It sparked a heated verbal clash, where Mr Joyce is understood to have knocked the man’s hat off his head.
Mr Joyce also received a death threat during the campaign. There is no suggestion it was from the same individual. The letter contained a bullet and a message about a proposed government loan for the Adani group.
“The campaign was not noted for cleanliness,” he told the Nine Network this morning.
“There was a lot of unsavoury stuff that went on during the campaign but I will take that by the chin and get on with it.
“Obviously it is the people of New England who knew all the stories and they said ‘We are interested in the job you are going to do, not some of the other rubbish that was being tossed around’.
“So, that’s a great endorsement of how the Australian people think as well.
Radio National yesterday announced its lineup for next year.
It includes Benjamin Law who'll be doing this:
On Fridays, The Hub will present Stop Everything!, Beverley Wang, Benjamin Law and Dr Lauren Rosewarne’s savvy, critical take on popular culture. Their conversations will be a sophisticated analysis of what our cultural products and predilections say about our world right now.
Annnnnnnnd it's official!
Stoked to be part of @RadioNational's spanking new weekday arts line-up in 2018.
Sophisticated analysis of what our cultural products and predilections say about our world right now.
Writer’s ‘joke’ sex tweet draws Coalition MPs’ fire
Coalition MPs have attacked Benjamin Law, the author of the latest Quarterly Essay, after he defended the “good humour” of a controversial tweet in which he jokes about “hate f..king” the homophobia out of “anti-gay MPs”.
Law, an author and Fairfax columnist, stood by the tweet on Monday as conservative MPs targeted his essay, which called for a national rollout of the Safe Schools program — a scheme promoted as anti-bullying and that familiarises students with transgender concepts.
Speaking on ABC TV, Law said: “I am not going to retract anything I say. It is in good humour.”
He also said it was a “serious thing” to have a debate about the Safe Schools program because LGBTIQ people had the “highest rates of suicide in Australia of any demographic in the country”.
But Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar, who holds the outer Melbourne seat of Deakin, issued a statement saying Safe Schools was “an extreme and highly politicised program” that went “far beyond an anti-bullying program”.
“The Andrews Labor government move to make the Safe Schools Coalition program compulsory in all Victorian schools diminishes a parent’s right to guide and educate their children on values and moral code,” Mr Sukkar said.
“The Victorian Liberal Party has committed to scrapping the Safe Schools program if elected, in favour of a comprehensive anti-bullying program.”
Victorian Nationals MP Andrew Broad told The Australian Law’s tweet undermined the Yes campaign for same-sex marriage.
“Everyone has a right to say anything and they often do by Twitter,” he said. “But the more people talk things that are indecent, the more it undermines their argument. Aussies are pretty fair-minded and have got pretty high bulldust radars.”
On August 30, Law tweeted to his more than 77,000 followers: “Sometimes find myself wondering if I’d hate-f..k all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system.”
One of his followers responded by saying “start with Hastie”, a reference to West Australian Liberal MP and former SAS captain Andrew Hastie who is a fierce defender of traditional marriage.
Mr Hastie told The Australian: “Noting my skills acquired in my previous career, I’d like to see him try.”
Tasmanian Liberal senator Eric Abetz on Monday said Law’s comment amounted to a joke “about rape”, and “having sex with right-wing members of parliament” and was not acceptable.
Law has strongly rejected suggestions his tweet in any way referenced or made light of rape, and told his Twitter followers on Monday that rape was “non-consensual and nothing to be joked about”.
“Hate f..king is a Gen Y term: consensual sex with someone disagreeable,” he said.
On September 7 Law tweeted a link to an online Elite Daily article that described the act as “more selfish” and noted there was “no foreplay because you don’t really care to be tender or selfless”.
“It’s usually kinkier than normal sex — choking, rough-housing and what-have-you are perfectly acceptable during a hate-f..k,” the article said.
Publish a photo of Yassmin Abdel Magied without her head scarf and you could be fined $105,000 under new legislation Turnbull introduced yesterday.
Yesterday communications minister Mitch Fifield and minister for women Michaelia Cash made this announcement:
The Turnbull Government today introduced landmark legislation to prevent the sharing of intimate images online without consent.
