Human rights advocates raise concerns over VP Sara Duterte's visit to Melbourne

Melba Marginson, convenor of the Australians for Philippine Human Rights Network, shares their stand and urges the Australian government to take action.
According to groups such as BAYAN Australia, Gabriela, Migrante, and AnakBayan the visit appears to signal support for impunity and could sow division within the Filipino community in Australia.
As of now, the Australian government has not released an official statement regarding the visa status or travel plans of the visiting officials. SBS Filipino
19/06/2025 10:22 📢 Where to Catch SBS Filipino

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

ABC News

2 hours ago

• ABC News

Victorian Liberal leader Brad Battin says party infighting is over as focus shifts to 2026 election

Victorian opposition leader Brad Battin has conceded some Liberal Party MPs have focused more on internal rivalries than voters, but has said his team will be unified heading into the election in 2026. Mr Battin described the party's decision to provide former leader John Pesutto a $1.55 million loan to avoid bankruptcy, a policy he supported, as a "line in the sand" that signalled a renewed focus on winning government. The long-running fight between Mr Pesutto and fellow Liberal MP Moira Deeming, who successfully sued her former leader for defamation, has divided the party. It became a proxy battle in a broader ideological struggle for control of the party. In an interview with the ABC, Mr Battin said he was speaking to every MP individually following the decision to provide Mr Pesutto a financial lifeline, stressing the need for unity. "You've been elected as a local member of parliament. You've got the self-discipline to get there. You just need now to put that into team unity." Asked whether MPs who failed to be team players would face consequences, Mr Battin said voters would ultimately decide. "The consequences are, you lose the election. It's a pretty simple consequence." The Coalition has not won a Victorian election since 2010 and has been crippled by infighting. A common criticism is that too many MPs are focused more on getting to parliament rather than winning government. "I think there's always an element of that, because it's been publicly perceived as that,'' Mr Battin said. The Berwick MP said it was incumbent on MPs to reflect on why they were elected. "What things did you want to see change in the state? And can you do it from opposition? If the answer is yes … then you're probably in the wrong job." Mr Battin challenged Mr Pesutto's leadership six months ago after his supporters undermined Mr Pesutto's position, but Mr Battin reiterated throughout the interview that his team was now united. He hinted that the frontbench team could change but would not say if Mr Pesutto or Ms Deeming would be included in a revamped shadow cabinet. Ms Deeming had proposed an alternative to the party loaning Mr Pesutto money, including delaying his court order debt if her preselection was guaranteed. Mr Battin declined to comment on that or complaints to the state's anti-corruption watchdog, citing legal advice not to speak publicly on the matter. While expressing confidence in the team he would take to the election, Mr Battin said some MPs would need to reflect on their future. "People have to make decisions about time served in parliament, if they want to stay or not,'' he said. The Coalition must add 16 seats at next year's November election to win office. The task is big, but after three terms of Labor, there is a genuine chance for the Liberals, Mr Battin believed. "We've got one chance coming up in about 16 months. It's our opportunity to ensure we prove to Victorians we're ready." He said the party would now focus on policy, with internal disputes hopefully behind him. Mr Battin admitted the long-running conflict between Mr Pesutto and Ms Deeming took a toll on him, including sleepless nights. "It takes a physical and mental challenge on you … but it's resolved my drive. I know what I need to do to win at the next election." He doesn't regret how he handled the matter, stressing that it was a dispute between two individuals. Some MPs criticised Mr Battin for a lack of leadership in failing to resolve the crisis sooner, while others were angered by his decision to support the loan to Mr Pesutto, highlighting the party's ongoing divisions. "I know what I need to do to win at the next election. I need to get the right policy settings, have the right processes with my team, ensure we're a united front, and send a message to Victoria that we're ready to govern."

