Search

"Height of selfishness": Photo at iconic beach sparks debate over etiquette

A photo taken at Bronte Beach has sparked the age old debate over whether picnickers should be allowed to reserve picnic tables by dumping their stuff on them. The image taken at one of Sydney's most popular beaches, showed two picnic tables under the same hut with table clothes and bags on them, but there was no human in sight. “There were at least half a dozen of these tables ‘reserved’ for a couple of hours on Sunday morning from very early in the day,” one annoyed beachgoer wrote on Reddit. “We got there at 7am and left a few hours later. No one was using the tables the entire time we were there.” The post has received hundreds of comments from other annoyed picnickers, with one going as far as calling it "unAustralian". “It's not acceptable,” one person said. “You can reserve it by sitting there yourself, but not by leaving an item.” “Yes, you should be actually using it, not leaving your s**t on there to reserve it for later,” another added. “It's the height of selfishness.” “Move their stuff, move yourself in, and say, ‘it was like this when I got here’,” one commenter suggested. “All I see is a free tablecloth and free bag,” another quipped. However, a few others pointed out that there were other available seats, and that there are unspoken rules around reserving picnic spots. "In this instance, it’s probably okay,” one wrote. “The back table is free, go grab it.” "As long as there’s people there minding the tables, not just throwing a bunch of tablecloths down and walking off, I’m fine with it,” another added. “First come first served.” “If I was bringing a few things from the car I might do this,” a third commented. “Like dropping off the tablecloth and backpack before grabbing the esky etc. But I'd maintain line of sight. Anything else isn't justified in my opinion.” A spokesperson for Waverly Council have asked people to "refrain from reserving tables and always have a back up plan". “Waverley is the second-most densely populated local government area in Australia outside of the City of Sydney, and we attract millions of visitors every year, so our recreational spaces are at a premium," the spokesperson told Yahoo News Australia. “On weekends and at other peak times, picnic tables and barbecues do invariably fill up. So we ask people to share our spaces so that everyone can have a turn.” Images: Reddit

Travel Trouble

Debate erupts over groom's unconventional footwear choice

In what seems to be a picture perfect wedding, eagle-eyed social media users spotted one odd detail. The couple were snapped standing at the altar, and while everything else about their outfit seemed flawless, one Reddit user called the groom out for wearing black Crocs and black socks to his wedding. “Imagine you get ready for three hours and your groom shows up in Crocs,” the user said. “Crocs would be a legit reason to say no at the altar,” another wrote, before adding: “Crocs are a valid reason to not date someone. They are horrible.” “He’s wearing a suit, maybe he has a problem with his feet that he can’t wear proper footwear,” a third commented “Surely no one, no matter how casual in style, voluntarily leaves the house in Crocs?” However many other social media users were quick to defend the wedding faux pas, with some saying that they wish they had done the same thing at their own weeding. “He probably has an injured foot or broken toe. He’s perfectly groomed (a pun) otherwise and obviously tried to camouflage his socks and crocs with his attire," one sympathised. “Ya I have really severe diabetic neuropathy in my feet, especially my toes. Doctor actually suggested Crocs as they have extra space and don’t restrict movement," another added. “I wore flip flops under my dress. I hate heels with a passion,” a third wrote. "He's wearing a nice suit, matching dark socks so I'm not seeing an issue here as he probably has some kind of foot or back injury or pain. If I were marrying him this wouldn't bother me," added a fourth. “Let the man get married in something comfortable. My wife could have shown up in a potato sack barefoot for all I cared, she is there to marry me, not for a fashion show," a fifth defended. Image: Reddit

Relationships

An emotional Scott Morrison delivers his last speech to parliament

In a poignant and somewhat unexpected farewell, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison bid adieu to federal parliament, leaving behind a legacy tinged with tears – and a surprising tribute to pop sensation Taylor Swift. As he marked his exit, Morrison delivered a heartfelt address, reflecting on his political journey, acknowledging his colleagues, and offering insights into his future endeavours. Flashing a Swiftie friendship bracelet emblazoned with the nickname "ScoMo" beneath the sleeve of his suit, Morrison's speech was a blend of personal anecdotes, political reflections and nods to popular culture. Surrounded by his family – his mother Marion, wife Jenny, and daughters Abby and Lily – Morrison addressed a gallery that, while not at full capacity, held a significant emotional weight for the departing leader. With a touch of humour, Morrison recounted his daughters' suggestion of incorporating references to Taylor Swift albums into his remarks, a challenge he gamely accepted. Seamlessly weaving Swift's song titles into his speech, Morrison painted a picture of his political journey, acknowledging the challenges he faced and the steadfast support of his loved ones, particularly his wife Jenny, whom he affectionately referred to as his "Lover": "It is true that my political opponents have often made me see Red. Often when subjected to the Tortured Poets who would rise to attack my Reputation. In response, I always thought it important to be Fearless and Speak Now. Or forever hold my silence and allow those attacks to become Folklore. Ever since leaving university in 1989 this has always been my approach. My great consolation has always been my Lover, Jen, who has always been there for me whenever I needed her from dawn, and beyond the many Midnights we have shared together. See? I'm actually a True Romantic after all. I can assure there is no Bad Blood, as I've always been someone who has been able to … Shake It Off." Reflecting on his tenure as Australia's 30th prime minister from 2018 to 2020, Morrison expressed gratitude to the Indigenous community and the defence personnel, emphasising their contributions to the nation's freedom and prosperity. He cautioned against what he termed a "drift of secularism" and advocated for a reconnection with traditional Christian values, underlining the importance of faith in his own life. Amid tears, Morrison thanked his staff, household personnel and security detail, acknowledging their dedication and sacrifice – particularly recalling two individuals injured while protecting him. “I want to specially mention Travis Ford and Jen McCrae," he said, "who were <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/dangerous-traffic-crash-rocks-scott-morrison" target="_blank" rel="noopener">terribly injured in the line of duty</a> protecting me … in a terrible car accident in Tasmania. I will always be grateful for your sacrifice.” Emotionally addressing his family, Morrison expressed profound gratitude to his wife and daughters, recognising the challenges they endured due to his public role. In a magnanimous gesture, Morrison extended well wishes to his political opponents and congratulated Prime Minister Albanese on his recent engagement. He also expressed appreciation for his party colleagues, including former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Peter Dutton, highlighting their support and camaraderie. Touching upon his role in the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal and Australia's stance against Chinese coercion, Morrison underscored the importance of standing firm in the face of geopolitical challenges. He warned against complacency and urged vigilance in safeguarding national interests against external threats. Closing on a deeply personal note, Morrison reaffirmed his faith in Jesus Christ, acknowledging his own imperfections and the power of forgiveness. Quoting scripture, he embraced his Christian beliefs unapologetically, emphasising the strength derived from his faith. The solemnity of the moment was then relieved somewhat when Morrison ended his speech with the words "And, as always, up, up, Cronulla!", as colleagues from across the political spectrum approached to bid him farewell. Morrison made a point of highlighting the main lessons he says he's learned during his political career, which we have summarised here: 1. Without a strong economy, you cannot achieve your goals as a nation He said there have been strong contributions made in this respect by both sides of politics, and Australia must be careful not to "reinstitutionalise our economy" and crush entrepreneurial spirit. 2. Threats are out there, and they are real Morrison talked about a new era of strategic competition, in which the old rules-based international order is being challenged by "a new arc of autocracy" ranging from Pyongyang to Beijing to Tehran and Moscow. He cited AUKUS, the Quad and new trading and defence relationships as key achievements of his government in this arena, but said that "continued vigilance and the connection between all spheres of police" is required going forward. 3. Judeo-Christian values shouldn't be forgotten in the 'increasing Western embrace of secularism' "Individual liberty, the rule of law, equality of opportunity, responsible citizenship, morality, liberty of speech, thought, religion and association. All of these stem from the core principle of respect for individual human dignity," Morrison said. "So does representative democracy. And even market-based capitalism. This is a unique Judeo-Christian principle." Image: ABC News

