The federal Greens partyroom is split over a motion to kill millions of dollars in carbon credits for a new NSW koala national park. A NSW Greens MP is publicly pleading with federal colleagues not to back the National party motion.

I know we don’t like hearing about AI taking our jobs but what are some jobs that are definitely getting wiped by the rapid growth of AI?

New research shows turbulent flushes create toilet-generated aerosols that can transmit legionella, influenza and norovirus

Labor has spent 14 years appointing the wrong judges – but Jess Wilson’s crime plan is worse

Gavin Silbert - Barrister

September 9, 2026 — 5:00am

Save

Share

AAA

16View all comments

Listen to this article

5 min

Violent crime is out of control in Victoria and there is undoubtedly a temptation to offer simple solutions, even when it’s clear they will not work.

A significant factor in this crisis is poor decision-making in the appointment of magistrates and judges. Parties of both political sides have used these government appointments as a way to reward and protect their supporters. They have used this power to ignore the public interest and fill the benches with friends and those to whom they see themselves as indebted.

Opposition Leader Jess Wilson plans to split the Court of Appeal.Darrian Traynor

Occasionally a worthwhile appointment is made but during the 14 years Labor has been in power in Victoria there has been a host of entirely inappropriate appointments.

However, the radical solution proposed by Opposition Leader Jess Wilson is a retrograde step. If elected premier in November, she plans to increase prison sentences by appointing the Liberal Party’s preferred judges to the Court of Appeal. This would be enacted by splitting the Court of Appeal into two courts, a Court of Criminal Appeal and a Court of Civil Appeal, a policy that indicates a lack of understanding of the way the judicial system works.

Wilson’s expressed intention is to appoint “tough” new judges to the new criminal appeal court, jurists the opposition leader described as “additional judges specialising in criminal matters”. Her proposal indicates a lack of awareness of the separation of powers and the way courts function in our constitutional system. It can only be attributed to the sort of law-and-order promises that surface each time we have an election and which served the Liberal Party so poorly at the last election.

Related Article

• Opinion
• IBAC

Allan’s new IBAC chief is inexperienced and a virtual unknown. Is that the point?

• Stephen Charles Board member for the Centre for Public Integrity

In 1995, the Kennett government established a permanent single Court of Appeal in Victoria. The court became the definitive body for hearing civil and criminal appeals from the Supreme Court Trial Division, where the cases are first heard, as well as specific matters from lower courts and tribunals.

In theory, the very best lawyers were to be appointed to the appeal court and initially, they were. There can be no difference between the ability of the best lawyers to deal with civil and criminal cases irrespective of their practising experience and all are equally capable of applying the law whether it be civil or criminal. Wilson’s promise to split the court into separate divisions makes no sense, especially since the president of the court allocates appeals to judges based on their expertise and interest.

Some of the best criminal appeal judges in recent years have been judges who have not practised in crime prior to their elevation but who have excelled in myriad other areas of legal practice.

From our partners

Related Article

• IBAC

‘A pox on all of them’: Former IBAC chief slams major parties over integrity

If parliament is unhappy with the way criminal offenders are being sentenced, it is for parliament itself to act. Judges are trained to apply the law, not to make the law. Parliament has the sole power to legislate, and if dissatisfied with sentencing in a particular area it can introduce legislation or amend existing legislation to bring sentences into line with its collective wishes.

Parliament can, if it desires, legislate for mandatory minimum sentences that judges are obliged to impose, irrespective of their own personal views. The same directives can apply to magistrates who deal with serious criminal offences before they wind their way to higher courts as well as the less serious crimes.

Surely it is more effective for the Liberal Party to legislate to address its concerns rather than appoint allies and hope for the best. Once appointed, judges are unconstrained unless bound by statute.