This legislation builds on the Turnbull Government’s commitment to ensuring women are safe at home, safe on the streets and safe online.
The Turnbull Government has listened and is providing what women have been asking for which is effective and timely removal of non-consensually shared images.
The Minister for Women, Michaelia Cash said this legislation will ensure victims get fast action to remove images.
“Image-based abuse is often a method used to intimidate and harass women, it is a growing problem and we are taking strong action to let perpetrators know we will not tolerate it.”
Any "intimate image" of someone posted on say Twitter Instagram or Facebook without the person's consent and that'll be $100,000 thank you very much.
The Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017 will introduce a federal civil penalty regime targeted at perpetrators and content hosts who share intimate images without consent.
Penalties of up to $105,000 for individuals and up to $525,000 for corporations can be applied for breaches of the prohibition.
So what's an "intimate image"?
The legislation says it's an image that depicts or appears to depict
the person’s genital area or anal area (whether bare or covered by underwear)
the person undressed, or using the toilet, bath or shower
But it's not just nudity that could earn you a $100K fine.
The Bill provides that if:
because of the person’s religious or cultural background, the person consistently wears particular attire of religious or cultural significance whenever the person is in public; and
the material depicts, or appears to depict, the person without that attire
$105,000 thanks very much.
So who gets to hand out the $100K tickets?
The eSafety Commissioner started out as the Children's online safety agency in July 2015.
Since then Turnbull has upsized it.
It was still listed as the Children's eSafety body in the 2017-18 budget papers:
The Australian Government’s online safety measures, including the Women’s Safety Package, are delivered by the Office of the Children’s eSafety Commissioner, which is an independent statutory office within the ACMA.
And now it has its own special legislation with the power to issue $105,000 fines for photos of people in their undies.
Disrespect of women does not always lead to violence against women but that is where all violence against women begins. On #WhiteRibbonDay I’m challenging all Australian men to think about what you will do to advance equality - as dads, sons, brothers, colleagues, mates. pic.twitter.com/66eeEZxU1C
And because violence against women is flavour of the month - guess what posting an intimate photo online has now become?
Here are a few of the references to violence taken from the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill.
Human rights implications
The Bill engages the following human rights:
the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse
People also have the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse, as contained in Article 20(2) of the ICCPR and related conventions. At a general level, because of the sensitive and personal nature of intimate images, people expect that such images are only used for purposes for which consent was provided.
The right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse
The right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse is primarily contained in Article 20(2) of the ICCPR and other related conventions. The ICCPR and related conventions requires Australia to take measures to protect persons from exploitation, violence and abuse.
This right is engaged as the Bill is primarily directed to protecting vulnerable people from the harm that can result from the non-consensual sharing of an intimate image.
The Bill promotes the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse as it prohibits the non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
Accordingly, the Bill is consistent with the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse, as the measures contained in the Bill are directed towards the protection of persons from exploitation, violence and abuse.
The measures in the Bill promote the right to protection from exploitation, violence and abuse.
Here's the AEC nomination form for candidates seeking election to the House of Representatives.
Could it be any clearer?
And it's not just a box-ticking exercise, it requires a formal declaration with penalties for making a false statement (penalties, does anyone remember when we had penalties for doing the wrong thing).
Here's an extract from the Candidates' Handbook - paid for courtesy of you and me.
What is wrong with these law-doesn't-apply-to-me deadheads?
Candidate statement and declaration
Please read the candidate statement and declaration carefully before signing the nomination form.
Your attention is drawn in particular to section 44 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia:
Any person who:
(i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.
Candidates who have any doubts about their eligibility, by virtue of section 44 of the Constitution, are advised to obtain their own legal advice.
For further information refer to the Candidates Handbook and the Nomination Guide.
*Answering ‘Yes’ to the question about eligibility under section 44 of the Constitution asserts eligibility. Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.
I am not, by virtue of section 44 of the Constitution, Yes incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Member of the House of Representatives (see page 1*)
I declare that:
Date of birth
• I am qualified under the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth to be elected as a Member of the House of Representatives.
Other Senators and MPs are being referred to the High Court because they did not receive confirmation of their successful renunciation of British citizenship until after their nomination for election.
