Australia

4418 readers
160 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
126
127
128
129
130
 
 

On July 12, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is traveling to Beijing for another “annual leaders’ meeting” with Chinese President Xi Jinping. They will discuss global and regional issues as well as bilateral matters of trade and tourism.

The Australian government’s statement announcing the visit doesn’t mention human rights at all. It only makes a vague reference that direct engagement “at the highest level enables difference to be addressed.” Consistently, this has been the Albanese government’s method of relegating pesky human rights issues to little more than a disagreement, a “point of contention.” But they are not. Human rights are universal, protected, and promoted via a system of global rules and governance that applies to all of our fundamental rights and freedoms.

The Chinese government is one of the most repressive countries, and Hong Kong provides a disheartening case study on this point. Through the adoption of the draconian National Security Law in 2020, it effectively ended the semi-democracy Hong Kong enjoyed.

[...]

[Edit typo.]

131
 
 

Cheeky ? Or crossed the line ?

132
133
 
 

Beau Miles is trying to plan a bunch of trees. Can Lemmy help?

134
 
 

He's alright 👍

135
136
 
 

The ABC can reveal that not a single developer that failed to comply with a defect order issued by the commission, known as a building work rectification order (BWRO), has received a fine.

Okay so which one of you skillwags is this ?

He described the regulator's defect order as being "about as useful as a sunroof on a submarine"

So if there is no fine issued for non compliance, why bother complying?

137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
 
 

This morning, after last night’s heavy rain, I noticed a large puddle forming near the back of my house. When I checked, I realised the outdoor drain was completely blocked, and water was starting to pool against the wall. I tried to clear some of the debris on top, but the water still wouldn’t drain away. I started worrying about possible flooding or water damage, especially since it’s been so wet this winter. I’m unsure whether I should try to fix this myself or if it’s time to call in a professional. I want to know the best steps to take when faced with a blocked outdoor drain during the colder months, especially to avoid any bigger problems down the track.

147
148
149
 
 

Don't know if it's already been posted, happy for mods to delete if it's already posted somewhere else!

150
 
 

This is an op-ed by Jennifer Parker, a defence and national security expert associate at the ANU’s National Security College. She has served for more than 20 years as a warfare officer in the Royal Australian Navy.

[...]

A major flaw in Australia’s Taiwan debate is the simplistic “will we or won’t we intervene?” framing, which assumes any conflict would be confined to Taiwan. In reality, an invasion would be far more complex. The Taiwan Strait’s geography, weather and Taiwan’s defences already make it a formidable task. That challenge is amplified by expected US and Japanese intervention from bases in Japan and the Philippines, forces China would try to neutralise pre-emptively.

Any invasion would almost certainly immediately trigger a broader regional conflict involving one of Australia’s key allies and at least two of its closest security partners. In a region-wide conflict, Australia’s national security interests would be jeopardised, and it would have little choice but to respond. Its key role would be defending Australia and its sea lines of communication.

[...]

Staying on the sidelines would be inconsistent with our national interests. Australia’s security, including maritime trade, would be directly threatened. Not to mention Australia’s obligations under the 1951 ANZUS Treaty.

It would also seriously damage Australia’s credibility with key security partners and regional neighbours. Moreover, if China resorts to force against Taiwan, it is unlikely to stop there. Beijing is also engaged in maritime and territorial disputes with South-East Asian states and South Korea and Japan. A successful invasion would embolden further aggression.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would not be an isolated act – it would trigger a regional conflict with direct consequences for Australia’s security. An invasion may not be imminent or inevitable, but China’s clear preparations demand serious attention. Australia must invest in its own defence – not because war is certain, but because deterrence depends on capability. And if deterrence fails, we must be ready to defend our vital interests.

[...]

view more: ‹ prev next ›