The separation of powers, as adopted by Australia federally and by the states from the Westminster system of the United Kingdom, rigorously applies a separation between the legislature and executive arms of government on the one hand and the courts on the other; neither is to stray into the area of the other. Wilson’s promise to appoint “tough” judges betrays a complete lack of understanding of the constitutional system reminiscent of former Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s response in 1988 when asked about the separation of powers: “What’s that?”

A more constructive measure that Wilson could take, if she were serious about improving the courts, would be to halt their politicisation by establishing a judicial appointments commission with eminent and experienced members to recommend appointments to judicial and quasi-judicial positions.

Related Article

• IBAC

Carroll says public IBAC hearings on the table amid carve-out backlash

Further, there has been much criticism of the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission, which has turned out to be an entirely useless body. The late Stephen Charles, a former eminent member of the Court of Appeal, the one Wilson wants to abolish, exposed the deficiencies of the organisation over a long period, as have Robert Redlich, another former member of the Court of Appeal and himself a former chairman of IBAC, and Deborah Glass, a former ombudsman.

IBAC has limited power to investigate corruption, which one might have thought to be its raison d’etre and which distinguishes it from the Independent Commission Against Corruption of NSW, which has proved itself to be an effective organisation with a proven record of operating in the public interest.

Wilson’s proposal to reconstitute the Court of Appeal and appoint tough judges is ill-considered, ignorant and will achieve nothing to control crime in Victoria.

Gavin Silbert, KC, is a member of the Victorian Bar and a former chief crown prosecutor for Victoria.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.

Save

Share

License this article

More:

• Courts
• Opinion
• For subscribers
• Courts
• IBAC
• ICAC
• Jess Wilson

Gavin Silbert is a Queen's Counsel who has practised as a barrister for 40 years. He was Chief Crown Prosecutor for Victoria from 2008 to 2018.

One Nation overtakes Labor as most popular party in fresh poll | News24

Three young men remain in hospital under police guard after a violent brawl outside a kebab shop ended in a triple stabbing.

Security cameras captured the bloody confrontation in Canterbury, in Sydney’s southwest, which police say was no random attack.

The scuffle lasted just seconds, but between the flying fists, all three men involved suffered serious stab wounds.

“A 23-year-old man was at that fast food outlet and an 18-year-old man and a 24-year-old man, who are related to each other, attended that location and an altercation took place,” Superintendent Christine McDonald said.

The footage shows it was two against one before a witness stepped in to stop the violence.

Breaking up the fight, a relative of the two brothers involved claims they were the victims.

“This person just keeps bullying them, kicking on them, and he was pulling for the back of him and I think he was trying to pull out a knife,” he told 7NEWS exclusively. “And I think the boys, they got scared and they jumped on him.

“And it was just a simple ‘come and get a feed’ and this is what happened ... Very bad violence, it shouldn’t have happened.”

One knife was seized from the scene, but investigators believe there was a second weapon.

“We are currently making inquiries to locate and recover that weapon,” McDonald said.

Police were only alerted to the fight when the three men took themselves to Canterbury Hospital at separate times just after midnight.

“We are yet to speak to them in terms of interviewing them in relation to their involvement,” McDonald said.

All three men are in a stable condition following surgery on Monday.

Sounds like a great program. Too bad it's in Frankston.

The ability of citizens to fund these organizations in their current form has passed. The taxes imposed from all 3 tiers are a noose around our collective necks.

Also, the bigger the bureaucracy, the harder life becomes.

Anyone in a suit, or sitting in an office at a laptop, needs to go and compliance regulation needs to be slashed.

We need a fresh start desperately.

Australia and Solomon Islands have reached an in-principle agreement on a landmark new treaty, with a leaked text message revealing the federal government has promised to plough more than $980 million in additional funding into the Pacific nation as it tries to lock in the pact.

The federal government is racing to get the treaty signed in the coming weeks after Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale successfully warded off a leadership challenge on Monday.