SBS Australia

3 hours ago

• SBS Australia

'Projects are falling away': Donald Trump's $400m blow to Australia's global moves

President Donald Trump's administration made heavy cuts to the United States Agency for International Development earlier this year. Source: AAP, ABACA, Press Association / Ken Cedeno The Trump administration's cuts to foreign aid have resulted in a $400 million blow to Australian projects, according to a peak body for humanitarian agencies, forcing organisations to abandon critical work and leaving vulnerable communities without essential support. At the start of this year, the international peacebuilding group Conciliation Resources (CR) was starting a five-year project in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea. However, Ciaran O'Toole, director of CR's Southeast Asia and the Pacific department, said it was halted due to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) cuts, which followed US President Donald Trump's 90-day funding pause in January . "We work primarily in communities, building or enhancing the capacities to be able to prevent violent conflict," O'Toole said. But "it was quite quickly stopped", she said, as part of USAID pulling out. The program's goal was to prevent violence in an area where conflict is increasing. Last year, 49 people were killed in the Highlands region in what was considered a major escalation in tribal fighting. "It's not just reacting to when violence occurs. It's not just crisis management. It is about trying to resolve what are the underlying causes of these conflicts," O'Toole said. "It is what not happens, right? It's the headlines that don't exist." But the plan to station mediators in PNG's Hela province to assist communities in finding non-violent ways to address grievances came to an abrupt halt due to the funding pause earlier this year. Only 14 per cent of programs have had their funding reinstated since then. CR was forced to let some staff go and reduce the hours of others. "It is the communities that are affected by violence, and in particular, the women that suffer abuse, the people that are affected directly by violence who struggle to see a light at the end of the tunnel," O'Toole said. "I would feel more for them." The program is one of more than 120 projects by Australian aid agencies impacted by the cuts, according to a report by the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID). ACFID found that at least 124 programs run by Australian organisations were affected by the US funding cuts, worth at least $400 million, and 20 in-country offices for Australian-based aid organisations were closed as a result. Jessica Mackenzie, ACFID policy and advocacy chief, said: "Just one agency had to let go of 200 local staff." "They would have been single-income families, so you can imagine the flow-on effects." ACFID believes the actual impact of the cuts to be greater than indicated by a survey, where less than half of its members responded. Australian-run programs in the Indo-Pacific region were hardest hit, with $113 million worth of funding lost in the Pacific, closely followed by $111 million in Southeast Asia. But the impact for Australian agencies extends throughout Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The report found a specific program assisting 765,000 people in Yemen was discontinued. "It was providing life-saving medicine. It was providing life-saving food, and it was providing malnutrition help for 26,000 children under the age of five," Mackenzie said. In Nepal, a program supporting over 300 girls in attending school was also axed, according to the report. "That means that they're more exposed to modern slavery, to human trafficking, to forced child marriage," Mackenzie said. "The flow-on effects of these projects and their ability to break the cycle of poverty are really quite compounding." It is still unclear whether programs co-funded by both the Australian and US governments will proceed. "When that US funding was stripped back, that whole project now comes into question," Mackenzie said. "What I'm hearing, it's very hard to say at this early stage, but a lot of these projects are falling away now." The council found child-related programs, including those covering education, health, nutrition, and anti-child trafficking, were also significantly affected. The US government undertook a review during the initial 90-day pause to ensure only programs fully aligning with the president's foreign policy were funded by USAID. While aid organisations say they have been given little clarity by the administration as to why programs were cut, there is a belief that those focused on climate change and gender did not meet the administration's expectations. "I don't think there was much thinking gone into it, to be quite honest," O'Toole said. "Anything that had the word gender in it. Anything, possibly, even with the words peace building, was eliminated, we believe, pretty quickly. "There's a lot of talk around peace from the administration. A desire to sign peace agreements to Nobel Prizes, but at the end of the day, peace starts in communities. It starts with people. It starts on the ground." Labor reallocated $119 million of foreign aid from global health and education programs to the Indo-Pacific region in its pre-election budget in response to the USAID pause, but did not announce any additional spending. After the election, Labor committed $10 million of additional aid to Gaza. ACFID is calling for aid spending to be increased from 0.65 per cent to 1 per cent of the federal budget to help fill the gap left by the US cuts. "Between 2005 and 2015, it was at 1 per cent," Mackenzie said. "This isn't a really big change." Since coming into power, Labor has increased its diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in the Pacific, with concerns about China's influence in the region driving increased investment and aid programs. Mackenzie said the government should prioritise funding health, education, and nutrition programs over initiatives with "geostrategic imperatives". World Donald Trump US Government Share this with family and friends

