The love of a mother goes a long way, but sometimes it just won't go far enough. And that is the case with the Jackson family in Tasmania. Jayden is a teenager deeply loved by his mother and father. Jayden has cerebral palsy and autism, is blind and cannot speak. To compound these issues, Jayden's father recently had a stroke. Jayden's mother, Lisa, is doing everything she possibly can to give her son the best in life. In her relentless search for specialist assistance, Lisa found a school for the blind in Queensland with all the necessary additional support services on hand, such as occupational therapy, speech therapy and a hydro pool. The Narbethong school in Queensland seems exactly what is needed for Jayden to be given the best opportunity in life.
Jayden has an NDIS plan. Under the plan, removal costs to relocate the client and his family closer to essential specialist facilities are, regrettably, not covered, and there seems to be no flexibility in the system to allow for such funding. In principle, I can understand the need to avoid cost blowouts in this taxpayer-funded scheme, but the difficulty with a one-size-fits-all approach is that worthy needy cases are denied that which is required. Any scheme needs tight stewardship to protect taxpayers' money and to ensure the limited funds are appropriately targeted. Within those strict parameters, which I fully endorse, there can be, and indeed needs to be, room for flexibility to cater for the Jaydens of this world. I thank the Senate.
(First published in The Examiner 24 August 2021)
What were you doing 20 years ago? 20 years ago, the Al Qaeda terrorist operation being harboured in Afghanistan was putting the finishing touches on its 9/11 hijacking massacre operations. 2977 people died on that fateful day from nearly 100 different countries of whom 10 were Australians. More than 6000 were injured – many scarred for life.
This barbaric shedding of innocent civilian blood was as brutal as it was brazen. Any self-respecting nation could not allow such a travesty to pass without a strong definite response. Given the attack’s Al Qaeda antecedents, the US Government demanded the Afghani Taliban regime deal with the Al Qaeda in their midst. It refused.
To root out this network of terrorists, military action was regrettably required.
With the removal of the Taliban regime came the dismantling of the Al Qaeda network and the introduction of liberties. Girls were not only allowed, but indeed encouraged, to pursue an education and be involved in society.
So as Afghanistan regrettably returns to its oppressive Taliban rulers, some ask, was it worth it?
It clearly was worth it. In answering such a question, heed must be had to the circumstances together with the intelligence available at the time (some 20 years ago). Who isn’t smarter with hindsight? How many things would we have done differently if we knew 20 years ago what we know today?
The removal of Al Qaeda’s safe haven within Afghanistan and the disruption and dismemberment of this horrific terrorist organisation was much needed. A question to which we will never know the answer is, how many other attacks and resultant thousands of deaths and injuries would have occurred but for the blotting out of this truly horrid organisation by military action?
As we reflect on the 10 Australians cruelly killed on 11 September 2001, we can be thankful that we had Australians willing to serve (about 39,000) and sacrifice (41 of whom gave the ultimate sacrifice) to protect us and other freedom-loving peoples from similar attacks.
While all of us would prefer diplomatic solutions, how do you negotiate with a mindset which glorifies willing martyrdom on the promise of not only riches for the family left behind but also “pleasures” in the afterlife, in which the women (yet again) don’t seem to have a say?
As an aside, it is a matter of regret that certain elements find it difficult to unconditionally condemn such a brutal ideology with its consequent gross human rights abuses (especially for women) yet salivate at the opportunity to throw stones at our society and culture. Imperfect though ours may be, we all know where we would rather be living.
To date, 1800 Afghans and their families have been granted visas for Australia. And those Afghans in Australia with a visa will be allowed to stay. An initial 3,000 humanitarian places have been allocated for family members of Australians, persecuted minorities and other vulnerable groups.
The thousands seeking to flee highlights how despised the Taliban is by their own people.
Those who served in Afghanistan should be the beneficiaries of our universal admiration and appreciation for blotting out Al Qaeda and giving the Afghans the opportunity to live in a more open and free society. The fact that the latter has not been embraced does not in any way diminish their efforts and contribution.
Our prayers must surely be with the Afghani people, especially the minority Christians and Hazara who are so ruthlessly persecuted by the Taliban. And we have their relatives and friends right here in our midst. As Hosein Mohseni so rightly observed in The Examiner last Wednesday, the 20 years of rebuilding Afghanistan after the Taliban appears to have been erased in a matter of days, “All of those achievements – freedom of expression, women’s rights, freedom of speech – all that is gone”. Hopefully, a young generation will have been given a sufficient taste of these freedoms to drive change from within.