Retirement Life

As Scott Morrison leaves parliament, where does he rank among Australian prime ministers?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> This week Scott Morrison, Australia’s 30th prime minister, will deliver his valedictory speech to the House of Representatives. As Morrison leaves parliament, it’s timely to ask where he is placed in the pantheon of Australia’s national leaders. Already there have been unflattering verdicts on Morrison’s prime-ministerial standing. For example, in her withering account of his leadership, veteran columnist and author <a href="https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/bulldozed-9781922585981">Niki Savva writes</a> that among detractors, “Morrison was regarded as the worst prime minister since Billy McMahon”. Moreover, according to Savva, following the August 2022 revelation of his commandeering of five ministries during the COVID pandemic, his reputation sunk still lower: “he was worse than McMahon. Worse even than Tony Abbott, who lasted a scant two years in the job”. <h2>How can we rank prime ministerial performance?</h2> How might we know how Morrison’s record stacks up against his prime-ministerial peers? One device for evaluating comparative leadership performance is expert rankings. Australia has had a slow take-up in this field, unlike the United States, where presidential rankings have a lineage stretching back three-quarters of a century and are a veritable scholarly cottage industry. In recent years, there have been forays into this territory in Australia, with three prime-ministerial rankings conducted by newspapers and two initiated by Monash University in 2010 and 2020. (I was the organiser of both of these Monash rankings.) These rankings have been largely consistent in their results. The experts, mostly political historians and political scientists, have judged the nation’s greatest prime minister to be its second world war leader, John Curtin. The other leaders in the top echelon are, in rough order, Bob Hawke, Ben Chifley, Alfred Deakin, Robert Menzies, Andrew Fisher, John Howard, Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam. At the other end of the scale, Billy McMahon, who is chiefly remembered for being defeated by Labor’s Whitlam at the December 1972 election, thereby bringing to a close the Liberal Party’s postwar ascendancy, has been consistently rated Australia’s prime-ministerial dunce. Even his biographer, Patrick Mullins, acknowledges that McMahon has become “a by-word for failure, silliness, ridicule”. However, in the most recent of the rankings, the Monash 2020 survey, McMahon had a close competitor for bottom place: Tony Abbott. Forty-four out of 66 respondents to that survey assessed Abbott’s prime ministership a failure. Other prime ministers to the rear of the field included Abbott’s contemporaries, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. Morrison was not included in the 2020 rankings because as the incumbent his prime ministership was incomplete, and so it was premature to evaluate his performance. Let us now, though, measure his record against the nine benchmarks that the experts were asked to consider in rating the nation’s leaders. <h2>So how does Morrison shape up?</h2> The first is “effectively managing cabinet”. To date, little has been disclosed about the integrity of cabinet processes under Morrison’s stewardship. Yet, whatever the merits of that management, his scandalous breach of the norms of cabinet government by <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-bell-report-on-morrisons-multi-ministries-provides-a-bad-character-reference-195368">secretly assuming several ministries</a> will irretrievably stain his reputation in this regard. Next is “maintaining support of Coalition/party”. That Morrison avoided being deposed by his party, which was the fate of his immediate predecessors (Rudd, Julia Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull), counts in his favour. As the ABC docuseries Nemesis shows, however, his prime ministership was marked by serious frictions both within the Liberal Party and between the Liberal and National coalition partners. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gLXdXUwGrJs?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> “Demonstrating personal integrity”. This was not one of Morrison’s strong suits. As Savva makes searingly evident, and Nemesis also highlights, Morrison earned a reputation for being economical with the truth (including hiding his acquisition of colleagues’ ministries), for evading accountability and shifting blame (“I don’t hold a hose, mate”), and for corrupted processes under his watch (an example being the <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-sports-rort-questions-for-morrison-after-bridget-mckenzie-speaks-out-133160">shameless pork-barrelling</a> of the community sport infrastructure program in the lead-up to the 2019 election). “Leaving a significant policy legacy”. Here Morrison is partly damned by his own words. In office, he insisted he was not concerned about his legacy, equating the idea with a vanity project. Indeed, an obsession with the theatre of politics and a corresponding lack of substance caused his prime ministership to come to be seen as bereft of purpose. On the other hand, management of the COVID pandemic, however mixed, accords a significance to his time in office. AUKUS stands as the other major legacy of Morrison’s prime ministership, entrenched as it has been by his successor, Anthony Albanese. The agreement promises to influence Australia’s defence capability until the middle of this century and beyond, although only time will tell whether it enhances the nation’s security or is a dangerous white elephant. “Relationship with the electorate”. Morrison’s record here is mixed. In his favour, he won an election (something McMahon couldn’t claim). Yet, by the time of the 2022 election, according to the Australian Election Study, he was the least popular major party leader in the history of that survey, which dates back to the 1980s. His public toxicity was a primary factor in the Coalition’s defeat, one of his Liberal colleagues comparing the depth of public sentiment against the prime minister in 2022 to “having a 10,000-tonne boulder attached to your leg”. “Communication effectiveness”. Styling himself as a Cronulla Sharks-supporting “daggy dad” from the suburbs, at least initially Morrison’s communication mode seemed to be well received in the community. He was relentlessly on message during the 2019 election campaign. But the shine rapidly wore off his persona following that victory, with growing doubts about his authenticity. Rather than persuade, his habit was to hector, and rather than empathise, he exuded smugness. A series of notorious tin-eared statements, which especially alienated women voters, came to define his image. By the end he was known as the “bulldozer-in-chief”. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yamdw5VeNtA?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> “Nurturing national unity”. An innovation of Morrison’s at the beginning of the pandemic was the national cabinet. Bringing together the prime minister and premiers, it worked effectively for a time, only for partisan interests over lockdowns to strain relations between Canberra and the states. Under pressure, Morrison also flirted with divisive culture-war politics, instances being his divisive Religious Discrimination Bill and his egregious handpicking of the anti-transgender Liberal candidate Katherine Deves to contest the 2022 election. “Defending and promoting Australia’s interests abroad”. The AUKUS pact has vehement critics, led by Morrison’s prime-ministerial peers Keating and Turnbull, who argue it jeopardises national sovereignty. There is no denying, however, that AUKUS was Morrison’s signature foreign policy enterprise. On the other hand, Australia’s reputation as a laggard on climate change under the Coalition hurt our international standing, not least among Pacific neighbours. The Morrison government’s belated commitment to a net zero carbon emissions by 2050 target was too little, too late. Bellicose rhetoric towards Beijing also led to a deterioration in relations with the nation’s major trading partner (as well as estranging Chinese-Australian voters). “Being able to manage turbulent times”. Here, again, Morrison’s record is at best mixed. In his favour is decisive early actions to ameliorate the COVID pandemic, headed by the JobKeeper program. As the pandemic progressed, however, his government was too often flat-footed, demonstrated by its dilatory approach to procuring vaccines. His response to natural disasters, most notably the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires, was another shortcoming, exemplified by his secret holiday to Hawaii in the midst of the crisis. Arguably, his prime ministership was doomed from that moment. <h2>And the verdict?</h2> Prime-ministerial reputations can take time to settle. The passing of years fleshes out historical knowledge as well as providing greater perspective on performance in office. For example, the fate of AUKUS will quite possibly affect Morrison’s standing well into the future. Even allowing for this, it seems safe to forecast that Morrison will be rated among the least distinguished of Australian prime ministers. His government’s relatively successful early management of the COVID pandemic and the legacy of AUKUS might spare him from falling below McMahon and Abbott at the bottom of the prime-ministerial heap. But avoiding that ignominy will probably be a close-run thing.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223003/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, Emeritus professor of politics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-scott-morrison-leaves-parliament-where-does-he-rank-among-australian-prime-ministers-223003">original article</a>.

