Green wave washes away In 2022, the Greens hit a high-water mark in Canberra. Their 16 parliamentarians included two Indigenous MPs. But a bitter relationship between Cox and firebrand senator Lidia Thorpe began almost as soon as they sat together in parliament for the first time that year. Cox, who came into parliament on a senate vacancy in 2021, had coveted the Indigenous affairs portfolio, which was given to Thorpe. Then the Voice referendum campaign began, fuelling the divide within the Greens over whether the party should be more activist or collaborative. Loading Thorpe and Cox disagreed over politics. Cox supported the Yes vote and made an argument for change from within. Thorpe advocated a progressive No case, describing the Voice as a powerless advisory body as she pushed for treaties instead. They also clashed personally. Thorpe revealed this week that she made a workplace complaint against Cox to the parliamentary watchdog. When Thorpe quit the Greens in early 2023, Cox was elevated to the First Nations portfolio and led the Greens to formally support the Yes case. But she never had the support of the Greens' First Nations Network – also known as the Blak Greens – which is a collective of the grassroots Indigenous party members that informs the party's policy positions and who should run the portfolio. Thorpe had helped launch the group around 2018, and it backed her No stance on the Voice right through to the vote in October 2023. The Blak Greens kicked Cox out of the network in 2023, in part because of bullying allegations, her support for the Voice, and her former career as a police officer. An altercation between Cox and the group's then-convenor, Tjanara Goreng Goreng, at Perth airport that year further soured the relationship. Loading One member of the Blak Greens who asked not to be named said Cox was seen as relatively conservative and distant from their concerns. 'There were lots of tensions and we didn't see eye to eye with her at all,' they said. At the party's national conference in Hobart in 2024, the Blak Greens called for the party to strip Cox of her portfolio and consider expelling her for her alleged bullying conduct. The statement divided the room at the time. Bandt continued to stand by Cox, but the dispute between the party's sole Indigenous MP and its membership had left the Greens' non-Indigenous leadership in a difficult predicament. Waters this week said the party's commitment to advocating on Indigenous issues would not waver. 'Our policies are still very firm for First Nations justice and we won't be changing course in that regard, [we] continue to really push on those issues,' she told the ABC. 'We do certainly have a bevy of grassroots First Nations members of our party… and we're really proud of that. And our policies have been crafted by those folk and our broader membership, and they are strong on truth-telling and treaties and justice.' But dysfunction in the Blak Greens makes that mission more complicated. A review of the network last year by Indigenous consulting firm MurriMatters unearthed a raft of problems with governance, relationship breakdowns and inconsistent advice to the Greens party room. A spokesperson for the group put its membership at about 300 people, with between 30 and 50 who are active, although one former senior member said meeting attendance was sometimes as few as five. Loading 'The network is at the bottom of an S-curve at the moment,' the former member said. 'There's a lot of infighting [and] people focus on personal grudges … You've got to work within all these structures, people pull against those tensions, and it's a large group of white people versus a small group of black people.' Some current members dispute the MurriMatters review findings, but the former member said: 'We're just hoping the review will set up a better structure.' All the while, the network's problems with Cox persisted. In the lead-up to last month's leadership ballot, the Blak Greens lobbied for a non-Indigenous MP, Mehreen Faruqi, to take the First Nations portfolio from her. The dynamics between Cox and the Blak Greens compounded the senator's problems with the broader party, who rejected her bid for the deputy leadership three votes to nine last month. Cox had been a Labor member before joining the Greens and running for a state seat in 2017. According to her leaked candidate nomination form from 2020, reported in this masthead, Cox described Labor as patronising to women and people of colour, and claimed the party cared more about its donors than members. But in the Greens, Cox soon emerged as a moderate voice in a party room that seemed to platform loud voices and strident positions. That left her feeling disillusioned and unsupported, people close to her say. Cox's return to Labor The conversations that would bring Cox back to Labor began at least a year ago. She made friendships within Labor circles during the last term of parliament and became close with senators Stewart and Dodson. Cox spoke with Dodson, a fellow West Australian and one of the country's most respected Indigenous leaders, in the weeks before her defection. But it was Albanese who led the discussions with the party's leadership, took the move to Labor's national executive and made the final call. Dodson did not respond to a request for comment. Asked about his breakfast with Cox, Marcus Stewart declined to comment. But Stewart gave his reflections on a move he called 'a masterstroke by Anthony Albanese'. 