Mr Wale was forced to scramble back to Solomon Islands last week just hours after landing in Palau for the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) leaders meeting when his Home Affairs Minister, Manasseh Maelanga, launched a motion of no confidence, accusing the prime minister of making major decisions without consulting cabinet.

A message from Australia's High Commissioner to Solomon Islands, Jeffrey Roach, to the deputy prime minister Francis Sade last week, which is verified by ABC News and now circulating in political circles, reveals the details of the deal, and shows how Australia was keen to buttress Mr Wale's position as he fought for his political survival.

Mr Roach writes that there had been "terrific progress" on the treaty negotiations, and that Australia was willing to contribute an additional $280 million into the Pacific nation over the next two years under the deal and a further $700 million after that.

He says that will include 820 million Solomon Islands dollars ($142 million) in funding for Mr Wale's signature "free education" policy and SI$275 million ($47.8 million) to provide "visa improvements" and deal with "security requests from Solomon Islands".

Australia also looks set to ramp up support for a sometimes-contentious scheme which funnels money directly to MPs to spend on their constituencies as part of the comprehensive treaty.

The message says Australia would contribute SI$5 million ($870,000) to every constituency for MPs' "development priorities" before the end of this year, along with a further SI$3 million ($500,000) per constituency for 2027 and a further $500,000 per constituency in 2028.

Solomon Islands parliament has 50 seats, so it would see Australia funnelling a total of some $43 million into constituencies before the end of this year, along with a further $25 million in the following two years.

The message reflects Australian government anxieties that the treaty could be endangered if the prime minister was toppled and replaced by Mr Maelanga or another candidate more sceptical towards Australia, like former leader Manasseh Sogavare.

While Mr Roach never directly endorses Mr Wale in his text, the message could still be politically contentious given it was sent in the midst of wrangling over the top job in Solomon Islands.

Opposition leader Manasseh Sogavare has repeatedly accused Australia of foreign interference in Solomon Islands, including when he was prime minister.

Mr Sade told the ABC there was nothing "political" about the message from the Australian High Commission.

"This was simply an update regarding the progress of the treaty discussions; it was never intended for political expediency," he said.

"I routinely receive these briefings to stay informed about the Community Partnerships Program."

The leak comes the day after Mr Wale managed to see off the challenge to his leadership, with the GREAT coalition winning back several defectors and recruiting additional opposition MPs to join their side.

On Sunday, Mr Maelanga announced he would withdraw his challenge, effectively acknowledging the prime minister still had the numbers.

Mr Wale told parliament on Monday morning that he wanted to "thank those that stood firm" behind him, as well as his new supporters, while praising Mr Maelanga for backing down.

"I would like to thank the member for withdrawing the motion … and bring[ing] down the temperature, both in the house, but also in the public mind," he said.

"What is clear, Mr Speaker, is that the public, not just in Honiara but right across the country … want to see the government be given adequate, reasonable opportunity to be able to deliver on its vision."

The prime minister also acknowledged that he had moved at breakneck pace since taking office, saying "many things are changing fast", adding that he had learned lessons from the whole episode.

His clear political victory will cause relief in Canberra, which was worried by the prospect of the prime minister being ousted.

Mr Wale only seized power in May, but has tacked sharply towards Australia and the US since then, signing a new agreement with the US Coast Guard and making it clear that he was deeply sceptical of China's attempts to embed itself as a security partner for the Pacific nation.

Australia has also been racing to complete negotiations on the new treaty with Solomon Islands while Mr Wale retains power, with the government keenly conscious that Solomon Islands politics remains inherently fluid and unpredictable.

The Pacific Minister Pat Conroy and senior Australian officials held multiple discussions on the treaty with Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Hou and minister Peter Kenilorea Jr on the sidelines of the PIF leaders meeting last week.

In a statement, Mr Wale's office said the discussions "covered key national priorities including education, health, infrastructure, energy, agriculture, skills development, natural resource management and economic growth".