Retirement Life

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Shakira Coldwell, 21, has sparked debate online after copping a $116 parking fine for an "absurd" rule she claims she didn't even know existed. The Aussie woman took to TikTok to share her confusion, and asked if anyone else was aware of the rule. “Was I the only one that didn’t know you can get a parking fine for parking nose in, like the front of your car goes in first instead of backing into a car park?” she asked. She then asked whether the rule was only enforced in Noosa, saying that she was "pretty sure" you could park in any way as long as you stay between the lines. Coldwell then shared a photo of how she parked her car when she received the fine and said that she was “clearly” within the parking lines but hadn’t backed into her space like the car next to her. “Does that not just seem a bit absurd, a bit bizarre?” she said. She also said that she was only just made aware of the fine, as she had been travelling, which means that she may be copping even bigger fees as her payment was now overdue. “I’ve asked a couple of people about this and they literally had no idea that rule even existed. Like, I’m within the lines, it doesn’t matter how I’m parked,” she continued. According to the Brisbane City Council website, failing to park as indicated by an angle parking sign will result in a $116 fine, but Coldwell claims that she didn't see any signs. “So I am a bit confused. Is this just Noosa rule or does everyone know this because I literally did not know this was a rule. And low key $116 for a parking fine that's a bit absurd, given I was within the lines,” she said. Many commenters were quick to inform her that it was actually a common parking rule that wasn't restricted to Noosa. “As someone who lives in Noosa I can 100% guarantee there was a sign saying you had to back in,” one person wrote. “Being within the lines literally has nothing to do with it lol,” another said. A few others said that parking the wrong way in angled spots can make it “dangerous” when backing out into traffic, with one commenter claiming “everyone knows this”. However, a few others were just as baffled as the 21-year-old. “I’d be challenging that. I have never heard of it and there should definitely be signs so if you can go and check the signage,” one said. “Never heard of this before I wouldn’t pay it tell them where to go,” another wrote. According to the <a href="https://www.noosa.qld.gov.au/community/local-laws/parking-regulations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Noosa Council website</a>, rear-in angle parking is enforced in certain areas to “ensure a safer parking experience for everyone in the area," and to prevent cars from crossing into oncoming traffic as they try to exit the parking bay. Images: TikTok

Legal

Kate Langbroek reignites Australia Day debate

The annual celebration of Australia Day on January 26th has long been a subject of contention, but the debate has recently reignited with fervour. Radio personality and long-time panellist on The Project, Kate Langbroek, has weighed in on the matter by saying that altering the date won't resolve the underlying issues. She also lamented the sense of shame felt by many Australians on what should be a day of national pride. "I don't believe that if the date changed that it would be the end of these discussions and this discontent," she said. "But people have a hunger for something to celebrate about their nation, who want to be proud about their nation, and want to be able to have it on an annual basis. I think it's fair enough to want that." In response to her comments, co-host Rove McManus replied: "It does lead to the greater discussion for us as a nation of acknowledging that past so we can celebrate where we are now, which we still haven't done no matter what the day." The discussion on The Project underscored the complexity of the issue. While some, like Langbroek, advocate for maintaining the current date as a day of celebration, others argue for its change to acknowledge the painful history of colonisation. Langbroek then shared an anecdote about how a hesitant greeting of "Happy Australia Day" that she received only goes to show the level of discomfort and ambivalence surrounding the holiday. "[He] then sort of slunk away as if what he said was shameful. I know the reasons for it, I understand the reasons, but it's a great pity for our nation," she said. Co-host Georgie Tunny then proposed the idea of designating January 26th as a day of mourning while finding an alternative date for celebration – a notion met with both sarcasm and consideration. The public response to the panel discussion was predictably polarised . While some adamantly defend the tradition of celebrating Australia Day on January 26th, others advocate for change, citing the need to confront Australia's colonial past honestly. Amidst the discord, there are calls for innovative approaches to Australia Day. Suggestions range from incorporating solemn remembrance of Indigenous heritage in the morning to hosting citizenship ceremonies and festive events later in the day – a reflection of the nation's aspirations for unity and inclusivity. Images: The Project

News

Scott Morrison resigns from parliament

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison has resigned from parliament, marking an end to his 16-year career in politics. Mr Morrison said he would leave politics at the end of February, setting up a by-election a year out from the next federal election. In a lengthy statement, the 55-year-old explained that he would be stepping back from politics to spend more time with his family, and be more involved in his church community. ScoMo paid tribute to his family – wife Jenny and daughters Lily and Abbey – in the statement, who he said “have sacrificed a great deal to support my service to our country and local community”. “I am grateful for their support, but the time has come for me to return to my private life and support my family to pursue their goals and for us to spend more time together as a family,” he said. “I am also looking forward to being more active in my church community outside the constraints of public office.” Mr Morrison said it had been his “great privilege” to represent his constituents in the Sydney electorate of Cook and noted the decision to leave had been “difficult”. “However, I believe the timing is now right to move on to a new season with my family and take on fresh challenges,” he said. After making the announcement of his resignation, Morrison appeared on Sky News to discuss his lasting legacy as one of Australia’s most controversial prime ministers. He told the Sky News’ Paul Murray, “I’m sure there’s things that people will need to forgive me for and I’ll forgive them. You just don’t carry these things around with you. You look forward.” He then quoted former US president Theodore Roosevelt, who Mr Morrison described as a “hero” for him. “He used to talk about – I’m one of those ones who was on the field, who has known victory and defeat, not one of those timid souls who have known neither, and just looks on from the outside,” he said. Image credits: Getty Images

News

Obese woman sparks debate for not giving up extra seat for toddler

An obese woman has sparked debate online after refusing to give up the second seat she paid for to a fussy toddler. The 34-year-old booked the two seats for her cross-country flight to visit her family for Christmas because she was previously unable to comfortably fit in one seat. All was well until the young woman next to her demanded that she "squeeze into one seat" so her son could sit on the other. "I am obese," she admitted on the Reddit thread. "I'm actively working toward losing weight and I've made progress - but I booked an extra seat because I'm fat." She added that she insisted on keeping her seat because she paid for it, but the mum "made a big fuss over it, and she told the flight attendant I was stealing the seat from her son." "Then I showed her my boarding passes, proving that I paid for the extra seat. The flight attendant asked me if I could try to squeeze in, but I said no, that I wanted the extra seat I paid for." The woman claimed that the toddler was only 18 months old, so he didn't need his own seat and could've sat on his mum's lap for the duration of the flight. "I got dirty looks and passive-aggressive remarks from her for the entire flight and I do feel a little bad because the boy looked hard to control - but am I in the wrong?" she asked other social media users. Many shared their overwhelming support for the woman and slammed the mum and flight attendant for their "horrific" behaviour. "The mum is an a**hole for not buying a seat for her son and assuming someone else would give up a seat they paid for. Odds are she was hoping there'd be extra seats on the flight so she didn't have to pay and used the lap thing as a loophole," one commented. "What's even the point of the extra seat if the flight attendants are going to let entitled people bully others into giving it up?" another added. "People buy entire seats for high-end musical equipment. Not even people. Their lack of planning does not constitute an emergency on your part," a third wrote. However, there were a few others that said the woman was in the wrong for causing an inconvenience. "If you are so fat that you have to have more than one seat on an airplane then you are selfish," one said. "Flights overbook all the time especially during the holidays - how can you justify having two seats to yourself?" "How much room does a kid take up, seriously? Yeah the mum should've bought a seat but that doesn't mean you have to be selfish and cause two people discomfort," another commented. Image: Getty