While the social benefits enjoyed over the last 20 years may have been lost in the short-term (freedom always ultimately wins), let’s remember the operation was about defeating Al Qaeda and protecting us from further terrorist attacks rather than an attempt at nation-building and social reconstruction.
In our understandable disappointment at the collapse of Afghanistan into the hands of the terrible Taliban, let’s never lose sight of the fact we are all the beneficiaries of a more secure world and future because of Al Qaeda’s defeat.
For those who gave so much in the cause for freedom and are battling to come to grips with the events in Afghanistan, remember Open Arms Veterans and Families Counselling is available 24-hours a day on 1800 011 046. We thank you for a job well done.
(First published in The Examiner 10 August 2021)
Our freedom is always under threat. As Ronald Reagan so pithily and poignantly stated,“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected…”
He said this in 1987 at a time of real ideological struggle between communism and Western liberalism. The Cold War was an entire generation’s fight for freedom. To think that the victory for freedom will last is the continual folly of every generation. Too often, people take it for granted and are willing to trade their basic freedoms on the hollow promise of government claims that liberties need to be restricted for the citizens’ “safety” and the “common good” or “greater good”.
Recently, one of the more insidious terms used by government officials in this country was ‘freedom incentives’ to encourage vaccination against Covid. Since when has freedom been a government’s to give, let alone take in the first place? Our basic freedoms are inalienable, God-given human rights over which a legitimate government has no long term authority.
Government and corporate plans for ‘freedom incentives’, ‘vaccine certificates’ and the power for employers to force employees to divulge their personal medical information is a dangerous precedent that potentially threatens the freedom of Australia’s citizens and will create second class citizens based on their health status and medical choices or their even simpler desire for privacy.
Doctor-patient confidentiality, together with the long-established legal right of medical privacy, should not be casually discarded by public health orders without well-considered Parliamentary debate and public scrutiny.
The Federal Government is rolling out the vaccination process as quickly as possible and vaccination should be rolled out under the strict legal requirement of informed consent. The Australian Immunisation Handbook clearly states that for consent to be legally valid, “It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.
Therefore, it is difficult to see how informed consent can apply if people’s fundamental human freedoms to which citizens are entitled as of right are taken away by the force of government authorities, which are only restored for those who are vaccinated. Such actions fit the classification of undue pressure or manipulation, if not outright coercion.
I encourage everyone to get vaccinated as soon as possible. However, once the population has had the opportunity to be fully vaccinated, lockdowns and all restrictions should be a thing of the past and vaccine certificates should not be a blunt instrument to force people to be vaccinated by locking them out of society.
Denied or limited access to government and private businesses’ goods and services should not be based on one’s medical status and the idea of a vaccine certificate is a dangerous one.
Where would the line be drawn? Football matches? Shopping centres so people can’t go to a supermarket to buy food? The question then becomes, and which no one seems willing to discuss, is how far do the authorities go to restrict these freedoms? How many vaccinations and booster shots or other medical procedures will be required on a person’s vaccine certificate to allow them to participate as full citizens? Once we start down this path, where does it end? The proposed restrictions on freedoms leave questions from precedent to freedom to privacy and the situation for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.
Last Thursday, Senator Jacquie Lambie arrogantly told us, “I think with this Delta strain, you’re just going to have to resign to the fact that you have to be vaccinated otherwise I think that, you know, further on down the track you are going to miss out on things, there are things that are going to come back to bite”.
Such an authoritarian, un-Australian approach is hardly likely to convince, nor should it. If anything, it will turn people off vaccination. I do not think it a wise choice to refuse vaccination, but I support people’s innate rights and freedoms free from coercion. We need a considered approach that takes full account of personal freedom, choice and medical privacy.
I join with Premiers Palaszczuk (Qld) and Berejiklian (NSW), who said, “There should be free movement within Australia, vaccine or no vaccine”. (20/05/2021)
For the record, I am awaiting my second jab and encourage all to be vaccinated and respect the right of those who hold a contrary view.
Liberal Senator for Tasmania, Eric Abetz, has welcomed today’s announcement of new social media guidelines for staff, saying they will hopefully result in far fewer taxpayers’ money being lost to pay for the ABC’s legal costs for defamation brought against them.