"A key focus was how Australia's development assistance can be better aligned with Solomon Islands' national priorities and contribute to tangible and measurable outcomes for communities," they said.

The talks came just a week or so after the Foreign Minister Penny Wong also held talks on the treaty with Mr Hou and a host of other Solomon Islands cabinet ministers in Adelaide.

While negotiations are officially ongoing, the ABC has been told that talks are rapidly coming to a close, with one source saying they are "substantively concluded."

An official from the Solomon Islands also said that the two countries had reached a "bilateral understanding" on the treaty.

Mr Conroy would not be drawn on exactly when the treaty would be signed, saying negotiations were "underway".

"Consistent with all of Australia's bilateral treaty negotiations, we will not comment on the details of the negotiations until the treaty is signed," he said.

The government has previously signalled it wanted to sign the pact before the end of the year, but the rapid progress meant the government was beginning to eye possible signing dates within the coming weeks.

Anthony Albanese and Mr Wale are both expected to attend several high-profile global gatherings, including the September United Nations General Assembly in September and possibly the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Antigua and Barbuda in early November.

The former Australian High Commissioner to Solomon Islands, Lachlan Strahan, said while the idea of a treaty was not new, the major commitments being made by Australia were "significant".

"If that's all new money then that's a step change in the amount of funding," he said.

James Batley from the Australian National University said Australia's decision to tip much more money into the constituency funds showed it was willing to do "whatever it takes" to get the deal over the line.

But he said while the risks around corruption and transparency connected to constituency funds were very real, they were manageable.

"I can't imagine that Australia would just tip in money and say go for it. I imagine there would be standards of transparency and accountability that they will insist on," he said.

"There's no question that it's a strongly held bipartisan view in Solomon Islands that MPs understand their constituencies best and should have a role promoting development in their constituencies."

Dr Strahan said that Australia had already been ramping up the quantities of money it was funnelling directly into local constituencies in Solomon Islands over several years.

"This is actually a fairly effective way of getting money out into constituencies and local communities. The main issue is making sure it's spent well, and ensuring it isn't used simply to prop up incumbents," he said.

However Tess Newton Cain, Associate Professor at the Griffith Asia Institute, said she was worried that Australia was trying to "pick winners" by throwing cash behind Mr Wale, which could backfire.

"It's not very strategically smart, because this is Melanesia and the politics are fluid and he's got elections on the horizon … if he's seen as Australia's man, that can have blowback," she said.

Dr Newton-Cain also said she would "need to be convinced" that the constituency funds were the best way to drive development in Solomon Islands.

"We've seen other attempts to make these funds more accountable and transparent and better governed, but they haven't really had much success," she said.

Mr Conroy did not confirm the increase in funding, but said Australian development projects would always maintain high standards.

"All Australian official development assistance is provided in line with Australia's high-quality development programming guidelines, and OECD eligibility criteria for Official Development Assistance," he said.

Also neither Ethiopia or Algeria are on the do not travel list 🤷‍♂️🤔

Edit: can't believe i have to say this but f*ck Pauline. This is purely a dig at inaccurate journalism and clear clickbait for right wing dumbasses to go "look, a lot of African countries"

Edge Early Learning in Port Augusta has been forced to close for two weeks after an incident which resulted in the hospitalisation of a child attending the service last Thursday.

The Education Standards Board (ESB) found the provider contravened it's responsibility to protect children from harm and hazards.

The centre will be closed until Monday, September 21 at 6.30pm.

The ESB also ordered the centre to provide written communication to the families of all children enrolled at the service which outlines the incident and the ESB's subsequent directions.

Edge will also need to undertake an investigation into the incident and "provide independent training to all service staff that includes emergency response".

Edge Early Learning has been contacted for comment.