Travel Trouble

Osher Günsberg slammed for "insulting Australians" over Voice defeat

Osher Günsberg has been slammed online after sharing his thoughts on the Voice to Parliament defeat, saying Aussies were "manipulated" into voting No. In the final episode of Q+A for 2023, the TV personality said that Australians should be "asking questions about who flooded the zone (with misinformation)", leading to a landslide defeat of the referendum. A tense exchange kicked off between the panellists when another guest, Liberal party activist Charlotte Mortlock, said the country needed to come together after the referendum defeat. Günsberg said during the course of the campaign, Australia went "from mostly wanting to do it" to "Oh my God the UN's coming to take my back yard". He said Australians should be "terrified of how quickly we were manipulated as a country". <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/QandA?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#QandA</a>: What is the next step for Indigenous Australians, after the Voice referendum? <a href="https://t.co/KgSoHkRp1d">pic.twitter.com/KgSoHkRp1d</a> — ABC News (@abcnews) <a href="https://twitter.com/abcnews/status/1729098407208440254?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2023</a></blockquote> "We're really lucky that it wasn't during a khaki election," he said, referring to an election held at a time of war. Ms Mortlock defended the Coalition and No voters, saying, "It's been such a divisive year... I do absolutely think that there is work that we can do to in a constructive way that is going to really unite the country and that's what we all have to focus on." Günsberg was quick to question the Liberal party's real motives behind their No campaign, asking whether she felt Opposition Leader Peter Dutton really wanted to unite the nation. "I do. I think the question really is the how," Ms Mortlock replied. Günsberg said, "I don't believe he really wants to." Günsberg and the ABC were both later slammed online for how the program went with some calling the program "insufferable". Others were quick to poke fun at Osher's impressive reality TV résumé, saying, "After the way Osher insulted mainstream common-sense Aussies I will never watch Bachelor again." Image credits: Q+A <p class="mol-para-with-font" style="font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 16px; padding: 0px; min-height: 0px; letter-spacing: -0.16px; font-family: graphik, Arial, sans-serif; font-variant-ligatures: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2; background-color: #ffffff; text-decoration-thickness: initial;">

Legal

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The best 100 cities on the planet have been revealed, with three Aussie cities making the final list. The list was compiled by as part of an annual report by <a href="https://www.worldsbestcities.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Resonance Consultancy</a>, who rated major capital cities on three main factors: liveability, lovability and prosperity, with dozens of factors taken into account. These include educational attainment, GDP per capita, poverty rate, the number of quality restaurants, shops and nightclubs, walkability, the number of mapped bike routes, quality parks and museums, as well as ratings from TripAdvisor and Google. The top ten chart features four cities on the Asian continent, four in Europe and two in the U.S. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane were all featured in the list, coming in at numbers 31, 35 and 57 respectively. Taking out the number one spot this year is London, dubbed the "capital of capitals" that "reigns over all global cities" as the best metropolis in the world. The study proclaims it as the most liveable and the most lovable mecca, solidified by its winning culture and education attainment. The report concludes, "Despite crippling Covid lockdowns and economic devastation. Despite Brexit. Despite a war in Europe. The city is more indomitable and part of the global discourse than ever. From the Queen's death, to last autumn's chaotic drama at 10 Downing Street that finally calmed down with Rishi Sunak becoming prime minister, only to take heavy local election losses this spring, London is rarely quiet these days." Here's the full list of top 100 cities in the world. 1 - London, England 2 - Paris, France 3 - New York, USA 4 - Tokyo, Japan 5 - Singapore 6 - Dubai, United Arab Emirates 7 - San Francisco, USA 8 - Barcelona, Spain 9 - Amsterdam, Netherlands 10 - Seoul, South Korea 11 - Rome, Italy 12 - Prague, Czechia 13 - Madrid, Spain 14 - Berlin, Germany 15 - Los Angeles, USA 16 - Chicago, USA 17 - Washington, D.C., USA 18 - Beijing, China 19 - Istanbul, Turkey 20 - Dublin, Ireland 21 - Vienna, Austria 22 - Milan, Italy 23 - Toronto, Canada 24 - Boston, USA 25 - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 26 - Budapest, Hungary 27 - São Paulo, Brazil 28 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 29 - Stockholm, Sweden 30 - Munich, Germany 31 - Melbourne, Australia 32 - Lisbon, Portugal 33 - Zürich, Switzerland 34 - Seattle, USA 35 - Sydney, Australia 36 - Doha, Qatar 37 - Brussels, Belgium 38 - San Jose, USA 39 - Bangkok, Thailand 40 - Warsaw, Poland 41 - Copenhagen, Denmark 42 - Taipei, Taiwan 43 - Austin, USA 44 - Oslo, Norway 45 - Osaka, Japan 46 - Hong Kong, China 47 - Tel Aviv, Israel 48 - Athens, Greece 49 - Frankfurt, Germany 50 - Vancouver, Canada 51 - San Diego, USA 52 - Orlando, USA 53 - Helsinki, Finland 54 - Miami, USA 55 - Buenos Aires, Argentina 56 - Hamburg, Germany 57 - Brisbane, Australia 58 - Kuwait, Kuwait 59 - Las Vegas, USA 60 - Montreal, Canada 61 - Glasgow, Scotland 62 - Shanghai, China 63 - Rio de Janeiro, USA 64 - Auckland, New Zealand 65 - Atlanta, USA 66 - Houston, USA 67 - Busan, South Korea 68 - Philadelphia, USA 69 - Naples, Italy 70 - Denver, USA 71 - Nashville, USA 72 - Manchester, England 73 - Dallas, USA 74 - Liverpool, England 75 - Minneapolis, USA 76 - Mexico City, Mexico 77 - Minsk, Belarus 78 - Lyon, France 79 - Portland, USA 80 - Rotterdam, Netherlands 81 - Bogotá, Colombia 82 - Kraków, Poland 83 - Valencia, Spain 84 - Santiago, Chile 85 - Birmingham, England 86 - New Orleans, USA 87 - Bucharest, Romania 88 - Leeds, England 89 - Muscat, Oman 90 - Ottawa, Canada 91 - Cologne, Germany 92 - Charlotte, USA 93 - Calgary, Canada 94 - Nagoya, Japan 95 - Düsseldorf, Germany 96 - Hanoi, Vietnam 97 - Gothenburg, Sweden 98 - Sapporo, Japan 99 - Bilbao, Spain 100 - Baltimore, USA Image credits: Getty Images

International Travel

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Parents have shared their thoughts on letting their children live at home rent free, as the age old debate of paying board stirred up some strong opinions. A <a href="https://honey.nine.com.au/money/should-children-over-the-age-of-18-pay-board-if-they-still-live-at-home-reader-poll-exclusive/77876711-2950-4bf3-bb30-716442a6fd74" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nine.com.au</a> reader survey asked the question: Should children over the age of 18 pay board if they still live at home? The responses were many and varied, as a whopping 72 percent of respondents said grown up kids should be contributing financially to the household. One person commented, "If children have employment, it's important that they clearly understand that life is not free and they need to budget, show accountability and responsibility." Another wrote, "If the children over 18 are working, then yes, they should contribute or give money to the parents to bank for them." Others said children shouldn't be expected to pay board, and would rather their kids save money for bigger financial commitments. "My parents did not charge me board even though I was working because they did not need the money and told me to save for my first car, which I did," one person shared. Another wrote their parenting tactic, writing, "I let my children not pay board. So they could save for a deposit on a house. They did and they all (3) have a house." Despite many people sharing their strong opinions on the matter, most respondents said it was not a black and white question, as many households have individual circumstances that affect their decision. "Depends on if they are working or not and what income the parents have. My son is 22 but unemployed due to health problem, we just pool our unemployment payment so it differs for each family situation, not a YES or No answer," one reader wrote. Another said it depends on their employment and study status, writing, "Yes if they're working almost full time, not if they're studying and just working part time to cover living expenses." The poll comes as Aussies have struggled with a rise in basic living costs, with <a href="https://www.finder.com.au/australian-household-spending-statistics" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABS</a> data showing that Australian households spent a total of $1.2 trillion on what was classed as general living costs in 2022. This sum is close to $100 billion more than in 2021. The average household spent $130,353 in 2022, which is the equivalent of $2507 per week. This is a 20.4 per cent jump on the previous year. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

