The top half of the infographic is presented as two pie charts, one for Yes, and one for No. They provide an overall summary of the response data from the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey at the national level. The survey question asked “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” Of the eligible Australians who expressed a view on this question, 61.6% responded Yes and 38.4% responded No. The bottom half of the infographic is a horizontal bar graph which presents the response data at the state and territory level. New South Wales had 2,374,362 eligible electors who expressed a view (57.8%) respond Yes and 1,736,838 (42.2%) respond No. Victoria had 2,145,629 eligible electors who expressed a view (64.9%) respond Yes and 1,161,098 (35.1%) respond No. Queensland had 1,487,060 eligible electors who expressed a view (60.7%) respond Yes and 961,015 (39.3%) respond No. South Australia had 592,528 eligible electors who expressed a view (62.5%) respond Yes and 356,247 (37.5%) respond No. Western Australia had 801,575 eligible electors who expressed a view (63.7%) respond Yes and 455,924 (36.3%) respond No. Tasmania had 191,948 eligible electors who expressed a view (63.6%) respond Yes and 109,655 (36.4%) respond No. Northern Territory had 48,686 eligible electors who expressed a view (60.6%) respond Yes and 31,690 (39.4%) respond No. Australian Capital Territory had 175,459 eligible electors who expressed a view (74.0%) respond Yes and 61,520 (26.0%) respond No.
New South Wales
Australian Capital Territory(b)
(a) Includes Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (within the Division of Lingiari).
(b) Includes Jervis Bay (within the Division of Fenner) and Norfolk Island (within the Division of Canberra).
Ask anyone who’s lived overseas and they can confirm Australians have a reputation for being loud and relaxed – as compared to Americans being loud and rude – despite living in a fairly scary environment. But life in Australia isn’t anything like Home and Away‘s Summer Bay or Neighbours’ Ramsay St, probably our two most famous cultural exports. Here is a breakdown of 11 common stereotypes about the way Australians live.
1. Everyone lives by the beach
It is true that around 80 per cent of Australians live within 50 kilometres of the coast line. But beachfront real estate is very expensive so tourists might be disappointed to find out we’re not all tanned, blond-haired surfers.
2. It’s hotter than hell
OK, we do get snow sometimes but, yes, it is disgustingly hot here. Most primary school kids try to convince their teachers there’s a rule that if it is over 40 degrees you can go home, though I’ve never heard of this being successful. It gets hot enough to brand yourself with a seat-belt and every year people try and cook eggs on the cement.
3. Australian are all rowdy
It probably doesn’t help our international reputation when Australians keep getting arrested overseas for doing “shoeys” and stripping down to their speedos – also referred to as budgie-smugglers. In the last year alone, the number of Australians arrested overseas increased by 23 per cent and the number of Aussie larrikins hospitalised increased by 15 per cent. Maybe part of the reason Australians party so hard when they go overseas is because nights out are expensive here and we have lockouts in New South Wales and Queensland, so travellers take too much advantage of freedom overseas. No, that’s bullshit, Australians just love a good time wherever they are – especially in Bali! Another reason people think we’re a nation of hard party goers is we sell wine in enormous plastic bags, known as goon sacks.
The Budgie Nine, arrested in Malaysia earlier this year for “international insult”. Photo: AP.
4. All Australians have pet kangaroos
We ride them to school. They are also found in the main street of large towns, including Sydney. We also have dingoes as guard dogs and wombats as house pets. Not koalas though; those things may look cute but they won’t hesitate to rip you to shreds. Then there are the vicious native drop bears!
5. We’re surrounded by dangerous animals
I was going to say this isn’t true but there were two venomous spiders in my house this week. It’s not only enormous spiders that seem like they’re trying to kill us, there are sharks, stingrays, crocodiles, insects, snakes, wasps, octopi and even killer birds, always waiting for unsuspecting victims.
6. We’re always eating brunch
Guilty – and if you agree with The Australian’s columnist Bernard Salt, our obsession with smashed avo is preventing us from buying houses. Sorry Bernard, but there are many other reasons why first-home buyers find it hard to break into the housing market and it’s unfair to lay the blame on the humble avocado.
Smashed avo should be our national dish. Photo: Kate Cox.
7. We always cook meat outside
We love doing a BBQ, but no Australian has ever said “put a shrimp on the barbie”. They’re prawns, mate.