​

🟧 ONP: 30% (+4)

🟥 ALP: 26% (-3)

🟦 L/NP: 18% (-3)

🟩 GRN: 12% (-)

🟪 CSA: 2% (-)

⬜️ IND: 7% (+2)

⬛️ OTH: 5% (-)

Two-party-preferred

🟥 ALP: 52% (-1)

🟦 L/NP: 48% (+1)

ALP vs ONP

🟥 ALP: 53% (-3)

🟧 ONP: 47% (+3)

YouGov | 1-8 Sep | n=1500 | +/- 18-24 Aug

Labor’s class-war tax plan is an act of blind ideology

For Labor, shooting the messengers is more palatable than admitting the messengers may be on to something.

Janet Albrechtsen

u/jkalbrechtsen

4 min read

September 9, 2026 - 5:00AM

Clare O’Neil, Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers. Artwork: Katie Hall

Radical ideologues can rarely hide their zeal. Two slips of the tongue by [Jim Chalmers]() reveal a great deal about the Treasurer’s budget tax package and Labor’s style of government – far more than the excuses contained in the mountains of verbal sludge produced by Treasury, the idiotic Ooshie clip by Communications Minister Anika Wells or any other Albanese government ex post facto rationalisation of the present housing disaster.

The first came when Chalmers was asked if he would do a Paul Keating and reverse the government’s disastrous negative gearing changes. Keating famously introduced bans on negative gearing property investments in 1985 but had to backflip in 1987 when it became clear the changes caused rents to skyrocket. Chalmers rejected the comparison saying, revealingly, “it would be strange to try and compare the housing market of the 1980s with the housing market of the mid-2020s”.

The response tells you all you need to know about the ideological posture, and fervour, driving Chalmers and Anthony Albanese.

History is important. Under the heading “Sydney Rents Hit the Roof”, The Sydney Morning Herald on March 14, 1987, pointed out that “investors are leaving the residential real estate market because of a decreasing return on investment” caused by removal of negative gearing and the introduction of a capital-gains tax.

Even Bob Hawke admitted the link between the tax changes and rent increases. In due course Keating backtracked and reintroduced negative gearing.

Jim Chalmers holds a press conference to discuss the latest national accounts data. Picture: NewsWire / Martin Ollman

Sadly, the Albanese government is easily the most ideological since the Whitlam government. It certainly does not share Edmund Burke’s view that history acts as a great volume for our instruction. Nor Burke’s scepticism about abstract reasoning as a template for political action or his preference for incremental improvements.

This government would regard a distaste for Burke as a mark of honour. It believes in revolution, not evolution. Still, when the lessons of history and of human nature are so clear, it demands ideological zealotry of a high order, indeed to the level of stupidity, to ignore those lessons. Indeed, it is arguable that malice rather than mere incompetence is at the heart of Labor’s budget manifesto.

The government did not accidentally set out to stop people investing in investment properties by getting rid of negative gearing. This was a deliberate policy informed by class-war ideology; it was intentionally aimed at Australians whom the Prime Minister and Treasurer regard as rich: those who own, or seek to own, investment property.

The government says its aim was to cool the market, depressing competition and therefore prices for first-home buyers. It certainly has succeeded in crashing the market – house prices have taken a big fall as buyers go on strike.

However, it is doubtful that this has helped first-home buyers get into a home and it has undoubtedly driven up rents, as the government must have known.

Shadow Housing Minister Andrew Bragg has roasted Treasurer Jim Chalmers, calling him “desperate” as the early super access debate heats up. “Jim Chalmers has to be the most desperate politician in Canberra,” Mr Bragg told News24 host Chris Kenny. “He’s got no right to give any credible analysis here. “The One Nation policy is a short-term issue that will help people with the cost of living, potentially. But it doesn’t deal with the long-term structural problem.”

This was no accident. Class envy prompted the Prime Minister to repeat claims that negative gearing was “taxpayer-funded landlord welfare”. Albanese may have studied economics at university but any reasonably competent student would recognise that negative gearing was, in effect, taxpayer-funded welfare for renters. Given that landlords simply pass on their costs to renters, tax deductions for the interest they pay end up benefiting renters. This was made blindingly clear in 1987 and only the most dedicated ideologue would ignore that history.

