Wild moment an elderly lady throws a punch at a political gatecrasher - as election campaign violence erupts across the country
An elderly lady has attacked a gatecrasher at a candidates forum hours after two separate incidents interrupted pre-polling.
A crowd of 60 voters attended a Friends of the ABC organised forum in Kew in the north-east Melbourne seat of Kooyong on Wednesday night.
Teal independent MP Monique Ryan spoke at the event alongside her Labor and Greens rivals about the state of Australian media and funding for the national broadcaster.
Footage captured the moment all hell broke loose 30 minutes into the event when three protesters stormed into the room.
One of the men was identified as Matt Trihey, a member of neo-nazi Thomas Sewell's Lads Society but has denied being a neo-nazi himself.
'You people are destroying this country because you will not address civic safety,' he was heard shouting.
Attendees called for the men to leave before an elderly lady marched up to Mr Trihey to confront him and punched him in the face.
Ms Ryan was among those who then intervened and consoled the woman.
Organisers called police, who arrived a short time later and spoke to the men as they left the venue.
'At this stage no further complaints have been made to police. The investigation is ongoing,' a spokesman said.
Attendee were shocked by the events that transpired.
'They weren't expecting that sort of interruption, and it was upsetting [for them],' Ms Ryan told The Age.
'I was also concerned that things could potentially get out of hand if someone felt the need to [physically] intervene.
'It's unfortunate … I've not heard of that sort of thing [happening at other forums].'
The latest incident comes after two confrontations during pre-polling in Sydney.
Police arrested a man on Wednesday a day after he kicked down election signage and confronted volunteers outside a pre-polling booth.
Footage emerged of the man destroying Liberal posters outside Dunmore Lang College in Macquarie Park in the north-west Sydney electorate of Bennelong.
He was also heard yelling at party volunteers nearby.
'Is it you? All these f***ing Liberal signs, brah,' the man fumed.
'All of these f***ing signs and I've got to look at them.'
Volunteers asked the man to 'move along', as he kicked signs for local Liberal candidate Scott Yung.
He was then heard yelling at a female volunteer.
'Don't put your f***ing hands on me,' he could be heard saying.
'Because you're a woman, yeah, you're allowed to?'
The man then kicked two more signs before turning to face off with a Liberal volunteer before a Greens supporter intervened and escorted him away.
The episode came just after Mr Yung announced pre-polling had 'kicked off'.
No one was injured.
Police arrested a man, 30 at a Macquarie Park home on Wednesday.
'The man allegedly intimidated a 32-year-old female volunteer and acted in an aggressive manner towards two other volunteers,' a police statement read.
He was charged with intimidation and bail to appear at Burwood Local Court June 2.
The Australian Electoral Commission is aware of the incident.
'The AEC is aware of this matter. It occurred outside of the polling venue, did not involve an AEC staff member and did not affect the continued operation of polling activities,' a spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia.
'Destruction of property or intimidatory behaviour is potentially a police matter but not one for the AEC.
'The AEC has been consistent throughout the election in calling for lawful and respectful campaigning to occur. It's disappointing to see any violent or intimidatory behaviour.'
One local, Steve, told the Daily Telegraph he was left frightened by the incident.
'(I'm) still a bit traumatised to be honest,' he said.
'Thankfully I wasn't in his way but I was fearing for the guy in the Liberal shirt.'
Liberal Party candidate for Bennelong Scott Yung and Labor MP Jerome Laxale were contacted for comment.
Earlier on Wednesday, an elderly man was rushed to hospital with head injuries after tensions erupted outside a pre-polling booth at Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's electorate.
Emergency services attended Ashfield Civic Centre in Sydney's inner-west following reports of an alleged assault.
The man, 79, was taken to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in a serious condition.
It's understood the man was wearing a Make America Great Again hat and allegedly became aggressive towards a volunteer offering how-to-vote pamphlets.
He then allegedly approached a Labor corflute picturing Mr Albanese with intent to deface it, Nine News reported.
He was confronted by a woman before a teenage boy, 17, allegedly crossed the road and struck the man, who fell to the ground.
The boy was arrested at the scene and has since been charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
He was refused bail to appear in a children's court on Thursday
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Could Donald Trump scrap Aukus?