8. We don’t wear shirts or shoes often enough
On any given day there is an Australian in a public place like an airport or shopping centre, wandering around barefoot without a care in the world. We don’t even get dressed properly when we vote.
Shorts, singlets and pluggers, mate! That’s the go.
Australians voting at Bondi. Photo: Edwina Pickles.
9. We don’t heat our houses properly
Or any other buildings really. Australians would prefer to put on an extra three layers and whinge about the cold than turn the heater on. Architects seem to forget that it does actually get cold here for three months of the year when they design huge, improperly insulated houses.
10. We abbreviate too many words
Once you start shortening all words, it’s totes difficult to stop. Arvo, brekkie, avo (smashed or not), Maccas, barbie, sanga, bickie, chuck a sickie, rego, bowlo, are all words that may not make sense outside the Great Southern Land.
11. We constantly change prime ministers
We do, it’s very exciting for political tragics but can also be confusing, and frustrating that we keep having unelected leaders. Unfortunately, we all too often give them a second try at it too! Traditionally, hospitals ask a patient who the current prime minister is after they’ve come to, but in Australia that test doesn’t help to prove there’s anything wrong with you – it’s too hard a question. We haven’t had a leadership spill for a year now so we may be due for another one…
Let’s be honest this frenzy of “compassion” for Syrians can make Australia even less safe.
The Abbott Government said yesterday it would take in an extra 12,000 Syrian refugees.
Know two things about this response to the invasion of Europe by these “refugees” from the Third World — there are now more than 4,000 people every day and half of them claiming to be Syrians.
First, Australia’s intake will not stop this invasion. No, the word has spread to as far as Nigeria and Bangladesh that Europe’s fences are down. It has been suggested that Iraqi airlines have even had to put on an extra three flights a day to Istanbul to deposit more Iraqis on the edge of Europe and its riches.
Look at the “refugees” you see crashing through Europe’s weak borders, or check the statistics of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Is it normal for 72 per cent of “refugees” from war to be men — and predominantly young, fit men you might expect to defend their country rather than flee it? And consider: how many relatives will they later send for? So, no, Europe’s crisis will continue until it, too, turns back the boats. What checks are being carried out to ensure these refugees are actually from Syria?
But, second: in making this gesture, we risk making Australia even less safe.
Amazingly, even the people loudly demanding we take in more Syrian Muslims implicitly concede that danger. Sydney Islamic leader Ahmed Kilani warned that favouring Christian refugees over Muslim risked more terrorism here. Is that a threat?
“The Government keeps saying it is worried about people being radicalised. What do you think young Muslims are going to think when they see who can come in and who can’t?”
Maher Mughrabi, foreign editor of The Age, said the ominous same.
“Arab communities of this country are already bitterly divided by this (Syrian) conflict and the Government’s response to it.”
“If Muslims here feel that the blood of their brothers and sisters in Syria does not cry out as loudly as that of other communities, I worry about the long-term consequences.” Is that a warning or a threat?
Or take Australia’s Anglican Primate, Archbishop Philip Freier. He wants 10,000 more Syrian refugees, but advises against bombing the Islamic State for fear that Muslims here could launch an “asymmetrical response” — a terrorist attack. Once such people assured us there were too few jihadists to worry about. Now they warn there are too many to offend.
Oh, and Australia should import potentially more?
True, Prime Minister Tony Abbott yesterday winked that he will take only Syrian refugees from “very persecuted minorities” — code for Christians. Yet even Abbott dared not say so openly. In fact, he flinched at the first hostile question at his press conference, saying he was also thinking of “Muslim minorities”.
The bottom line is that a country should be able to pick and choose who they want to enter their borders and who they don’t. How well are these refugees going to assimilate into the lifestyle of their adoptive country? The vocal minority (of any viewpoint) or the media should not dictate immigration policy to elected governments. The UK prevents the entry of “refugees” from France and yet this passes almost without comment, yet Hungary and Macedonia are subject to media wrath for doing exactly the same thing.
But if the polls are right, Labor will next year form government and take over this immigration program and its foreign affairs spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, insists the “basis of our policy should not discriminate on religion or ethnicity or gender”.
Has Labor learned nothing from the Fraser government’s blunder in responding with “compassion” to Lebanon’s civil war in the 1970s?