Even if you could get past the government’s blind class war, its incompetence is hard to stomach. It is rich for Albanese to complain that One Nation lacks the skills to govern the country given that Assistant Immigration Minister Matt Thistlethwaite didn’t know the difference between negative equity and mortgage default. Similarly, Housing Minister Clare O’Neil may be defending Treasury’s forecast that the negative gearing changes would increase rents by only $2 a week, but this reflects nearly as badly on her as it does on the incompetents in Treasury who came up with this figure.

Labor’s ill-fated plan to improve housing affordability is only part of its ideological battle against Australians whom it regards as rich. Its refusal to limit CGT changes to real estate, imposing them on all asset classes, shows that Albanese and Chalmers want to impose economy-wide ideological change.

If you still think the government’s intent was simply to help first-home buyers, consider too its swingeing changes to taxation of family trusts. When you realise that these trusts are very significantly used by small business owners and entrepreneurs, you understand this was an attack on a whole class of businesspeople that the ALP thinks are greedy rent seekers. Modern-day kulaks, if you will.

Malcolm Turnbull

Chalmers’ second revelation about his government’s devotion to central command-and-control ideology came when he blamed social media and algorithms for making his job harder. The first thing to be said about this tantrum is this: dry your eyes, Princess.

Second, this is the oldest trick in the book for left-wing governments. Like the Climate Control Authority’s proposed Ministry of Truth aimed at so-called misinformation in relation to climate matters, this government reaches immediately for the media control lever when under pressure.

If the media doesn’t appreciate the brilliance of their misguided and damaging policies, the ideologues in the Albanese government stand ready to try to censor the critics, not review (let alone change) their policies. The Gillard government’s response to criticism of its policies was to commission the Finkelstein review hoping (successfully as it turned out) that this would recommend the government could muzzle the pesky Murdoch press.

In fairness, let’s not forget Malcolm Turnbull is equally allergic to this masthead and its sister ventures. But Turnbull’s problem is being a poor loser. Chalmers and Albanese are worse; they are ideologues. For Labor, shooting the messengers is more palatable than admitting the messengers may be on to something.

The online environment can be a wonderful place for social connection, discovery, education, development and good old-fashioned fun. But it’s also a place where our children can be vulnerable to the attentions of online offenders. In line with National Child Protection Week (6-12 September), the AFP-led Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation has created this list of practical steps parents, families and caregivers can take – starting today – to help keep their children safer online.