America's policy undersecretary of defence, Elbridge Colby, is one of the brightest brains in Donald Trump's administration. Having served in the first Trump presidency, Colby has an outstanding reputation as a defence and strategic thinker. He is also, however, very much aligned with Trump's America First thinking in respect of foreign policy, and the United States' relationship with her allies. That would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain In tasking Colby on Wednesday with reviewing the Aukus nuclear submarine-centred strategic partnership between the US, the UK and Australia, the president sends a clear message to Britain and Australia: Aukus is part of his inheritance from Joe Biden, and its future therefore is far from assured. In a media statement, the Pentagon said: 'The department is reviewing Aukus as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous administration is aligned with the president's America First agenda. As (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our service members, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs. This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.' Colby himself has been ambivalent about Aukus ever since it was established by Biden, and then Australian and British prime ministers, Scott Morrison and Rishi Sunak, in 2021. Addressing a Policy Exchange forum last year, Colby said he was 'quite sceptical' about the Aukus pact, and questioned its viability and ultimate benefits. In a more recent interview with the Australian newspaper, Colby said Aukus's Pillar 1 – the nuclear submarine programme under which Australia would purchase several Virginia-class boats, pending the acquisition of new generation UK-Australian Acute-class submarines – is 'very problematic'. He did say, however, that Pillar 2 – the sharing of military intelligence and technical know-how between the partners – 'is great, no problem'. Colby's long-standing concern is the US's ability to take on China if it ever comes to conflict in the Asia-Pacific, especially over Taiwan. 'How are we supposed to give away nuclear attack submarines in the years of the window of potential conflict with China?' he told the Australian. 'A nuclear attack submarine is the most important asset for a western Pacific fight, for Taiwan, conventionally. But we don't have enough, and we're not going to have enough.' If this is the starting position for Colby's review, its scepticism contradicts the steadfast commitment to Aukus from the current Australian and British Labour governments. Indeed, Britain's latest Strategic Defence Review places high priority on the Aukus partnership as an integral element of British strategic and force planning. Given Colby's previous form on Aukus, the review may well recommend scaling back or discontinuing the nuclear submarine Aukus pillar. But that would be a strategic disaster for Australia and Britain, let alone for Colby's own strategic vision, outlined in his 2021 book, of an 'anti-hegemonic coalition to contain the military ambitions of China', in which he specifically envisioned Australia. Arguably, it doesn't matter which country mans the attack nuclear submarines assigned to the Asia-Pacific theatre, as long as the boats are there. But will Colby see it that way? In Australia, however, the administration's announcement immediately set a cat amongst the pigeons. Currently, Australia spends just over two per cent of GDP on defence, and the Trump administration, including Colby, is pressuring on Australia to do far more. This month, Hegseth, told his Australian counterpart that Australia should be committing at least 3.5 per cent of GDP to ensure not just Aukus, but that her fighting personnel and ageing military hardware are fit for purpose and contributing commensurately to the Western alliance. After his face-to-face meeting with Hegseth, Australian defence minister Richard Marles seemed open to the suggestion. His prime minister, Anthony Albanese, is not. In his first major media appearance since his thumping election win a month ago, Albanese was asked whether the US could renege on supplying nuclear submarines to Australia if spending is deemed inadequate. 'Well, I think Australia should decide on what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that', Albanese replied. It hasn't escaped notice here that the Pentagon announced its Aukus review less than 48 hours after Albanese made his declaration, and just days before the Australian prime minister is expected to have his first personal meeting with Trump at the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada. That meeting, carrying the risk of a public Trump rebuke, surely will be dreaded by Albanese. Dealing with the Americans' insistence on a near-doubling of Australia's defence investment is politically diabolical for Albanese. He has just won re-election on a manifesto promising huge additional social investments, especially in Australia's version of the NHS and a fiscally ravenous National Disability Insurance Scheme. Albanese must keep his left-wing support base onside by expanding already huge public investments and subsidies in pursuing his government's ideological Net Zero and 100 per cent renewable energy goals. All that on top of a burgeoning national debt. To achieve Nato's GDP defence spending target of 3 per cent, let alone Hegseth's 3.5, something has to give. Albanese cannot deliver both massive social spending and vast defence outlays: to keep the Americans happy, and justify the continuation of both Aukus pillars, he will need to either prove himself a Bismarck-calibre statesman, or risk electoral wrath if he retreats on his domestic spending promises, and cuts existing programmes across his government, to afford adequate defence spending headroom. Australia needs America to be a strong ally in our troubled region, but the United States needs steadfast allies like Australia and Britain. Now the administration's scepticism about Aukus's value to the US is officially on the table, with a review entrusted to its biggest Aukus sceptic in Elbridge Colby, Australia and Britain must justify why all aspects of the partnership are a worthwhile investment with them, as America's partners, committed to playing their part in full. How well they do it will be a measure of their political and diplomatic competence.