Then, too, government ministers privately urged prime minister Malcolm Fraser to accept only Christian refugees, given how Lebanese Christians had thrived here. Fraser ignored them and nearly 20,000 Lebanese Muslims, many from poor and tribal areas, soon came instead.
The consequences are with us today. True, most are good citizens, but gun crime today is rife in Sydney suburbs with large Lebanese populations. Crime rates are high.
More seriously, of the 21 Australians jailed for terrorism offences, at least four were born in Lebanon and seven were born to Lebanese families.
Let’s not make the same mistakes all over again.
Australia’s political class has for years been too dishonest to admit that when you import people, you import their culture. People importing their culture is fine, but all too often their hatreds come with them.
But our politicians must ask pragmatic questions when deciding which of the millions of the world’s refugees to help.
Who will make best use of our help by fitting in? And who will best repay our charity by enriching Australia, not hurting it? You can’t make such guesses without considering culture and religion — factors that influence the behaviour of the refugees’ future children, too. A study in the UK has suggested that immigrant’s children are more likely to radicalised. They feel that they neither fit the lifestyle of their home or adopted country and are easily swayed by persuasive and radical argument. However, you cannot refuse to offer assistance to people for fear of what their children “might” do!
I know, this makes a politician seem mean and “racist”, but what is their highest duty? To merely seem good, or to protect Australia’s best interests?
Australia is a great place to live and work, to raise kids. Anybody can be anything they want to be if they are prepared to put in the graft to get there. It really is one the world’s great class-less societies.
But….. it’s also the most dangerous country in the world to live!
Seven of the top 10 most venomous snakes in the world live in Australia, and that’s 4 of the top 5! These include the death adder, taipan, tiger snake, eastern brown, king brown, fierce snake and copperhead. Then there are a number of other venomous snakes that don’t rate in the top 10 too! Add to that the large number of non-venomous tree snakes, pythons etc! Don’t get me wrong, the place is not crawling with snakes, but they are here! Half the deaths in Australia are caused by brown snakes.
Death Adder (Acanthophis)
Then there are the spiders! The funnel-web, mouse , trap-door, red-back and wolf spiders rate in the top ten of the world’s deadliest spiders.
Fancy a swim in the ocean? Think again! The sea is the home of the box-jelly fsh, arguably the most venomous creature in the world, venomous sea snakes and of course, numerous types of sharks varying from harmless to man-eaters.
However, the Australian Saltwater crocodile is by far the most dangerous animals in Australia.
They are huge, aggressive, territorial, and plentiful across the north of the Australian Outback. Australian saltwater crocodiles are the largest reptile in the world in terms of mass they can be up to 2000kg, and the largest crocodile with a confirmed measurement was over 7 metres (21 ft). In real terms anything over 5 metres (15 ft) is rare, but these are still formidable creatures. Female rarely exceed 3 metres (10 ft).
The name saltwater crocodile is misleading. The crocodiles can live in the brackish waters along the coastlines but are just as happy in freshwater rivers, swamps and billabongs many hundreds of kilometres inland. Crocodile attacks DO happen in Australia on a regular basis. Most attacks are on animals and livestock, but unfortunately there also regular incidents involving humans, and about two per year are fatal. These attacks occur because:
A person stands too close to the waters edge in a known crocodile area.
Getting between a female crocodile and her nest during breeding season.
Swimming in known crocodile habitats.
They become particularly aggressive during breeding season – September to May.
Being aggravated by people wanting a “good” photograph of them.
Feeding them. This learned habit is potentiated by crocodile tour operators feeding them for the tourists benefit.
Crocodile jumping while being fed on the Adelaide River
In fairness, it must be added that although there a large number of potentially dangerous animals, spiders and reptiles in Australia, the number of actual human fatalities are rare. Australians, in the main, are aware of the risk(s), and take due precautions when travelling in the bush. Crocodile attacks on humans often occur with overseas tourist who under estimate (or are oblivious to) the risk!
In defence of snakes, fatal bites are very, very rare in Australia and bites are often the fault of the person being bitten. Most bites occur when people are trying to kill a snake or show off. Most snakes would rather slither away from humans than fight them. Snakes don’t perceive humans as food and they don’t aggressively attack things that are not food, unless they are cornered, agitated or attacked. Human fatalities to snake bite are 4-6 annually.