Heated argument between economy passengers reignites plane etiquette debate

A 12-second clip of two passengers arguing on a plane has reignited the age-old debate of whether it is acceptable to recline your seat on a plane. The viral video which was originally posted on TikTok and then re-shared on X, has racked up over 8 million views since Thursday. In the video, a frustrated woman was calling out another female passenger for pushing her seat the entire flight, right after they landed. “The whole trip she pushed my seat,” the woman said to a male passenger seated next to the female passenger accused of kicking her seat. “You seen it. You know she did.” “I’m allowed to put my seat back," she yelled repeatedly. Ian Miles Cheong, the user who posted the video on X, defended the woman saying: “She’s allowed to put her seat back. You don’t get to kick it repeatedly just because you want more space.” A few were on the woman's side and praised her for standing up for herself. “You are allowed! Period! You want space in front of you instead of pushing the seat, buy a seat with extra space or get your a** to business class. Reclining was put there for a reason,” one person wrote. “She was patient enough to wait till flight landed," they added. “If the seat is reclinable, recline it,” another commented. "What she’s saying is right. The woman has a right to put her seat back without someone kicking it," a third agreed. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> She’s allowed to put her seat back. You don’t get to kick it repeatedly just because you want more space. <a href="https://t.co/WELD7Qh4Re">pic.twitter.com/WELD7Qh4Re</a> — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) <a href="https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1719881310351863952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2023</a></blockquote> However, others claimed that there was an unwritten rule that you shouldn't recline your seat, especially on a short-haul flight, adding that the recline feature should be scrapped from airplanes. “Putting your seat back in coach is an unspoken thing most people don’t do. It’s really the airline’s fault because they’ve made coach so cramped and tight that putting the seat back shouldn’t even be an option,” one commented. “Airline seats simply shouldn’t be able to recline. It intrudes on the already very little space a person has on the plane for the person behind them,” another added. “Really it’s the airline’s fault for cramming so many people in such a small space. They don’t call it cattle class for nothing,” a third wrote. One user understood both sides of the argument, and blamed the airlines for making the seats so cramped. "It can be annoying sometimes to be behind someone with their seat all the way, but if the airlines didn't want to allow that, it wouldn't happen," they wrote. "You don't kick the seat like a baby. Blame the airline, not the person doing what the airline says is fine." Images: Twitter

Travel Trouble

"Soulless": Stan Grant finally breaks silence over Voice defeat

Stan Grant has finally broken his silence over the devastating Voice to Parliament defeat, saying the nation failed to "shoulder the load" of Indigenous Australians. In his first public comments since the referendum results were announced, the Indigenous journalist said the resounding No vote was a "judgment on me and all the others like me", along with generations of Indigenous people. His scathing comments came during an address at the Australian National University's Crawford Leadership Forum, where the former Q+A host reflected on the referendum result. "The voice was never about resentment, it was never about identity - it was a release, it was a moment to lay our burdens down," he said. "But Australia would not shoulder that load. Instead, we got a lecture about unity." "Those who own history claimed for themselves history's final word: 'No'." Grant went on to say that the overwhelming defeat of the referendum made clear that there would be no further advancements in the rights of Indigenous Australians during his lifetime, as long as it was left up to the public. "We have laid the sod over (my ancestors), sealed them in," he said. "I thought in me they may be able to speak, that those two sides of me might find a common voice. But we said 'No' to that." "My country has buried my ancestors for a second time. I am hearing the cold-hearted 'no' of a country so comfortable it need not care." "A country that feels, right now, soulless. A country of numbers, and no words but one: 'No'." Grant finished his scathing tirade by calling out the Yes campaign for not "letting the Voice speak", while also calling for more radical change, saying the Voice proposal was "shushed, shrunk small enough to fit into politics". "In the consultants' suites and the lawyers' dens, it was determined that if the voice was made so inoffensive, people may say 'Yes'." "Instead, it was so inoffensive people found it so easy to say 'No'." "The constitution is not our problem - our conscience is our problem." Image credits: Q+A

Legal

Waleed Aly and Steve Price clash over damning Voice letter

Waleed Aly and Steve Price have clashed over an anonymous letter from Yes campaigners, condemning those who opposed the Voice to Parliament. On Sunday night, a lengthy and unsigned letter was shared by activists associated with the Uluru Dialogue group, as the letter slammed No voters for committing "a shameful act" by contributing to the Voice defeat. On The Project, Price was quick to slam the author of the letter, who addressed the message to the Prime Minister and all federal members of parliament, saying they did not have "the guts" to sign it. "It seems to me the Yes campaign hasn't learned anything about the result that happened Saturday two weeks ago," he said on Monday night. "The public voted 60 (per cent) No, 40 (per cent) Yes and yet, they pen a letter that they then send to the Cabinet and Prime Minister calling people who voted No as doing a shameful act, suggesting No voters are racists." "If you are going to do that, at least have the courage to put your name to it." Aly then leapt to the defence of those who wrote the anonymous letter, saying, "I don't think they said all No voters were racist." "They said racism was a big part of the campaign and the vote, they are inextricably bound up." Aly admitted that while he did not agree with everything in the letter, it was "hard to have a simple response to it". "They must be so hurting. I can't deny them that. Whether we agree or not," he said. The open letter claims to be "the collective insights and views of a group of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders, community members and organisations who supported Yes". The published letter said, "The truth is that the majority of Australians have committed a shameful act whether knowingly or not, and there is nothing positive to be interpreted from it. We needed truth to be told to the Australian people." Image credits: The Project