Spectator
9 hours ago
- Spectator
The BBC's Israel problem
Intrepidly, the BBC dared recently to visit Dover, Delaware – source, it implied, of starvation in Gaza. I listened carefully as its State Department correspondent, Tom Bateman, hunted down the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in the state which, he explained, is 'a corporate haven for those who like privacy'. Brave Tom did not find much, but that only proved to him that 'The main ingredients of this aid are its politics'. The foundation's chairman says he is a Christian Zionist which, for the BBC, is almost as bad as saying you are a neo-Nazi. The portentousness aside, it is reasonable to ask tricky questions of the American/Israeli organisation which claims it can solve aid in Gaza. The BBC's problem is that it would never, ever apply its investigative zeal to the cartel currently responsible for the aid that seems not to get through. When has it ever doorstepped the UNWRA operatives who moonlight for Hamas? When has it ever challenged the political 'ingredients' of UN agencies as they heap abuse on Israel and stay respectfully silent about Hamas? When has it complained that Hamas does not answer its calls? Perhaps Hamas does answer, welcoming the BBC's trusting approach. The Office of Rail and Road has noticed that our railway system comes down too hard on the innocent. Yes. The weekend before last, about to return from Newcastle, I found I had lost my ticket. I went to the ticket office, bearing my complete receipt, which even included my seat reservation. The man was pleasant, but said there was no way I could have a free new ticket or even an eventual refund. So I had to pay £133 (nearly £50 more than I had already paid) to travel. Approaching the train, I noticed that the barrier was open. Boarding, I found the computer seat reservations had all gone down. Alighting at King's Cross, I realised that no guard had checked my ticket on the journey and that the barriers were open and unmanned. So if I had 'cheated', I would have been unmolested but because I had owned up, I was out of pocket. Obviously this all started with my carelessness, but why can rail companies treat one as guilty until proven innocent though English law says the opposite? I spoke twice in Oxford last week to highly intelligent, mainly undergraduate audiences. The atmosphere reminded me of 1980s secret meetings of dissidents behind the Iron Curtain arranged by British intellectuals, such as Roger Scruton, who were smuggled in. One encountered young people who feared discovery but showed a touching belief in the life of the mind as they thirsted for freedom in the desert of enforced conformity. For the sake of their careers, I shall not reveal who my audiences were. From one attendee, I learnt that in Mods, the first half of the Oxford four-year Classics degree, one no longer studies Virgil or Homer. Instead, the only compulsory texts are Terence and Plautus. This is like reading theology without studying the Old or New Testaments (which, come to think of it, is probably now commonplace). Are there any subjects, outside the liberal arts, in which each generation is encouraged to know less than the previous one? Are there physics degrees which drop quantum theory, or maths ones without calculus? We have contrived a culture in which universities grow, yet knowledge shrinks. As a graduate of Cambridge, I am depressed by my university's decision to open up the Chancellorship to all of us. We always felt smug about Oxford's beauty contest between superannuated politicians. Ours was uncontested. Now we have to endure a dingier version of the Oxford rhodomontade. The Chancellor of Cambridge should not strike attitudes or take sides, as a vote compels. He or she should be unspeakably grand/rich/disinterested. For many years, the late Duke of Edinburgh held the post, faction-free, because he was married to the then Queen, had a mind of his own and had never been to a university. After Prince Philip, our Chancellor was Lord Sainsbury of Turville, a blamelessly benevolent prince of commerce. Now there are ten candidates, all with 'statements' staking their claims. Gina Miller, the eurofanatic, wishes to 'affirm Cambridge's commitment to modernity and equality'. Sandi Toksvig, the television personality, says she speaks up for 'equity, inclusion, rewilding, sustainability and tackling online bias'. We don't want someone who speaks up. Why can't we have the present Duke of Edinburgh, alumnus of Jesus College, who gives diligent public service and will therefore remain silent? There are a great many stories about ransomware and the damage it causes. Presumably these attacks happen mainly because the businesses attacked pay the ransom. One never reads about this, or how criminals get away with the money. If a business pays, is it acting legally? If a public limited company pays a ransom, could shareholders sue? If, on the contrary, it is argued that paying the ransom is good for shareholders, could they sue a company that refused to pay? Friends tell me – and I believe them – that Chloe Dalton's new book Raising Hare is excellent. It does not automatically follow that she is right to call for a new law to impose a close season on hare-culling. The patchy shortage of hares (in some places, the fields are teeming with them) is not attributable to shooting but to habitat loss, vermin and European Brown Hare Syndrome. Besides, as is so often the case when people itch to legislate, there is a relevant law already. Under the Hares Preservation Act 1892, it is an offence to sell, or expose for sale, any hare or leveret between the months of March and July inclusive. Hares may only be sold if shot between 1 August and the last day of February. There is therefore no commercial incentive to orphan a hare in the breeding season.