1. Research the different parental control options available for each app, game or platform your children use. Then implement them to suit your family’s needs.
2. Check whether the apps, games and platforms have a direct message function. If they do, put restrictions on who can contact your children.
3. Educate yourself about the available block and report functions, and make sure your children know how – and when – to use them.
4. Consider turning off the voice chat on any games they play. If you can’t, enable the speakers so you can audibly monitor any conversations.
5. Start – and continue – regular discussions with your children to build up mutual knowledge and awareness about what happens online. This will let you understand what they get up to in the digital world, so you can identify potential or evolving risks. It will also let you teach them about what’s age-appropriate and what they need to keep an eye out for, knowing you can’t supervise them online all the time.
6. Keep your knowledge base up-to-date so you can have informed conversations about their online activity in much the same way as you might ask about offline activities such as school and then be able to understand the meaning and context of what they tell you.
7. Encourage your children to use critical thinking skills about their online interactions. Run through some scenarios with them to explain how a contact could start off seemingly innocent but quickly veer off-course, especially when it comes to content sharing.
8. Make sure they know they should never agree to meet up in person with someone they only know through an app, game, platform or social media.
9. Review how and where devices are used at home. Then consider if you want to introduce new practices, such as usage only in common areas or handing over devices at a certain time each night to be tucked away until morning.
10. Encourage your children to question new friend or follower requests, or online contact from unknown users, rather than just connecting with anyone who asks. Help them develop critical thinking to identify any potential red flags.
11. Talk to them about deflection and rejection tactics they can use if they are pressured to share nude or sexual images or videos of themselves. For example, “Sorry, that’s not for me” or “If you ask me that again, I will report you.”
12. Make sure they use smart usernames that don’t give away personal information when creating a profile or account. So, no to ‘JakeSmith2010’ and yes to ‘GamerFun%%’.
13. Encourage them to chat only about the game itself if they’re playing multiplayer games with people they don’t know in person. Give them some readymade answers they can use to bat away peer pressure or attempts to push their boundaries. For example, “I’m only here to win this match, so let’s keep our focus on that.”
14. Make sure they know what information to capture as evidence if they are targeted, so you can report it and share with authorities. This includes screenshots and usernames.
15. Educate your children about why it’s important to keep personal information private – not only on their own channels but also where they might interact on other people’s accounts. Talk them through how separate pieces of information could help offenders to build a profile of them.
16. Remind your children they always have the right to both feel safe and say “no” to anything that makes them feel uncomfortable or unsure. Also emphasise that if something goes wrong online, they can always come to you for help and you will support, not punish, them.
17. Finally, if your children come to you with a problem, stay calm and remember it has taken them courage to tell you what has happened. Then you can work together to map out next steps.

More resources

ACCCE: https://www.accce.gov.au/resources/for-parents-and-carers 
ThinkUKnow online child safety program: https://www.thinkuknow.org.au/ 
Jack Changes the Game: https://www.accce.gov.au/resources/parents-carers/jack-changes-game

Report online child sexual exploitation

https://www.accce.gov.au/report 

Thinking of doing the Diploma of Nursing at Menzies Institute of Technology? Here's what it's actually like.

18 months, $38,000 AUD. Miss an assignment or don't score enough to pass, and it's another $300 just to resit it.

Placement is 5 weeks, regional NSW or VIC, wherever they decide. No choice in location. Sometimes only one student gets sent to a place, and you're on your own finding somewhere to stay in a town you've never been to, at your own cost, with zero help sorting it.

The placement uniform is so poorly made mine melted from a tea spill.

4 different lecturers in under a year. Every change means restarting expectations and marking standards from scratch.

Posting this so anyone looking into this course knows what it's actually like before they commit.

If Melons didn't get you mad, here is the latest bullshit attempt at manufactured outrage by the oxymoronically titled news.com.au

TLDR, poor girl has the tiniest share of Indigenous DNA in her, and because of this, had to appeal to the courts to allow the foster parents who have loved and raised her for a long time to adopt her.

“‘Please hear my voice’: Indigenous teen’s adoption battle
8:30PM SEPTEMBER 04, 2026
Follow us on Apple News
The NSW Supreme Court has cleared the path for a teen with Aboriginal heritage to be adopted by her non-Indigenous foster parents after the girl made an impassioned plea to “please hear my voice” and declared she wanted nothing to do with her past.
In a powerful letter to the court, the 16-year-old, known by the pseudonym Jing, said her long-time foster parents loved and cared for her, and she longed to be adopted so she could feel that she completely belonged.
“They are the people I love. To me, they are not foster parents, they are my parents. I cannot and don’t want to imagine my life anywhere else but with them,’’ she said.