Today, the ABC’s Managing Director, David Anderson, said in a staff email: “As you may be aware, recently there have been a few high-profile defamation cases where public figures have chosen to sue over personal social media posts. What is separately created and posted on personal social media accounts is editorially and legally the responsibility of the owner of the accounts.”
The fact reference had to be made to defamation cases rather than inappropriateness of such activity highlighting gross bias, indicates the ABC still has a long way to go in changing its culture.
Senator Abetz, who has on numerous occasions questioned the ABC’s social media guidelines at Senate Estimates and asked questions on notice on the matter, said, “The new social media guidelines are welcomed but it is a shame that it appears they came into being as a result of social media posts incurring defamation lawsuits against the ABC’s staff rather than action being taken on its own accord.”
“It appears the ABC only wants its staff to be accountable when they start wasting taxpayers’ money on legal bills that run into the millions of dollars. “The ABC cries poor but if it had implemented these guidelines a long time ago then it might have been able to save some of the $26.3 million it spent on legal costs over the past four years.”
“Hopefully, taxpayers can rest a little easier knowing that their hard-earned money may no longer go toward legal fees.”
Last month, it was reported in the media that the ABC said it did not have any documents that would breakdown the legal costs to reveal how much it paid out in defamation claims or out-of-court settlements and claimed confidentiality over some of that information.
A long-time advocate for Magnitsky legislation, Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz has welcomed the Government’s decision to introduce legislation designed to enable the imposition of targeted financial sanctions and travel bans against the perpetrators of egregious acts of international concern.
Magnitsky legislation refers to governmental sanctions against foreign individuals who have committed human rights abuses or been involved in significant corruption, named after Sergei Magnitsky.
“Despots and human rights abusers should never have been allowed to funnel their ill-gotten gains into the freedom-loving countries of the world, which is why I have been a long-time advocate for this type of legislation,” said Senator Abetz.
“Having called on the Government to introduce these types of measures, I was then an active participant on the joint parliamentary committees charged with investigating this matter.”
“Reform often takes time to achieve and I am pleased that the Government is entirely on board to deliver what will also be a boost to those whom despots and dictators oppress, knowing that we are serious about restricting their ill-gotten gains and opportunities.
Senator Abetz is Chair of the Senate’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and is a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade that was tasked with the inquiry into possible Magnitsky-styled sanctions.
Government and corporate plans for ‘freedom incentives’, ‘vaccine passports’ and the power for employers to force employees to divulge their personal medical information is a dangerous precedent that potentially threatens the freedom of Australia’s citizens and will create second class citizens based on their health status.
Doctor-patient confidentiality, together with the long-established legal right of medical privacy, should not be casually discarded by public health orders without well-considered Parliamentary debate and public scrutiny.
The Government is rightly rolling out the vaccination process as quickly as possible and vaccination should be rolled out under the legal requirement of informed consent. The Australian Immunisation Handbook clearly states that for consent to be legally valid, “It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation”.
Therefore, it is difficult to see how informed consent can apply if people’s fundamental human freedoms to which citizens are entitled as of right are taken away by the force of government authorities, which are only restored for those vaccinated. Such actions may well be classified as undue pressure or manipulation, if not outright coercion.
Liberal Senator for Tasmania, Eric Abetz, said: “I encourage everyone to consider getting vaccinated as soon as possible, however once 100 per cent of the population has had the opportunity to be fully vaccinated, lockdowns and all restrictions should be a thing of the past and vaccine passports should not be a blunt instrument to force people to be vaccinated by locking them out of society.”
“Denied or limited access to government and private businesses' goods and services should not be based on one’s medical status and the idea of a domestic ‘vaccine passport’ is a dangerous one that can create a class of citizens.”
“The question then becomes, and which no-one seems willing to discuss, is how far do the authorities go to restrict these freedoms? How many vaccinations and booster shots or other medical procedures will be required on a person’s vaccine passport to allow them to participate as full citizens? This is a slippery slope. Once the genie is out of the bottle, there will be no turning back and freedom will be seriously compromised”.
“The proposed restrictions on freedoms leaves questions from precedent to freedom to privacy and the situation for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.”
“I may not think it a wise choice to refuse vaccination, but I support people’s innate right and freedom to decide medical procedures for themselves. What we need is a considered approach which takes full account of personal freedom and medical privacy. I join with Premiers Palaszczuk and Berejiklian, who said, “There should be free movement within Australia, vaccine or no vaccine”. (20/05/2021)
For the record, I am awaiting my second jab.”