ABC News

3 hours ago

• ABC News

As the media works to win trust, people say they want the truth

Why are people turning away from mainstream media and seeking alternative sources of news? Last week, the University of Canberra released its annual survey of trust in the media, which made fascinating reading. Among its results, it found Australians' concern about misinformation was the highest globally. It said Australia "urgently needed" a national media and digital literacy campaign to help news consumers feel confident about their ability to spot misinformation. But what would that campaign look like? Let's take a very quick look at the news-gathering model, think about what makes stories "true", and consider some of the pressures journalists face to stop them telling certain stories. It's a huge topic, but it's necessary to talk about. Journalists are taught that news stories should contain the "Five Ws": If a news outlet covers an event, its coverage should contain those basic elements. Who is this story about? What has happened? Where did it happen? When did it happen? Why did it happen? (And why is it important?) The first four Ws can be simple enough. They're the building blocks for basic stories like this: There is a huge flood (what) in outback Queensland (where) right now (when) and more than 100,000 head of livestock are estimated to be dead or lost (who). The last W in the model — Why — can be more complicated, because that's how you apply "meaning" to an event. Why has something happened? Why is it important? Because we're human, the interpretation of events can be hotly contested and lead to accusations of bias and everything else. But according to the way it works in theory, journalists are trained to gather the facts and seek expert opinion to help them make sense of the facts, to tell us what they mean. When you put those elements together, you'll hopefully have a decent story. Now, that's an oversimplified description of the way the news-gathering model works in reality. The conceptual boundaries between the Five Ws aren't always clear-cut. There's a lot of interplay between them. For example, depending on the type of story you're covering, you might need an expert's help to know what the facts of certain phenomena are before you can even start writing about them (re: the science of climate change). But you get the gist. If you wanted to teach someone how news was generated, you'd start with a bare-bones, idealised model like that. Then you'd take the next step. You'd say we always need to remember that they're just stories, at the end of the day. They're trying to turn the chaos and confusion of reality into a comprehensible "story" that helps the human brain to make sense of a very complex world. And what sets the media's stories apart from other kinds of stories (such as fairytales, or novels, or films) is they're supposed to be "true", or an honest attempt to "tell the truth" about reality. That's the implied social compact. And given that assumption about the media's stories, people who consume "the news" are more willing to let the media's stories shape their perception of the world in ways they wouldn't dare allow for other kinds of stories (like fairytales). So, cognitively, readers let their guard down a little. And that makes the media's stories uniquely potent. It's why there's a global multi-billion-dollar industry dedicated to capturing, controlling, and confusing the "trusted stories" the media tells every day. Or better still, stopping the media from telling certain stories at all, by harassing, intimidating, and killing journalists in their hundreds. Is everyone in the media industry a good person pursuing a noble cause? Of course not. It's like any industry. If you work in the media long enough, it's unsurprising to learn that the "father of apartheid" in South Africa, Hendrik Verwoerd, was a former newspaper editor. Some media companies behave like the media-arm of their preferred political party, do hit jobs on their enemies, and always seem ready to manufacture consent for the next war. That's been the reality of the industry for hundreds of years. Who owns the world's media companies? But there are plenty of journalists and editors that really try to tell the truth. In independent media and the legacy media. They appreciate that they have to keep demonstrating to their readers that their stories can be trusted. They know if readers start to notice that their stories are omitting crucial facts, including basic facts of history and law, while downplaying some voices and elevating others, their readers will lose trust in their ability to tell truthful stories. And that would be dire for their news outlet. They know if they allow the powerful to dictate how stories are told, they'll be allowing the powerful to kill their stories and their audience. So they really try to stop bad-faith actors from confusing their Five Ws with waves of misinformation and intimidation: We're living in a dangerous moment in history. In the last 12 months, arms and weapons manufacturers, and cyber intelligence and security companies linked to the global war machine, have been making extremely handsome profits. The share price of Palantir Technologies has exploded by 447.57 per cent (to $US139.96) in the last year, and the value of Elbit Systems shares has surged 144 per cent (to $US438.47). Australia's sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, is making multi-million-dollar returns from its investments in such companies. Governments, militaries, and different lobby groups are trying to stop people speaking up about the atrocities they're witnessing and the concerns they have about the future. How should journalists report on these events? When it comes to media literacy, Australian audiences might be shocked to learn how difficult it is for the media to write about the world in plain language sometimes, given how strict defamation law is in this country (among other laws). They might be shocked to learn about the orchestrated bullying that goes on, which is designed to discourage editors and journalists from reporting on certain topics and framing stories in certain ways, even speaking to certain people. Would it improve media literacy if the media wrote about these issues openly and regularly? Do we want the media to speak matter-of-factly about propaganda too? Every military engages in it, including the Australian Defence Force. Governments and lobby groups engage in it. They use different propaganda strategies for different audiences (whether domestic or foreign), and apply different tactics to try to control the media narrative at different times. Consider Australia's public relations efforts in the Asia-Pacific. Our government is spending a lot of diplomatic effort cultivating relationships with our island neighbours and encouraging their people to come to work in Australia on special working visas. It would like them to think Australia is a trustworthy ally, one they can trust more than other countries in the region. But one wonders what the people of Timor-Leste think about that. Have a read of Hannah Arendt's famous essay from 1971, on the Pentagon Papers, where she expressed amazement at the degree to which the United States government deliberately lied to its citizens about the reality of the Vietnam War, and about its reasons for invading and bombing Vietnam. Or have a read of the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe's most recent book, Lobbying for Zionism on both sides of the Atlantic, which goes into great detail explaining the tactics used by pro-Israel lobbies in the US and UK, including their campaigns against the BBC and the Guardian, and their campaign to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming Britain's prime minister. The former Israeli minister Shumalit Aloni, in an interview in the United States in 2002, stated plainly that pro-Israel lobbies used accusations of antisemitism to stifle criticism of Israel. "Well it's a trick we always use. When in Europe somebody is criticising Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticising well, then they are antisemitic," she said. These are all things the media has to navigate. In last week's media survey, respondents said they wanted journalists "to be more courageous and ask tough questions". They wanted the media to "report the facts" and "tell the truth". But let's raise some adjacent issues. Do we want journalists to have morals? Do we want their work to be guided by their morals and ethics? Do we want them to speak up about the injustice they see around them, or do we want them to stay quiet? Is it courageous to sit in silence? George Orwell is considered one of the greatest journalists and writers of the 20th century. In 1940, he wrote a book review of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. In his review, he was scornful of the British elite for their earlier support for Hitler. He was objective. He said he understood Hitler's charismatic appeal and he could see that Fascism and Nazism were tapping into something primal in the human brain. He also shared a personal opinion about Hitler: "I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him." Was that OK for a journalist to write that he would like to murder a public figure? It would probably be difficult to find many people who'd have a problem with that opinion of his, given he was talking about Hitler. But what did it mean for Orwell's journalism? One might argue that it showed it was possible to write with objectivity while feeling a deep moral disgust at the same time. Let's wrap things up with a final question. Sometimes you'll hear people saying journalists shouldn't be activists. But what they're really saying is: "Journalists shouldn't be regularly writing and talking about the issues I don't want them to be talking about, but I'm happy for them to campaign on the issues I personally think are important." All journalists are activists, in a sense. An editorial decision to run a story (or ignore a story) is based on multiple decisions, but many of those decisions relate to what they think is important. But "important" is a dangerous word. Why? Because it's impossible to define the word "important" without referencing human judgement. If you say something's important, it begs the question: important to who? At the moment, some of Australia's major news organisations are reporting very critically on the Albanese government's superannuation plan. There's an obvious media campaign going on. What's motivating the campaign? Why isn't that considered a form of activism? If we embarked on a national campaign to improve media literacy in this country, it would be fascinating to see how these topics were tackled.