Sam Dastyari has never received so much as acknowledgement of his application for renunciation - let alone the requisite approval from the Islamic Republic of Iran of his release from his obligations to that country.
Dastyari's obligation includes an order that he complete national service in the Iranian military prior to his application to renounce proceeding any further.
Dastyari says he will disobey any such order.
That strategy didn't protect Australian or US deserters who fled the country to avoid their conscription obligations.
So what if Iran is a difficult country from which to extract oneself?
Others are being held to a different standard from Slippery Sam.
At the very least he should be before the High Court too.
Here's Labor's Tony Burke referring David Feeney to the High Court. Why? Because Feeney has been unable to produce the documents proving his successful renunciation of British Citizenship.
Neither has Dastyari.
Dastyari's obligations are to a far more dangerous regime than the benign British.
The objective of the Bill is remove the restrictions that limit marriage in Australia to the union of a man and a woman, and to allow two people the freedom to marry in Australia, regardless of their sex or gender.
To achieve this, the Bill amends the Marriage Act 1961 to allow all couples to marry and to have their marriages recognised regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
The term ‘same-sex marriage’ should be read to include a marriage of two people regardless of their sex or gender, where the union is not that of a man and a woman.
Same-sex couples and people who are legally recognised as neither a man or a woman will be able to marry and have their foreign marriages recognised under Australian law. For example, this would include an intersex person who is legally recognised as both male and female and a gender diverse person who is legally recognised as having a non-specific gender.
Marriage celebrants cannot refuse to marry people on religious grounds
State and territory officers and ‘civil’ marriage celebrants (who are not religious marriage celebrants) may not refuse to solemnise marriages on religious grounds. All marriage celebrants registered after this Act commences are required, as agents of the Commonwealth, to uphold the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act without discrimination.
Any new marriage celebrant registered after the Bill commences will not be identified as a religious marriage celebrant unless they are a minister of religion. The Bill recognises that ‘civil’ marriage celebrants are authorised to perform a function on behalf of the state and should be required to uphold Commonwealth law.
Defence Force Chaplains replaced with secular officers
(The bill will) enable the Chief of the Defence Force to authorise an officer (as defined by the Defence Act 1903) other than a chaplain to be an authorised celebrant. The inclusion of officers will ensure that Defence Force members, including those on deployment overseas, will have a non-religious option to have their marriage solemnised by a marriage officer, including where a chaplain declines to solemnise their marriage.
A new Registrar established to take "disciplinary action" against religious marriage celebrants
Items 10, 11, 12 and 14 establish administrative procedures for a Registrar to identify a person as a religious marriage celebrant, suspend or remove identification as a religious marriage celebrant, take disciplinary measures against religious marriage celebrants or notify religious marriage celebrants of their identification status.
"Spouse" and "Spouse"
Item 18 amends the monitum by adding the gender neutral term ‘spouse’ to existing terms ‘husband or wife’. This amendment will enable marrying couples to word their marriage vows in a manner that best reflects their relationship. 42. Item 19 amends the monitum to reflect the updated definition of marriage in this Bill. 43. These amendments ensure that people who are legally recognised other than male or female can use the gender neutral term ‘spouse’ to be accurately described in their wedding vows.
Florists, bakers and photographers cannot refuse LGBTQI "spouses" on conscientious grounds
The Bill does not propose any new carve-outs from discrimination law for individuals in relation to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex people. For example, a taxi driver, florist, baker or photographer who does not work for a body established for religious purposes cannot lawfully refuse to drive a person to a wedding reception, provide flowers, prepare a wedding cake or take photographs at a wedding ceremony on the basis of their religious or other beliefs about marriage.
"Husband and wife" out - replaced with "Two People"
Item 65—The Schedule (table item 1 of Part III) 91. This item amends ‘a husband and wife’ to ‘two people’ in The Schedule
We were asked if we wanted to change the law to allow same sex couples to marry.
“When you’re over there at Parliament House, exercising your democratic right; remember those who underwrite it & those who pay for it.” @AWMemorial Director Brendan Nelson addresses guests at the unveiling of the #LongTanCrosspic.twitter.com/275O2bSZ66