In an article about how youth and middle classes are being priced out of housing ("Sydney should act now to prevent young people, middle class from being priced out of housing, NSW treasurer says"), the NSW Minister for Youth & Housing has grotesquely scapegoated older generations, rather than point to the role of overseas buyers via the internet, massive migration, and government subsidies to the property development industry, none of which were ever put before any Australian electorate. How dare she!
"Minister for Youth and Housing Rose Jackson said young people weren't at fault.
"It's older generations who are too lazy and careless to show up to the platforms and the forums young people inhabit to engage them in the conversations they want to have," she said."
With ministers like this, don't you wish Australia had a real democracy? How can the ABC quote comments calculated to increase confusion, without pointing out how false and harmful they are?
In the meantime, in the name of 'more housing', whilst 77% of Australia's population growth is descretionary - i.e. comes from overseas migration - Sydney is throwing more precious green space to developers:
"It comes as the state government revealed plans today around the 114-hectare Bradfield City Centre in Western Sydney.
The proposal includes housing, commercial spaces and green space near the Nancy-Bird Walton Airport due to open in 2026.
"Bradfield City Centre could deliver 10,000 new homes in the coming years, making a significant contribution to more, and more diverse, housing supply in Western Parkland City," Minister for Planning Paul Scully said."
Read more at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-05/nsw-sydney-housing-crisis-san-francisco-treasurer/103426896
To Parliamentary supporters: please put motion for Assange
I sent the following e-mail to four Parliamentary supporters of Julian Assange early in the morning of Monday 12 February, the day on which the House of Representatives resumes sitting :
Dear Andrew Wilikie, Bridget Archer, Josh Wilson and Adam Bandt,
Firstly, can I congratulate all four of you for having organised that protest and press conference at 10:30am this coming Tuesday 13 February outside of Parliament House in support of Julian Assange? Unfortunately, I won't be able to make it up there from Melbourne on that day.
As I wrote in an article about the the planned protest on my website (which which was adapted to become a PDF file for a a leaflet of which I have already distributed 400 copies), I welcome the fact that, contrary to what even a number of supporters of Julian Assange seem to believe, your publicity for the protest makes it clear that you believe that the Albanese government could make the UK government end the illegal imprisonment and torture of Julian Assange today, if it chose to.
But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has chosen not to act to end that illegal imprisonment. By not doing so, he has failed to uphold his basic duty of care towards an Australian citizen. For this, he and his government must be held to account before the Australian public who overwhelmingly want to see Julian Assange freed.
Whilst I think the planned protest and press conference are a fantastic and positive initiative for the campaign to free Julian Assange, unless motions, which demand that the Albanese government act to free Assange, are not also soon put to the House of Representatives and/or to the Senate, it will be much harder for the Albanese government to be held to account for its failure to act.
Whilst we all understand the great difficulty that members and Senators will face were they to try to put such a motion, the alternatives pursued by members of the Parliamentary Assange Support group in recent years have had little to no impact, as far as I can tell. These alternatives are: asking Government ministers what they are doing for Assange in Question Time, presenting petitions in support of Assange and making statements.
Whilst I can see that government ministers (from my recollection, Albanese and Wong) have felt uncomfortable when faced with questions about Assange, those questions have had almost no enduring effect on the government's conduct.
As far as I can tell, petitions and even the very informative and eloquent statements made on the floors of Parliament in support of Assange have had zero impact on any Government minister.
But were a motion which, if carried, required the government to act to end Assange's imprisonment were to be put, then those in support of Assange, in speaking for that motion, would be able to put on record the overwhelming evidence that
(1) Assange has been refused due process in a court system rigged by crooked judges;
(2) There is no way that any judge with integrity or any fairly selected jury would have put Assange behind bars even for one night;
(3) Assange's imprisonment in solitary confinement serves no judicial purpose and can only be explained by malice on the part of the judges;
(4) Should Assange be extradited, he faces the same kind of extreme torture that Chelsea Manning was subjected to for many years;
(5) No-one has been prosecuted for any of the crimes revealed by Wikileaks;
(6) If Assange, who, apart from his supposed 2012 'misdemeanour' of 'skipping bail', has broken no British law, can be treated in this way, then any other Australian citizen, who may have embarrassed members of the US government or its military, could also be treated this way.
In the face of all this evidence, regardless of how many vote in support of Wilkie's motion, the government will clearly be seen by all interested Australians, in the course of any debate, to not have a leg to stand on.
The motion that Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt tried unsuccessfully to put on 2 December 2021 is included below in the Appendix (see in the article above). This motion, or an adaptation of it could be used today.
Whilst, the necessary motion to suspend Standing Orders, could be defeated, if, this time, unlike in December 2021, Andrew Wilkie called for a division, then we would know the names of each of those MPS who would have used their vote to prevent debate and they could be treated accordingly by their constituents at the next election, if not before.
Yours faithfully,
James Sinnamon