'There is clearly a cultural issue within their [the Greens] party room. Dorinda is a person who prioritises progress over protest, unlike the Greens,' he said. 'Dorinda had a decision to make. Do you want to be outside the building throwing water balloons? Or in the room, trying to influence better outcomes for First Nations people? And she made it. 'The pile-on by the Greens since Dorinda left just demonstrates why people didn't vote for them at the last election.' All political defections leave wreckage in their wake, and this week's was no different: within hours, multiple Greens began backgrounding against the woman they had been defending against bullying allegations for months. The reprisals included leaked text messages and details of previous comments she had made about Labor. Greens staffers think Albanese has taken on an unnecessary risk for a short-term political win. The prime minister will inherit any fallout from revelations in this masthead last October that Cox had 20 staff leave her office within three years, with five making some form of complaint to the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service, Bandt's office or the WA Greens. The allegations made by former Cox staff include claims of an unsafe workplace and bullying behaviour. Several former staffers were dismayed by what they regarded as Bandt's lack of action. Parliament's Workplace Support Service undertook two 'cultural diagnostics' of Cox's office and examined some of the complaints made to it, but was not empowered to investigate. Cox has apologised for any distress caused by the bullying allegations, but argued there was significant missing context that helped explain the staff exodus, including a change in portfolios when Thorpe quit. Loading Albanese defended her this week. 'We examined everything that had been considered in the past. Those issues were dealt with appropriately,' he said. But his claim is contested: a Greens WA inquiry by Perth firm Modern Legal had only just begun when Cox's departure triggered its end. The allegations add another reason for Cox's defection to Labor: they meant she was set to lose her first-placed spot on the Greens' WA Senate ticket and therefore her place in parliament at the next election. Cox is now likely to stand in Labor's third spot on the WA ticket, previously held by now-independent senator Fatima Payman, which makes her re-election difficult, but not impossible. Where it leaves the Greens Many Greens have this week framed Cox's defection in that context: an opportunistic move designed to protect her own career. Still, like Payman leaving Labor prompted questions about the party's commitment to diversity, given the government lost its youngest senator and the first to wear a hijab, Cox's departure is uncomfortable for the Greens. The progressive minor party runs on a strong platform of First Nations justice. Now it has no Indigenous representation in either federal or state parliaments. Both Labor and the Coalition have Indigenous MPs in the Indigenous affairs portfolio. The Greens' spokeswoman is now party leader Waters. Greens figures played down the repercussions of Cox's exit, which follows Thorpe's. 'I think there's two very different reasons why those strong First Nations women made the decisions that they made, and it was definitely their call,' Waters said this week. Thorpe said it was unfortunate the Greens had no Indigenous representation, but agreed she and Cox had left for different reasons. 'It is disappointing to see Senator Cox go to the Labor Party to become a backbencher that obviously will not have a voice and no say in policy development,' she said on the ABC. But Cox thought differently, according sources close to her, who said she was concerned about the Greens' hardline stance on Gaza and even uncomfortable with its attitude towards Anzac Day. Cox is also a strong supporter of Makarrata, or treaty-making with Indigenous people, and believed she could advance that cause in government. Loading 'I am in public life to make real change and deliver lasting and tangible outcomes for Australians,' Cox said on Monday. 'I've worked hard to make Australia fairer and much more reconciled. But recently I've lost some confidence in the capacity for the Greens to assist me in being able to progress this.' Those comments reflect a continuing debate in the Greens as members tussle over its future. Some elements of the party seek a more constructive approach to parliament and stronger focus on the party's environmental mission. Others want it to maintain its activist roots and radical politics, even if it means forfeiting representation in parliament. A Greens source who has been involved with the party for 20 years said it was a perennial debate. 'It's not an issue that's specific to the Greens. You've got people at the harder activist fringe, you've got people who are more moderate, and as a party you've got to be able to accommodate all of those things. Both those approaches have their place,' he said.