(First published in The Examiner 13 July 2021)
Would you take any notice of a fish farmer critiquing a novel? Hopefully not.
We would rightly question the skill set, experience, qualifications, and capacity of the fish farmer to offer such a critique. We might even be sufficiently uncharitable to question the ego and conceit at embarking on such an enterprise with the expectation of being taken seriously.
A fiction writer seeking to critique fish farming should be treated with similar disdain.
Yet our media entertains a fascination for the cult of celebrity, which sees actors who earn a living repeating other people’s lines and pretending to be someone else as having credibility on matters as diverse as forestry, climate, water, agriculture, and lately fish farming. The same goes for sportspeople, authors of fiction, film directors – insert the celebrity type of your choice.
Like all of us, they’re entitled to their opinion and express it. What is lacking is a close examination of the credibility to commentate on a particular topic.
One particular star sportsman came to Tasmania to tell us how to run our forest practices. When asked in a private conversation what he knew about the topic, who had briefed him, and how long had he been studying the topic, the responses were excruciatingly embarrassing. The media failed in asking any of those fundamental questions.
The same tactics which were employed against our truly sustainable and renewable hydro energy generation were transported to our world-leading forest operations. Today, the target is fish farming with a fiction writer leading the charge. Really? On what basis is he even reported? Sensationalism and clever use of words and phrases are his stock in trade, which makes for compelling fiction to draw us in which in turn sells his books. Taking the same approach to denigrate a Tasmanian icon – our salmon – does a huge disservice to Tasmania.
Let’s get a few things into perspective. If all our fish cages were to be put together, we would be using one square kilometre of Tasmanian waters. In comparison, Tasmania is 68,401 km² in size.
As Emeritus Professor Colin Buxton of the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) has found after a lifetime of study and research, our salmon farming is recognised as being the best in the world.
Health experts encourage us to eat fish on a regular basis. Our wild fisheries cannot produce our requirements. So farming fish is the answer, as we do for eggs, meat, vegetables, fruits, and cereals.
Indeed, fish high in omega-3 fatty acids like salmon are extensively promoted by health experts to reduce the risk of cancer.
Yet our fiction writer seeks to scare with the exact opposite assertion, with selective quotations from the World Health Organisation (WHO) which does studies to establish the link between certain food types and cancer.
And yes, all sorts of foods are mentioned in various category ratings – bacon, alcohol, processed meats (Cat1 meaning cancer-causing), while red meats are in Category 2A suggesting they may be carcinogenic.
And guess what? Tellingly, salmon is not listed as a carcinogen by the WHO.
The good thing about writing fiction is you don’t have to tell the truth.
Given salmon is positively good for you, recourse is disingenuously had to how they are grown with reference to additives to their diet to keep the fish healthy.
Tested regularly, the fish abide by our high-quality standards.
For consistency, would our fiction writer denounce fluoridated toothpaste? Eat a teaspoon of fluoride and see what happens! Yet in small doses, it does help suppress decay.
Which reminds us all of the sensible approach to life – everything in moderation.
Sensible, moderated, informed, and balanced public discourse has never been the extremists’ way. It’s “no dams” – good luck getting water to drink. It’s “no forestry” – good luck reading the paper or building a house. And now it’s “no fish farms” – good luck preserving our wild fisheries and having an affordable balanced diet.
These extreme campaigns have never been in Tasmania’s best interests. They’ve destroyed Tasmanians’ jobs and our regional communities. Fish farming allows them to return.
What could be more Toxic than fiction writers turning their craft to destroying the jobs, hopes and aspirations of our fellow Tasmanians in our regions, which provides us with an affordable recommended health food and relieves pressure on our wild fisheries?
The over 2000 direct sustainable jobs provided by fish farming has breathed new life into our regional towns, their schools and community assets. Their payroll taxes pump literally millions of dollars into State coffers each year, which in turn is used for education, health, etc.
Being an integral part of regional communities, our fish farms sponsor and support local sports and charities as well.
We need to reject celebrity fiction in favour of facts.
TasTAFE’s Cyber Innovation Training Hub has secured a $1.49 million grant to help lift the nation’s cyber security capabilities as part of the Liberal Government’s $8 million investment in innovative projects designed to improve the skills and availability of cyber security professionals.
