Jacinta Allan shows ‘complete and total contempt' for Victorians
'What this shows is that the elites in this society don't care what you think, they don't care how you vote, they've got their own ideology, and they are going to implement it anyway,' Sky News host Danica De Giorgio.
'The fundamental problem of this report is that it comes from a place of hate … this is punishment being meted out by the activist class because Australians voted no to their divisive policy at the referendum.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
36 minutes ago
- 9 News
How a meme could land you in hot water at the US border
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here It's every traveller's worst fear. You arrive in a new country after a long flight, line up for hours and present your passport – only to be pulled aside by an immigration officer. There have been multiple reports of Australian travellers being refused entry into the United States over seemingly frivolous reasons. There have been multiple reports recently of Australian travellers being refused entry into the US. (Anadolu via Getty Images) Some said they were asked to hand over their phone so officers can downloads its contents. One Norwegian man claimed he was denied because he had an unflattering meme of US Vice President JD Vance on his phone. An Australian writer, Alistair Kitchen, reported last month he was sent home after being interrogated about his blogging on political protests. He later claimed officials found "evidence of drug use" on his phone and he felt coerced into admitting he had tried drugs in the past. The threat of being detained and sent back home now lingers for Australians hoping to holiday in the US. But are immigration officers really ramping up their efforts to stop Australians and other nationalities from entering the US under the Trump administration? Melbourne-based immigration lawyer Sherwin Noorian told US officials are simply flexing a legal muscle that has always existed. Melbourne-based immigration lawyer Sherwin Noorian, principal lawyer of Globalised Pty Ltd. (Supplied) But Noorian said travellers shouldn't feel coerced into admitting prior drug use or their political beliefs to an immigration officer. "The US has very strict controlled substances laws for non-citizens who are travelling to the US, so even admitting to using marijuana once in one's home country… they can use that against the traveller and deny them entry," Noorian explained. "There's a bit of nuance to it and it may not legally stand up, but they can kind of do whatever they want at that point." Noorian's advice is to never "incriminate yourself" if you've never been convicted of anything. He's also noticed an "anecdotal" rise in reported cases of travellers being detained and their phones confiscated. It's always been done, but he posits the theory that immigration officers could now be using an "advanced computing system to scan the devices for anything they deem suspicious or of concern". He also said travellers do have a right to refuse a request to give up their phone, but warns this could result in automatic entry refusal. "It's a condition of entry, so to speak, that you would hand over that device when asked," he added. Noorian said travellers shouldn't feel coerced into admitting prior drug use or their political beliefs to an immigration officer. (Anadolu via Getty Images) Noorian said he is aware of reports that travellers are being turned away at the border over phone content that is critical of the Trump administration, including memes or political posts. He suspects travellers who have been granted an Electronic System for Travel Authorisation (ESTA) visa waiver may be flagged and interrogated at the border for a variety of reasons and sometimes it's not hard to find one that sticks. "That could be used, especially if they're high-profile, as a reason to take someone aside to question them and give them a hard time," he said. "If they're those types of officers who, and not all of them are like this, but some would be looking for people who are against the administration or against what they deem to be the US interest, they would use that as a reason to question someone and begin that interview." A meme alone wouldn't be enough to deny entry, Noorian said. "But through the course of that [interview], they would begin looking for what they can use to build a case to deny entry," he added. Noorian said the ESTA, which most Australians use to enter the US, does not guarantee entry. The first time a traveller is genuinely assessed under an ESTA, he said, is once you land on US soil. "For most people, they wait until they're in the country and then they say, 'OK, we're going to assess you for your eligibility to enter,'" he said. "I think the Smartraveller advice on this is really quite accurate when they say, be aware that the US authorities have a high level of discretion for visa waiver entries. "It means even more for an Australian traveller than someone coming from Canada or the UK." Most Australian travellers enter the US under the ESTA visa waiver. (PA Images via Getty Images) The current Smartraveller advice for Australians travelling to the US warns that "entry requirements are strict". "US authorities have broad powers to decide if you're eligible to enter and may determine that you are inadmissible for any reason under US law," the advice reads. All hope is not lost for a US holiday if you're denied entry under an ESTA, though. Noorian said he's had cases of clients being refused entry but then able to enter the US through a visitor visa obtained via the US consulate. "It's not a lifetime ban, they can reapply, but in this environment, it depends on the circumstances," he added. "If they admitted to drug use, that could be a big problem. "But it can be overcome. We've done that before." US Homeland Security officials have disputed that a Norwegian tourist was denied entry due to a meme and said he was turned away for admitting to drug use. Australia USA US POLITICS Donald Trump Travel immigration law CONTACT US Property News: Sixteen-person rental sparks outrage in US.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Hopes for a new national park dashed, to the delight of hunters
Hunters and fishers have celebrated a vow from Environment Minister Steve Dimopoulos that the Victorian government will not legislate a new national park spanning more than half a million hectares. Conservationists had for a decade campaigned for the creation of a Great Forest National Park, which would add another 355,000 hectares of forests to triple the area of Central Highlands that is currently protected. The expanded national park, joining seven existing forests and state parks, would have offered critical protections for endangered and imperilled animals like the Leadbeater's possum. But the proposal has been controversial among bush users' groups, who say it would lock recreational park users out. Gold prospectors, 4WD enthusiasts, shooters, horse riders and other groups, backed by the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), have joined forces in a growing campaign against national parks, and have strongly campaigned against the creation of a Great Forest National Park. Sparked by a renewed push to ban duck hunting in Victoria, the ETU (Victorian branch) in 2023 brought together hunters, bush user groups, rock climbers and prospectors to form the Outdoor Recreation Advocacy Group. Speaking at an ETU delegates' conference this week, Dimopoulos assured attendees the Great Forest National Park proposal was not Labor policy, and Labor would not implement it. After the 2014 state election, Labor established a taskforce comprising representatives from environment groups, forestry unions and the logging industry to work towards a consensus on the creation of a Great Forest National Park.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Between Xi and Trump, can PM afford to be ‘relaxed and comfortable'?