Legal

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609">Amy Maguire</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060">University of Newcastle</a> A majority of Australian voters have rejected the proposal to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, with the final results likely to be about 40% voting “yes” and 60% voting “no”. <h2>What was the referendum about?</h2> In this referendum, Australians were asked to vote on whether to establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/referendum-question-and-constitutional-amendment">Voice</a> to Parliament. The Voice was proposed as a means of recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the <a href="https://aiatsis.gov.au/explore/australias-first-peoples">First Peoples of Australia</a> in the Constitution. The Voice proposal was a modest one. It was to be an advisory body for the national parliament and government. Had the referendum succeeded, Australia’s Constitution would have been amended with a new section 129: <blockquote> In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia: i. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice ii. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples iii. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures. </blockquote> This proposal was drawn from the <a href="https://ulurustatement.org/the-statement/view-the-statement/">Uluru Statement from the Heart</a> from 250 Indigenous leaders, which called for <a href="https://deadlystory.com/page/culture/Annual_Days/NAIDOC_Week/NAIDOC_2019/Hey_you_Mob_it_s_NAIDOC_week#:%7E:text=The%20statement%20outlines%20a%20need,see%20below%20for%20more%20information">three phases of reform</a> - Voice, followed by Treaty and Truth -telling about Australia’s colonial history. The proposal was for constitutional change to ensure the Voice would not be abolished by government in future, as previous Indigenous bodies have been. <h2>How did Australians vote?</h2> Voting is <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/publications/voting/">compulsory</a> in Australia. Every eligible Australian citizen over 18 years of age is obliged to vote in elections and referendums. Australia has one of the <a href="https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/how-many-people-voted-in-the-last-election/#:%7E:text=According%20to%20the%20Australian%20Electoral,voter%20turnouts%20in%20the%20world.">highest rates of voter turn out</a> in the world - over 90% of those eligible have voted in every national election since compulsory voting was introduced in 1924. Australia has a written <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005">Constitution</a>. A successful referendum vote is required to <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter1/Constitution_alteration">change</a> the Constitution in any way. To succeed, a referendum proposition requires a <a href="https://voice.gov.au/referendum-2023/how-referendum-works#:%7E:text=For%20a%20referendum%20to%20be,4%20out%20of%206%20states.">double majority</a>. This means it must be agreed to by a majority of voters, and a majority of states. Australia has six <a href="https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/images/map-australia-showing-states-and-territories">states</a>, so at least four must have a majority of voters in favour for a referendum to succeed. Australia also has two territories - individuals in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/state-and-territory-ballots-will-be-counted-differently-at-the-voice-referendum-is-that-fair-212703">territories</a> contribute to the overall vote, but the territories do not count towards the majority of states. It’s very difficult to achieve constitutional change in Australia. Since federation in 1901, 45 questions have been put to Australian voters in <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/referendum_dates_and_results.htm">referendums</a>. Only eight of those have succeeded. In the Voice referendum, only the Australian Capital Territory voted “yes” by majority. A <a href="https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/ReferendumNationalResults-29581.htm">clear majority</a> of the national electorate voted “no”. All states returned majority “no” results. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people constitute <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/estimates-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/latest-release#:%7E:text=Data%20downloads-,Key%20statistics,Queensland%20and%20Western%20Australia%20combined.">3.8% of Australia’s population</a>. Government members claimed on ABC TV in the referendum coverage that polling booths including high proportions of Indigenous voters, for example Palm Island in Queensland, returned high “yes” votes. However, in a majoritarian democracy like Australia, such a small proportion of the national population cannot dictate the outcome of a national poll. Importantly, the Voice referendum did not have unanimous support across the two main political parties in Australia. The Labor government <a href="https://theconversation.com/were-all-in-declares-an-emotional-albanese-as-he-launches-the-wording-for-the-voice-referendum-202435">announced</a> and has campaigned for “yes”. The leader of the opposition, Liberal Queensland MP <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-05/peter-dutton-voice-to-parliament-yes-no-vote-referendum/102797582">Peter Dutton</a>, campaigned strongly against the referendum proposal. <h2>What happens now?</h2> The government is bound to abide by the referendum result. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has confirmed that his government <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/08/labor-wont-try-to-legislate-indigenous-voice-if-referendum-fails-albanese-says#:%7E:text=The%20prime%20minister%2C%20Anthony%20Albanese,away%20from%20the%20voice%20altogether%3F%E2%80%9D">will not seek to legislate a Voice</a> as an alternative to the constitutional model. Albanese, conceding the failure of the referendum, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-14/live-updates-voice-to-parliament-referendum-latest-news/102969568">said</a>: “Tomorrow we must seek a new way forward”. He called for a renewed focus on doing better for First Peoples in Australia. The referendum outcome represents a major loss for the government. But much more important than that will be the negative impacts of the campaign and loss on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. On ABC TV, Arrernte/Luritja woman <a href="https://www.snaicc.org.au/about/contact/staff-bios/">Catherine Liddle</a> called for a renewed focus on truth-telling and building understanding of Australia’s history across the population. She said the failure of the referendum reflected a lack of understanding about the lives and experiences of Indigenous people in Australia. “Yes” campaign advocates reported <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/we-are-tired-victorian-yes-advocates-devastated-as-no-vote-refuses-voice-20231012-p5ebse.html">devastation</a> at the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/14/australian-voters-reject-proposal-for-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-at-historic-referendum">outcome</a>. Sana Nakata, writing <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-political-subjugation-of-first-nations-peoples-is-no-longer-historical-legacy-213752">here</a>, said: “now we are where we have always been, left to build our better futures on our own”. Some First Nations advocates, including Victorian independent Senator <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/8/16/lidia-thorpe-says-australias-voice-referendum-should-be-called-off">Lidia Thorpe</a> - a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung woman - argued the Voice proposal lacked substance and that the referendum should not have been held. Advocates of a “<a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/these-progressive-no-campaigners-are-looking-beyond-the-vote-heres-what-they-want/tdyj2ilx6">progressive no</a>” vote (who felt the Voice didn’t go far enough) will continue to call for recognition of continuing First Nations sovereignty and self-determination through processes of treaty and truth-telling. The information landscape for Australian voters leading up to this referendum was murky and difficult to navigate. The Australian Electoral Commission published a <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/media/disinformation-register-ref.htm">disinformation register</a>. <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/extremely-politicised-and-very-worrying-how-misinformation-about-the-voice-spread/w9sl4pzba">Misinformation and lies</a>, many circulated through social media, have influenced the decision-making of a proportion of voters. It’s open to question whether constitutional change of any kind can be achieved while voters remain so exposed to multiple versions of “<a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/sorting-fact-from-fiction-in-the-voice-to-parliament-referendum/">truth</a>”. For many First Nations people, the proliferation of lies and misinformation driven by <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66470376">racism</a> throughout the Voice debate have been <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-03/indigenous-mental-health-impacts-of-voice-referendum-debate/102923188">traumatising</a> and brutal. Indigenous Australians’ Minister, Wiradjuri woman Linda Burney, spoke to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people after the result: “Be proud of your identity. Be proud of the 65,000 years of history and culture that you are part of”. Her <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/videos/national/linda-burney-gives-emotional-speech-following-referendum-result/clnpw6w0n009u0jp8kvgbijuy">pain</a> was patently obvious as she responded to the referendum outcome.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215155/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/amy-maguire-129609">Amy Maguire</a>, Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-newcastle-1060">University of Newcastle</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-australia-has-voted-against-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-heres-what-happened-215155">original article</a>.

Legal

"A mean country": Stan Grant shares his thoughts on the Voice referendum

Stan Grant has opened up about his thoughts on the Voice referendum campaigns, admitting it is becoming harder to defend Australia's "mean" reputation. The former ABC presenter appeared as a social guest on a special two-part episode of the podcast Blak Matters, with each part airing just before the Voice vote on October 14th. In the podcast, Grant spoke about his recent trip to Europe, working with the Constructive Institute in Denmark, and how difficult it has become to speak positively about living in Australia. “When you’re overseas, you’re almost an ambassador for your own country, you have to explain your country to other people,” Mr Grant said. “And it really saddened me that the word I kept coming back to was ‘mean,’ and I think we have become an increasingly mean country. I think there’s an absence of kindness in our country." “You hear it in things like ‘if you don’t know, vote no.’ That’s a mean thing to say.” Grant went on to criticise the "noise" surrounding the Voice, saying there has been very little constructive debate about the issue and too much fear mongering. “This is also the first referendum of the 24/7 news cycle and social media and that’s elevated and amplified the noise,” Mr Grant said. “For a lot of people, when you add uncomfortable questions of history and race, they’re barbecue stoppers." “If you want to stop the party, talk about racism, or talk about history. No one wants to go there." “And we have a referendum that lands right at that point of history and race and politics amplified by 24/7 news media, and a toxic social media weaponised by 24/7 news media coverage.” Image credits: Listnr

Travel Trouble

Coming to terms with the past is more important than ever. The Voice referendum is a vital first step