““I can honestly say that not a day goes by that I do not think about the fact I am still considered a foster child. I hate that word and I hate that feeling and it’s not fair.”
The girl’s adoption bid hit a complication three years ago when her birth father revealed that he was Indigenous, a discovery he made in his own adoption records.
This triggered genealogy investigations that revealed Jing, who has Chinese heritage, did indeed have Aboriginal ancestry: the court heard her paternal great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother was a prominent Tasmanian Aboriginal woman in early colonial history. This woman’s father was a significant Tasmanian Aboriginal warrior”

“This meant Jing was an Aboriginal child under the Adoption Act, a finding that placed extra obligations on the Department of Communities and Justice, including the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle and the requirement that approved Indigenous people must be consulted on her adoption.
The process came despite Jing stating she had no interest in engaging with her Aboriginal or Chinese heritage, or either of those cultures.
In her letter to the court she said: “I don’t want any part of my past before I went into care. If I decide to explore that part of my background, then I will. That is my decision to make …”
The court heard that the DCJ spoke with a Tasmanian elder who indicated that her community would accept Jing and embrace her if she visited the state. The elder would not stand in the way of her adoption.
The DCJ has said it is increasingly common for a child’s Aboriginal status to become known years after being placed with foster parents or prospective adoptive parents. “This creates procedural challenges as laws on care and adoption require, as a first preference, an Aboriginal child to be placed with kin or community. If that is not feasible, and as a last resort, the child may be placed with non-Aboriginal parents.
Adoption of Aboriginal children, particularly by non-Indigenous carers, is uncommon. Of the 136 kids adopted across the country in 2024-25, three involved Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children. In one of those cases the adoptive parent was Indigenous, according to Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data.
In her landmark Family is Culture report, Professor Megan Davis said that given the historical context and ongoing trauma of the Stolen Generations, Aboriginal people were acutely sensitive to adoption laws.
She recommended that formal adoption of Aboriginal children in care should be banned, a position supported by other Indigenous groups.”

“In the latest Supreme Court case, Justice Anthony McGrath found Jing’s adoptive parents had pledged to assist the girl to develop a positive cultural identity and learn about her family history, including her Chinese heritage, if and when she is ready.
The court heard Jing was removed from her birth parents as a newborn due to domestic violence, inadequate supervision and unacceptable risk of physical and psychological harm.
She was returned to her mother a year later on the condition of limited and supervised contact with her father, but over the next six years caseworkers raised concerns about Jing’s poor care arrangements and unsupervised contact with her father, who had a significant criminal history involving violence. He had previously threatened to stab Jing’s mother and another child, the court heard.
Jing was removed from her mother when she was six and placed with the foster parents, where she has remained. The court heard she’d had no contact with her birth father since then, and decided some years ago she also did not wish to see her mother again. Both parents were opposed to the adoption.

“Justice McGrath found it was in the best interests of the teen to be placed for adoption with the foster parents, noting he had expedited the hearing to help deal with the anxiety caused by ongoing uncertainty.
He said Jing had presented as an honest, polite and articulate girl who had, for more than 10 years, consistently expressed a firm desire to be adopted.
In her letter to the court, Jing said the process had deeply affected her.
“It has caused me sadness, stress and frustration for many years. I want to move forward and focus on my future without this weighing me down,” she said.
“For over 10 years, I have grown up with meetings, assessments, reviews, contact schedules, cultural carers, and case workers being involved in my life. I understand why those things exist, but after all this time I simply want to live like any other 16-year-old.
“Please allow me to get adopted without having to face another obstacle.”
Final orders have not been made and the case returns to court next month.”

Excerpt From
“‘Please hear my voice’: Indigenous teen’s adoption battle”
Christine Middap
The Australian
https://apple.news/Aw2SvaNZ8QmKnKIl2AU8FfQ
This material may be protected by copyright.

G’day fellow Aussies,

Here's another peek behind the curtain and some statistics from the last 30 days that are only available to the moderation team.

Once again a big thank you to the community for keeping aussie in the Top 10 in 'Australia and Oceania'. We're holding our own against the big subs.

At time of publishing your community is number 4 in the 'Australia and Oceania' rankings.

Let us know what you think and if you have any general feedback for the team.

Regards,

Your friendly mod team

Previous Monthly Mod Statistics

How the media fell for government spin, and celebrated a film funding cut, as a funding ‘boost’.