If you listened to opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor this week about it being 239 days since Trump was elected – and still no meeting! – you'd think not only was AUKUS toast but the ANZUS treaty, signed way back in 1951, along with it. Taylor has carried on since May 3 as if he is blissfully unaware of the fact that the election reduced the opposition to just 43 seats in the lower house – fewer than the 49 MPs Labor had after Howard's 1996 landslide. Loading When parliament finally resumes on July 22 and some Labor MPs have to sit on the opposition benches (because of the size of Albanese's majority), Taylor and some fellow travellers might finally take a breath and confront the scale of Australians' verdict. Is there actually any doubt that a Trump meeting will happen at some point in the next few months? No. But Taylor and other members of the opposition, such as trade spokesman Kevin Hogan, are sounding the alarm because of AUKUS and tariffs. Hogan toughened his language this week on the urgency of a Trump meeting. Uncertainty over AUKUS is real, given the US administration's review of the deal, under which Australia would buy nuclear-powered submarines. The imposition of 10 per cent tariffs on Australian exports, and the looming re-imposition (after a pause) of 50 per cent tariffs on Australian steel and aluminium exports, is a genuine concern. Though the tone and pitch may be wrong, it is reasonable for the opposition to question whether Albanese's current approach to Trump is sufficient. Will the US administration be wowed by Albanese meeting Xi? Will it want to hear from Albanese, as the leader of a G20 power? Or will it view the Albanese-Xi meeting as a black mark, some sort of snub, a sign that the prime minister has his priorities wrong? The likelihood is that Trump, who sees China as America's primary geopolitical and economic rival, will want to know what Albanese and Xi discussed. And he will want to glean from Albanese what he can about Xi's view of the world. Loading It's worth noting how Albanese's approach to the on-again-off-again meeting with the US president signposts how he plans to govern in the term ahead, with an expanded caucus, a potentially more pliable Senate, and at least as much personal authority as Howard had in 1996. This is a stubborn prime minister who does not want to be rushed. Over and over again, he tells colleagues his approach this term, as it was last term, is to be calm, methodical and orderly. He will not be spooked by the 24-hour news cycle, he will be consistent, he will explain to the Australian people what he plans to do and then do it, but no more. During the last term, Albanese's methodical approach meant that, at times, his government looked slow and reactive. Those hoping that a bold, reforming PM is about to emerge will be disappointed. But Albanese's instinct to slow things down is better suited to his improved position in parliament. He will wear the inevitable, occasional outbreak of dissent, knowing that he governs from a position of strength, backed by a majority Left-faction caucus (for the first time in about five decades), and knowing he has no clear successor, only a coterie of jostling and ambitious ministers. That majority Left faction in caucus will probably push Albanese to go further than his instincts might allow for, such as on pushing Australia to adopt a more ambitious 2035 emissions-reduction target, or on raising the rate of unemployment payments. And there are more than a few members of Albanese's own faction, and of the Right faction too, who are not exactly big fans of the US president and are quite fine with their man not rushing to embrace him. But there is a difference between being chummy with the current occupant of the Oval Office and being a close ally of the United States, as the prime minister knows. If the US review of the AUKUS deal suggests, for example, that the sale of Virginia-class subs to Australia should be delayed or cancelled, then all hell could break loose politically for Albanese and his 'all in due course' approach to Trump would be judged a failure. His decision not to head to the NATO meeting last week, for example, would be deemed a mistake, and the timing of his trip to Beijing would be questioned.