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-norman-859">Heidi Norman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> This Saturday is the final day of voting in the Voice to Parliament referendum, which asks Australians to support recognition of First Peoples in the Constitution and enable First Peoples’ representation on relevant policies and programs. Over the last several weeks, I have attended many events supporting and advocating for the Voice referendum. In these forums, my fellow Australians talk about the Constitution, the role of government and how power is exercised in modern democracy. Some have never read or thought about the Constitution before. I’ve seen young First Nations lawyers explaining to a mixed crowd how the Constitution works, what is included in it and what a constitutionally enshrined Voice would mean. I have been invigorated by such sincere participation in understanding how our democracy works, and could work better. This serious contemplation was getting underway at the Referendum Council’s Aboriginal regional dialogues I attended in 2017. With other Aboriginal people, we discussed what change could look like. I have supported the implementation of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and played my small part supporting the “yes” vote at my university and with my family and community. <h2>How opinions have differed</h2> Debates around the Voice have presented three competing narratives to the Australian public. The “yes” position addresses the outstanding business of the place of First Peoples in the life of the nation. This position is an offer of peace, to walk together towards settlement. It also believes that if First Peoples are able to work with and through government – with power devolved to local-level decision-making – the everyday experiences of the disadvantaged will be changed. The Voice proposal is a modest, middle path. It’s a compromise position that was believed to have the greatest chance of gaining support from progressives, liberals and conservatives. The “no” position refuses to acknowledge the unique place of First Peoples in the life of the nation and rejects any perceived “special treatment” based on either disadvantage or cultural difference. A third, minority group is the so-called “progressive no” vote, which rejects the Voice referendum as an unacceptable compromise with limited utility as a mechanism to advance First Peoples’ rights. It argues Voice is not enough, and it’s time instead for recognition of sovereignty. Each of these narratives draws from competing versions of the story of the nation’s past and future. We can see that understanding our history is more important than ever in addressing the politics of disruption and disinformation and the toxic social and political discourse that has dominated the campaign. <h2>Right-wing tactics of division</h2> Debate over the referendum has played out in a different way to other referendums and general election campaigns. The debate has often been discourteous, relying on a swarm of cruel, derogatory and racist social media posts. Some leading “no” campaigners have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/sep/28/we-forgive-but-never-forget-yes-campaigner-rachel-perkins-responds-to-warren-mundine-on-uluru-statement">presented</a> increasingly extremist and sensational views intended to dominate the news cycle and social media. In many ways, the “no” campaign has followed patterns of right-wing campaigning from overseas, which is intended to destabilise the social relations, trust and confidence we have in one another and seed division. Consider the Brexit debate in the UK, and or US Capitol insurrection and claims of a stolen election by former President Donald Trump. Each provided a platform for people to express white nationalist sentiments and their deep distrust in the institutions of democratic government. The “no” campaign’s tactics have also sought to <a href="https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/mcs/article/view/8813">link</a> a host of disparate themes to the referendum, from climate change denial to anti-vaccination beliefs. The common theme is grievance against the perceived extension of the distrusted government into people’s lives. Disinformation has played a key role. Other concerns have also been publicly raised about the Voice, such as that it would be a risk to <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-the-voice-to-parliament-would-not-force-people-to-give-up-their-private-land-212784">people’s private land</a>. These concerns are sincerely feared, but totally unfounded. <h2>Difficulties confronting our history</h2> What sits beneath this right-wing rhetoric in Australia is the highly charged debate over the nation’s past and its future. Contesting views about Australia’s history should not come as a surprise. Since historians became more interested in the telling of Australian history “from the other side” and writing First Peoples back into the nation’s story, it has been met with an equal measure of resistance and shock. The ongoing difficulty of “coming to terms” with colonial histories can be attributed to a number of things: <ul> <li> historical amnesia, disbelief or cultural differences over what counts as historical knowledge </li> <li> the strategic use of “forgetting” to protect a social group’s self-image </li> <li> and the belief that engaging in these difficult histories is somebody else’s responsibility rather than our own. </li> </ul> The Voice Referendum and Uluru Statement introduce a new nationalism underpinned by a different origin story: the process of a settlement between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians with a recognition of how our continent’s much deeper history can be a gift, or inheritance, to all Australians. In this vision for the future, the worlds of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders narrate the story of the country over much longer timeframes through an entirely different archive and knowledge system. The idea of inheritance of a much deeper and longer history of country is less concerned with colonial settler-Indigenous relations. Rather, it is a transformed sense of history that extends over thousands of generations and speaks to place. <h2>Playing a role in the future of the nation</h2> The aim of the Voice is to strengthen democracy by meaningfully engaging with those who have the knowledge and expertise, in local conditions and contexts, to improve government decisions in Indigenous policy and programs. The Voice proposal eschews a rights framework in favour of <a href="https://www.mup.com.au/books/its-our-country-paperback-softback">providing</a> <blockquote> the impetus for a profound paradigmatic shift between Indigenous peoples and the state. While this “power of influence” on one hand seeks to improve policy and programs and services on the ground, it also seeks to shape a new and meaningful relationship between Indigenous Peoples and political institutions. </blockquote> There is a legitimate and important role for government to play in First Peoples’ lives, but this role can be improved by greater participation and local-level input in the design and implementation of policy and programs. For too long, First Peoples have experienced the worst excesses of government and its various instruments – namely the police and judiciary. There’s a reason why many people hold a deep and abiding fear and suspicion of government. It has been responsible for many traumas: <ul> <li> the brutal dislodging of kinship connections </li> <li> the taking of land without any legal basis or compensation </li> <li> the violent dispersal of people from their land, which has rendered many destitute and without means to care for their families </li> <li> the removal of people’s children, denial of basic services and assistance, and management of people’s lives by a cruel and underfunded protection board </li> <li> the <a href="https://www.monash.edu/law/research/centres/castancentre/our-areas-of-work/indigenous/the-northern-territory-intervention/the-northern-territory-intervention-an-evaluation/what-is-the-northern-territory-intervention">empowering</a> of police and military to seize people’s community assets. </li> </ul> And yet, the Voice referendum, supported by the overwhelming majority of First Peoples, seeks to improve the relationship with governments to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness of policies intended to improve lives. At one Sydney “yes” rally, we walked from Redfern Park along Cleveland Street to Victoria Park. It was a massive turnout that far exceeded expectations. The mood was serious, yet joyous. People came from all over Sydney and brought their place with them – the crew from “The Shire” got a big cheer from the crowd. This gathering was not looking for division, but rather a heart-filled yearning to come together as a community of people and play a role in the future of a nation that’s accepting of the fact it’s our country, too.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215152/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/heidi-norman-859">Heidi Norman</a>, Professor, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-technology-sydney-936">University of Technology Sydney</a> Image credits: Central Land Council - PR Image This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/coming-to-terms-with-the-past-is-more-important-than-ever-the-voice-referendum-is-a-vital-first-step-215152">original article</a>.

Caring

Kyle and Jackie O reveal their stance on the Voice

Kyle and Jackie O have revealed how they have voted in the Voice to Parliament referendum, while discussing the upcoming vote with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The radio hosts were joined by the PM on Wednesday morning to chat about the Voice live on air, with Kyle Sandilands revealing he has voted Yes by postal vote. Sandilands admitted he was left feeling confused by the “talking points” from both sides, but shared he "feels like I’ve done the right thing" by voting Yes. “I just thought to myself, voting yes, that’s what I’m gonna do. I don’t care what anyone else does, but I just thought I want to … at least feel like I’ve done the right thing,” he told listeners and the Prime Minister. "Jackie also voted Yes." <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyKu8qpPalZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyKu8qpPalZ/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Kyle and Jackie O (@kyleandjackieo)</a> </div> </blockquote> He went on to say there needed to be a greater focus on struggling regional communities where “young fellas” are getting into trouble because they’re "bored". “I’ve been that kid. I’m not even Indigenous. I’ve been that bored homeless kid where we just thought, ‘Let’s cause some trouble because there is nothing else to do’.” Mr Albanese agreed with Sandilands and praised him for voting Yes, saying the Voice would help create opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Sandilands told the Prime Minister that his co-host Jackie O had also voted Yes, but said after a number of open discussions about the referendum, some of the show’s staff had voted No. A producer on the program told Mr Albanese that he felt Indigenous Australians coming out in favour of the No vote had confused many voters. Sandilands said it depended on a person's individual politics, “not just the colour of your skin”, to which Albanese agreed. Image credits: KIISFM <div class="media image" style="caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none; box-sizing: inherit; margin-bottom: 24px; display: flex; flex-direction: column; align-items: center; width: 705.202209px; max-width: 100%;"> </div>

Legal

Ray Martin's scathing Voice to Parliament speech

Ray Martin has ripped into No voters while discussing the upcoming Voice to Parliament referendum, calling them "dinosaurs and d**kheads". The veteran TV presenter spoke to supporters of the Yes campaign at the Factory Theatre in Marrickville, in Sydney's inner west, and did not hold back on what he thought of those voting no on October 14th. He called out those who are voting No, suggesting they are too lazy to educate themselves by performing a simple Google search, and instead are being driven by division and fear. Martin said, “If you don’t know, find out what you don’t know.” <div id="story-primary" data-area="story-primary"> “What that excellent slogan is saying, is if you’re a dinosaur or a d**khead who can’t be bothered reading, then vote No.” He went on to argue that No voters kept begging Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for the details of the referendum, but the details “could not be simpler”. </div> “At this stage of the game, the details simply don’t matter. They never did matter, honestly. They’re irrelevant,” he said. “Over the next 10 to 20 years, no matter who is in government, the details will change, inevitably. As will the members of the Voice delegation from around Australia, according to the needs, the priorities and the policies that are meant to close that bloody gap. “You can’t write all that in the constitution in 2023.” He explained that as governments and priorities will change over the years, so will the roles and responsibilities of the Voice representatives. “It’s a big country with lots of different demands and needs. How do you give the details of all that in the Australian constitution? Of course you don’t.” Image credits: Getty Images