TasTAFE’s Cyber Innovation Training Hub in Hobart is one of eight successful projects under Round One of the Cyber Security Skills Partnership Innovation Fund to help build cyber security expertise as well as create job-ready professionals through traineeships, work experience and student activities.
The Training Hub will offer virtual and face-to-face training with a strong focus on industry experience and needs.
Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said the Liberal Government understands the critical need to strengthen the nation’s cyber capability as demonstrated in the $1.67 billion investment as part of the Cyber Security Strategy 2020.
“It’s great to see this kind of innovation in Tasmania, not only helping build industry capability but also the skills of local cyber security professionals and those looking to take up a cyber career,” Senator Abetz said.
“We know that it is vital for industry, education providers and governments to work together if we are to support and grow our critical cyber security workforce.”
“These projects not only build industry capability to support our Australian businesses in the digital economy, they also will help inspire the next generation to consider a cyber security career.”
Senator Abetz said the successful projects will strengthen cyber security training and career pathway considering the cyber security workforce was expected to grow by approximately 7000 over the next three years.
“We recognise the importance of partnering with industry to grow cyber capability - that’s why we’ve committed an additional investment of more than $43 million to the Cyber Security Skills Partnership Innovation Fund in the Budget.”
“I encourage professionals and students to take part in the project to grow their cyber security knowledge and expertise to help protect our digital economy and keep Australians safe online.”
The Liberal Government is investing more than $70 million as part of the Cyber Security Skills Partnership Innovation Fund, including an additional $43.8 million in the 2021-22 Budget. Round two of the Innovation Fund opens later this year.
Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, who over a month ago advocated for a compensation scheme for people adversely impacted by COVID vaccines, has welcomed Minister Hunt’s proposal for such a scheme.
“Having written to the Prime Minister on the 2nd of June seeking a compensation scheme, I’m delighted the government has seen the appropriateness of the suggestion,” said Senator Abetz.
“The change of heart is welcome. It will provide confidence to the community, knowing that if they do what the government is requesting (and many do so with reluctance), they will be assisted in the event of an adverse reaction.”
“It seemed poor public policy to indemnify professionals with their own insurance policies while leaving people suffering physical and financial consequences to fend for themselves.”
“However, it appears that those who receive their jabs at vaccination hubs may not receive compensation and this must be urgently addressed. Anyone who receives the jab and has an adverse reaction must be compensated no matter if it is from a GP or at a vaccination hub. I call on the government to include those vaccinated at hubs to be included in the compensation scheme.”
Businesses in Tasmania are encouraged to apply for a grant to help strengthen Australia’s supply chain capabilities and access to critical products in times of crisis.
Applications have now been opened for manufacturers under the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative – a key part of the Liberal Government’s $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy.
Matched grants of between $50,000 and $2 million are on offer for businesses that can help address supply chain vulnerabilities across medicines and agricultural production chemicals –which were identified as sectors of focus in the Sovereign Manufacturing Capability Plan.
Eric Abetz, Liberal Senator for Tasmania, said projects could include scaling up existing manufacturing and workforce skills capability or increasing supply chain transparency through technology.
“COVID-19 has taught us that we need to be able to have access to critical products in times of crisis and that’s why we’re investing in projects to strengthen our supply chain resilience,” Senator Abetz said.
“The Liberal Government has already worked side-by-side with industry, offering significant investment to scale up Australia’s ability to make PPE locally when we needed it most. Now we want to drive the same success for medicines and agricultural production chemicals.”
Senator Abetz said businesses with project ideas are encouraged to apply for funding.
“The Liberal Government is working to not only strengthen our ability to access critical products for the health and wellbeing of all Australians but also to grow our manufacturing sector and create new jobs.”
“This initiative is a key way businesses in Tasmania can be part of important efforts to shore up the nation’s supply chains and I strongly encourage them to apply for a grant.”
Investing in manufacturing projects to support our resilience through the $107.2 million Supply Chain Resilience Initiative is part of a range of measures the Liberal Government is delivering to bolster Australia’s supply chain resilience.
This includes the establishment of the Office of Supply Chain Resilience to provide ongoing capacity to monitor vulnerabilities and coordinate whole-of-government efforts to boost supply chain resilience. It also consists of the Liberal Government’s ongoing commitment to open trade and open markets, which drive our resilience by making our own economy more competitive and able to handle change.
To find out more or apply for a grant under the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative, visit business.gov.au/scri
To read more in the Sovereign Manufacturing Capability Plan, visit industry.gov.au/smcp