New Statesman
14 hours ago
- New Statesman
Australia is no model for assisted dying
Photo by Kelly Barnes / AAP Image via Alamy Australian laws on voluntary assisted dying (VAD) are deemed so similar to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that three quarters of overseas witnesses invited to give evidence to MPs were from Australia. 'This is not a revolutionary law reform,' Alex Greenwich, a politician from New South Wales, told the bill's scrutiny committee earlier this year. 'It has been tried and tested, we have appropriate safeguards in place throughout Australia, and they work.' Although Australian states extend the six-month life expectancy requirement to a year for those with neurodegenerative conditions, in terms of eligibility, process and safeguards, their laws are similar to the UK's bill. The two differ only in that self-administration of life-ending drugs would be permitted here, and a multidisciplinary panel would review cases. So when Kim Leadbeater, Labour MP and the bill's sponsor, responded with a heart emoji and '#ChoiceAtTheEndOfLife' to a Guardian article published on 7 June that showed the Australian system being abused, eyebrows were raised. An elderly couple had been granted VAD when neither were terminally ill; medics in New South Wales effectively greenlit their suicide pact. 'Looks like the safeguards didn't work,' Mark Taubert, an NHS consultant and the vice-president of the European Association for Palliative Care, responded on X. According to the palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke, the story 'could not highlight more starkly the dangers of the law we are currently debating'. MPs hearing evidence on the bill had little time with six Australian witnesses, all of whom were supportive of VAD. Their arguments didn't always stand up to scrutiny. 'The medications are completely effective. I have not experienced any failures,' said Chloe Furst, a palliative care doctor from South Australia and board member of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand. But, MPs pointed out, there is no requirement that a doctor be present when someone self-administers, nor is there provision for reporting complications. In Western Australia, where this information is collected, complications were recorded in 4.3 per cent of deaths in 2023-24. Asked if it was a concern that a 'large proportion of people who opted for assisted dying cited being a burden as their reason', another witness, Meredith Blake from the University of Western Australia, replied this was 'not the evidence that we have got'. Except it is. Official state figures showed 35 per cent of those seeking VAD cited being a burden on family, friends or carers as their reason for doing so. Blake replied: 'If there are people who are saying they are a burden, that does not mean that their decision is not voluntary.' While MPs were told Australian palliative care doctors had 'embraced' VAD, I have spoken with medics in Australia who are troubled by how the legislation operates. Academics and politicians are, too. Robert Clark, a former attorney-general and MP in Victoria wrote to the committee twice with his observations: the second time after his fellow Australians had addressed MPs. Numerous aspects of their evidence were 'factually incorrect or incomplete', Clark claimed. There was not adequate palliative care available to all terminally ill patients in Australia. Evidence didn't show any reduction in non-medically assisted suicide. The right of doctors to object to VAD was not respected. Many doctors 'feel unable to raise concerns about VAD… lest they suffer adverse professional or career consequences, or else they are leaving the hospital system altogether', he said. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe British palliative care doctor Alex Hughes recently relayed his experience of assisted dying while working in Australia. Hughes, who is neutral on VAD in principle, described a borderline case in which it seemed the patient had chosen to die because of poor alternative care options. In another, he suspected the man may have been influenced by depression, but this had gone unexplored in assessment. Were assisted dying to come to the UK, doctors would be 'at a heightened risk of unconscious bias… [and] may lean towards giving patients the 'benefit of the doubt', granting assisted dying to individuals who, in reality, have more than six months to live.' The events described in the Guardian confirm that risk is not merely hypothetical. Ahead of its return to the Commons on 13 June, 1,000 doctors urged MPs to vote against the assisted dying bill. They argued it is 'deeply flawed' and unsafe. Similar statements have been made by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, which say they cannot support the legislation as it stands. Such concerns are not 'noise', as Leadbeater has suggested. Many critics have no issue with the principle of safe VAD. But the passage of the bill has revealed law-making at its worst: rushed debate, the views of the vulnerable ignored or downplayed, and crucial information on how the bill would work absent. Supporters say there will be time to iron out details later. That is too risky. Under current plans, some vulnerable people will be helped – in Hughes's words – to have 'an inappropriate assisted death'. He now poses two critical questions for MPs: how many vulnerable people slipping through the net is acceptable? And can adequate safeguards be put in place 'without creating a system so cumbersome that it becomes unworkable'? It's time for MPs to be honest with themselves and the public: enabling some an autonomous death through assisted dying will inevitably put others at risk of harm. [See also: Has any Chancellor faced a challenge this daunting?] Related