Now we have to tolerate disgruntled Arab/Emirati sheiks attempting to kick Australia out of the Asian Football Confederation. Not to put too fine a point on this, and no, I’m not an avid sports follower, it’s clear too me that the Arab teams were simply not good enough, and all the oil money in the world can’t buy (or manufacture) talent.
There are winners and grinners, and the rest are also rans. And some of those are just poor losers!
Late last year a United States law framed in the name of world peace quietly reached its long arm into a small Melbourne tribunal, persuading it to let a large armaments manufacturer override Australian human rights legislation.
In a decision that went largely unremarked upon, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) agreed to let Thales Australia Ltd and its subsidiary ADI Munitions discriminate racially against their employees, job applicants and contract workers.
The companies won a five-year exemption from six sections of the Equal Opportunity Act so they could comply with stringent US export laws that describe who can and who cannot have access to American military technology and know-how.
Simon Rice, an Australian National University law professor, could only sigh. He is an almost lone voice against the Americans’ capacity for such strongarm tactics in Australian courts.
“It’s legal imperialism,” says Rice, who chairs the ACT Law Reform Advisory Council. “It’s the US saying to everybody in the world: You will deal with us on the terms we will dictate to you.”
There have been scores of such decisions in small courts across the nation since at least 2003, when the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal granted Boeing Australia Holdings some of the first such exemptions.
Because the Australian government relies heavily on US military technology, the big defence manufacturers operating here have, for more than a decade, made a practice of applying for exemptions from our equal opportunity laws so they can stay sweet with the US State Department. All applications, except one in Queensland, have been granted, allowing the companies to bar access to certain employees and contractors to positions where they would have access to sensitive US military goods and services.
This means the workforce is segregated, so that the “wrong” people are not given certain positions, as spelt out by the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), according to Rice, who advises our federal parliamentary human rights committee.
Because the ITAR, which governs the terms with which an importing country can use American defence technology, requires companies to discriminate on the basis of birth or nationality, it conflicts directly with Australian state and territory human rights legislation. Companies either persuade our legal authorities to let them off the hook or they don’t get US State Department clearance to access exported US defence technology.
“It is easier for the companies to get a local exemption than to get this clearance,” explains Rice.
Some people are outright denied access to sensitive American defence exports because their country of birth or dual nationality is on an ITAR list of “proscribed” nations.
The list changes from time to time and barred nations currently include Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Fiji, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Syria and Vietnam – the ancestral homes of many Australian migrants.
There was a salient reminder this week of the reasons for US nervousness over technology security. Whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed via German magazine Der Spiegel that Chinese spies had stolen design plans for the Joint Strike Fighter, the aircraft meant to reinforce US aerial dominance. Australia is spending billions of dollars on the same planes.
American lawyers specialising in export laws have described the ITAR as unparalleled in scope, as it reaches across the entire globe. It’s not just about arms, but a whole gamut of hardware and software used for military purposes or space research. It includes ships, planes, lasers and satellite technology, and “export” can simply mean transferring information – even, possibly, according to one analyst, sending an email.
Australia’s foremost specialist in space law, Professor Steven Freeland of the University of Western Sydney, sees extra benefits beyond national security for the US as it enforces the ITAR to regulate who can use American satellite technology.
“In the area of space technology, the US are still the superpower and they want to stay there, despite developments in China and Russia, so they’re very sensitive about their weapons technology going to other countries,” he tells The Saturday Paper. “In its simplest terms, space technology is regarded as akin to missile technology.”
While the ITAR has a benevolent motive in wanting to stop sensitive technology falling into the wrong hands, it also has the effect of enabling the US to retain a competitive advantage, he says.
“You won’t find that motivation explicitly in the official documents,” Freeland says.
However, he is less worried than Rice about ITAR’s reach.
“It’s quite common where people are dealing with national security issues to say: Sorry, but we get to choose the sort of people who work there because we don’t want them to have access,” he says.
Rice argues that the state department is dictating the private behaviour of individuals and companies outside the US, causing them to act unlawfully in their own countries.
Fines and jail terms
The state department can fine offending individuals and businesses up to $US1 million per violation for breaching ITAR requirements. It can ban companies from using American military exports and jail offenders for up to 10 years.
In a case that sent a message to universities, John Reece Roth, a former Tennessee professor of electrical engineering, was jailed for four years in 2009 for breaching the ITAR by providing information on drone technology to students from Iran and China.