Legal

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> The National Party’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/more-sanctions-for-unemployed-beneficiaries-under-national/">pledge to apply sanctions</a> to unemployed people receiving a welfare payment, if they are “persistently” failing to meet the criteria for receiving the benefit, has attracted plenty of comment and <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/26/nationals-benefit-sanctions-plan-cruel-dehumanising-greens/">criticism</a>. Less talked about has been the party’s promise to index benefits to inflation to keep pace with the cost of living. This might at least provide some relief to those struggling to make ends meet on welfare, though is not clear how much difference it would make to the current system of indexing benefits to wages. In any case, this alone it is unlikely to break the cycle of poverty many find themselves in. One of the major drivers of this is the way the welfare system pushes some of the most vulnerable people into debt with loans for things such as school uniforms, power bills and car repairs. The government provides one-off grants to cover benefit shortfalls. But most of these grants are essentially loans. People receiving benefits are required to repay the government through weekly deductions from their normal benefits – which leaves them with even less money to survive on each week. With <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/pou-tiaki/132980318/auckland-mother-serves-up-cereal-for-dinner-due-to-rising-food-costs">rising costs</a>, the situation is only getting worse for many of the 351,756 New Zealanders <a href="https://figure.nz/chart/TtiUrpceJruy058e-ITw010dHsM6bvA2a">accessing one of the main benefits</a>. <h2>Our whittled down welfare state</h2> Broadly, there are three levels of government benefits in our current system. The main benefits (such as jobseeker, sole parent and supported living payment) <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/benefit-rates/benefit-rates-april-2023.html">pay a fixed weekly amount</a>. The jobseeker benefit rate is set at NZ$337.74 and sole parents receive $472.79 a week. Those on benefits have access to a second level of benefits – weekly supplementary benefits such as an <a href="https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/products/a-z-benefits/accommodation-supplement.html">accommodation supplement</a> and other allowances or tax credits. The third level of support is one-off discretionary payments for specific essential needs. Those on benefits cannot realistically make ends meet without repeated use of these one-off payments, unless they use assistance from elsewhere – such as family, charity or borrowing from loan sharks. This problem has been building for decades. <h2>Benefits have been too low for too long</h2> In the 1970s, the <a href="https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/12967">Royal Commission on Social Security</a> declared the system should provide “a standard of living consistent with human dignity and approaching that enjoyed by the majority”. But Ruth Richardson’s “<a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/christchurch-life/124978983/1991-the-mother-of-all-budgets">mother of all budgets</a>” in 1991 slashed benefits. Rates never recovered and today’s <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/03/29/benefit-increases-will-still-leave-families-locked-in-poverty/">benefits are not enough to live on</a>. In 2018, the <a href="https://www.weag.govt.nz/">Welfare Expert Advisory Group</a> looked at how much money households need in two lifestyle scenarios: bare essentials and a minimum level of participation in the community, such as playing a sport and taking public transport. The main benefits plus supplementary allowances did not meet the cost of the bare essentials, let alone minimal participation. The Labour government has since <a href="https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government-delivers-income-increases-over-14-million-new-zealanders">increased benefit rates</a>, meaning they are now slightly above those recommended by the advisory group. But those recommendations were made in 2019 and don’t take into account the <a href="https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/annual-inflation-at-6-0-percent">sharp rise in inflation</a> since then. Advocacy group <a href="https://fairerfuture.org.nz/">Fairer Future</a> published an updated assessment in 2022 – nine out of 13 types of households still can’t meet their core costs with the current benefit rates. <h2>How ‘advances’ create debt traps</h2> When they don’t have money for an essential need, people on benefits can receive a “special needs grant”, which doesn’t have to be repaid. But in practice, Work and Income virtually never makes this type of grant for anything except food and some other specific items, such as some health travel costs or emergency dental treatment. For <a href="https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/02/27/very-stressful-beneficiary-says-he-cant-afford-msd-debt/">all other essential needs</a> – such as school uniforms, car repairs, replacing essential appliances, overdue rent, power bills and tenancy bonds – a one-off payment called an “advance” is used. Advances are loans and have to be paid back. There are several issues with these types of loans. First, people on benefits are racking up thousands of dollars worth of debts to cover their essential needs. It serves to trap them in financial difficulties for the foreseeable future. As long as they remain on benefits or low incomes, it’s difficult to repay these debts. And the <a href="https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2018/0032/latest/whole.html">Social Security Act 2018</a> doesn’t allow the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to waive debts. <h2>Contradictory policies</h2> Another problem is that people on benefits have to start repaying their debt straight away, with weekly deductions coming out of their already limited benefit. Each new advance results in a further weekly deduction. Often these add up to $50 a week or more. MSD policy says repayments should not add up to more than $40 a week, but that is often ignored. This happens because the law stipulates that each individual debt should be repaid in no more than two years, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Paying this debt off in two years often requires total deductions to be much higher than $40. The third issue is that one-off payments can be refused regardless of the need. That is because there are two provisions pulling in opposite directions. On the one hand the law says a payment should be made if not making it would cause serious hardship. But on the other hand, the law also says payments should not be made if the person already has too much debt. People receiving benefits and their case managers face the choice between more debt and higher repayments, or failing to meet an essential need. <h2>Ways to start easing the burden</h2> So what is the fix? A great deal could be achieved by just changing the policies and practices followed by Work and Income. Case managers have the discretion to make non-recoverable grants for non-food essential needs. These could and should be used when someone has an essential need, particularly when they already have significant debt. Weekly deductions for debts could also be automatically made very low. When it comes to changing the law, the best solution would be to make weekly benefit rates adequate to live on. The government could also make these benefit debts similar to student loans, with no repayments required until the person is off the benefit and their income is above a certain threshold. However we do it, surely it must be time to do something to fix this poverty trap.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212528/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hanna-wilberg-1466649">Hanna Wilberg</a>, Associate professor - Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/forcing-people-to-repay-welfare-loans-traps-them-in-a-poverty-cycle-where-is-the-policy-debate-about-that-212528">original article</a>.

Money & Banking

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"Height of selfishness": Photo at iconic beach sparks debate over etiquette

Debate erupts over groom's unconventional footwear choice

An emotional Scott Morrison delivers his last speech to parliament

As Scott Morrison leaves parliament, where does he rank among Australian prime ministers?

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Kate Langbroek reignites Australia Day debate

Scott Morrison resigns from parliament

Obese woman sparks debate for not giving up extra seat for toddler

Osher Günsberg slammed for "insulting Australians" over Voice defeat

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Heated argument between economy passengers reignites plane etiquette debate

"Soulless": Stan Grant finally breaks silence over Voice defeat

Waleed Aly and Steve Price clash over damning Voice letter

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

"A mean country": Stan Grant shares his thoughts on the Voice referendum

Coming to terms with the past is more important than ever. The Voice referendum is a vital first step

Kyle and Jackie O reveal their stance on the Voice

Ray Martin's scathing Voice to Parliament speech

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"Height of selfishness": Photo at iconic beach sparks debate over etiquette

Debate erupts over groom's unconventional footwear choice

An emotional Scott Morrison delivers his last speech to parliament

As Scott Morrison leaves parliament, where does he rank among Australian prime ministers?

Woman sparks debate after copping $116 fine for "absurd" rule

Kate Langbroek reignites Australia Day debate

Scott Morrison resigns from parliament

Obese woman sparks debate for not giving up extra seat for toddler

Osher Günsberg slammed for "insulting Australians" over Voice defeat

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The debate: Should kids over 18 pay rent if they’re still living at home?

Heated argument between economy passengers reignites plane etiquette debate

"Soulless": Stan Grant finally breaks silence over Voice defeat

Waleed Aly and Steve Price clash over damning Voice letter

Explainer: Australia has voted against an Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Here’s what happened

"A mean country": Stan Grant shares his thoughts on the Voice referendum

Coming to terms with the past is more important than ever. The Voice referendum is a vital first step

Kyle and Jackie O reveal their stance on the Voice

Ray Martin's scathing Voice to Parliament speech

Forcing people to repay welfare ‘loans’ traps them in a poverty cycle – where is the policy debate about that?

Our Partners

Join Over60