Boeing was fined $US3.8 million in 2001, $US15 million in 2006 and $US3 million in 2008 for ITAR breaches and other companies have also been hit hard.
By comparison, breaches here of Australian anti-discrimination and equal opportunity law may lead to an apology or “small value financial compensation”, Australian defence industry lawyer Jane Elise Bates pointed out in the journal Security Challenges in 2012.
“From an economic perspective the balance is certainly in favour of continuing the status quo and seeking exemptions as required to permit the conduct of racial discrimination,” Bates wrote.
In the latest decision granting Thales Australia exemptions in November, VCAT member Anna Dea said the company’s work for the Australian Defence Force, including ship, aircraft, vehicle and munitions manufacture, generates more than $861 million in annual sales. It employs 871 people in Victoria, with an estimated $2 billion worth of projects lined up over the next eight to 10 years.
Dea listed the same reasons that have persuaded nearly every Australian decision-maker in her position for the past decade or so to grant exemptions, faced with the brutal reality of the US ITAR. The company’s work is important to Australia’s defence capability, the state economy and jobs that could otherwise go elsewhere, she said. She noted that no employees or union representatives made any submissions to the tribunal.
But it was not always so.
When Thales and ADI sought similar exemptions in the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia in 2005, the commissioner for equal opportunity, the WA Trades and Labour Council, the state’s Ethnic Communities Council and Western Australians for Racial Equality all objected.
The companies won a five-year exemption anyway.
As Australia negotiated a new defence treaty with the US in 2008, judges and decision-makers for a while bridled at having to bow to American law, after a parliamentary committee recommended the federal government seek exemptions from the ITAR.
In 2007, the then VCAT president, Justice Stuart Morris, voiced his concern about being asked by Boeing Australia Holdings to depart from local legislation to provide jobs.
“Such a departure is only sought because important aerospace technology is subject to an American law which places American security ahead of this human rights standard. One might ask: why should not the Americans give way?” he said.
“One suspects that the ITAR is misconceived … But then, I rather doubt that the United States government will back down from ITAR in the face of a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.”
VCAT deputy president Cate McKenzie described the nationality-based prohibitions in the ITAR as a “blunt instrument” when she granted a partial exemption to BAE Systems Australia Limited in 2008.
“Assessment of individuals on a non-stereotyped basis, or training and education about the importance of the obligation of secrecy, would seem to me to be a better approach,” she said.
Little choice for legal bodies
At the end of 2008, the president of the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, Douglas Savage, refused exemptions sought by the Boeing group. The companies’ opportunities should not be at the expense of employees or potential employees, said Savage, whose decision still stands.
He doubted that refugees who had risked their lives to flee nations whose regimes they opposed were a security concern. Any concern could equally apply to US or Australian citizens, he said.
Rice sees such opposition as having faded. In particular, although they have appeared in past hearings, he is disappointed at unions’ failure to take this on as a cause.
“They haven’t been very effective or strategic in their arguments,” he says.
Four years ago, Rice argued in The Canberra Law Review that courts and tribunals in reality “have had little real choice, in the face of employers’ (poorly substantiated) claims that without the exemption the defence contracts will be breached with serious consequences, including the loss of jobs.”
There have been at least 25 more decisions allowing exemptions since he wrote that. Thirteen were in New South Wales, where there are no public hearings and exemptions are gazetted by the attorney-general. Two were in the ACT, two in Victoria, six in South Australia and one in Western Australia.
“I’ve been waiting for one tribunal to break ranks,” says Rice. “It seems to me they’re spooked. They’re between a rock and a hard place. You have to have sympathy. This is a political issue. The tribunals are being asked to decide it and they shouldn’t be.”
However, tribunals should be more rigorous in making these self-interested businesses spell out the exact consequences if they complied with local human rights laws, Rice says.
The tough US laws are unpopular around the world, particularly with close allies such as Canada, and the Obama administration recently tweaked them. But as VCAT’s Anna Dea explained in her most recent Thales decision, “it remains the case that information about a workforce member’s nationality and national origin is still required”.
Freeland acknowledges the role of US domestic politics. “Americans are very good at protecting US interests. It’s what you pay your politicians for, in one sense,” he says.
“We may not like it, but if the American administration were not seen to protect US interests, it wouldn’t last long in government. Americans have a particularly patriotic or provincial view that the US is the centre of the universe.”
Canada, accustomed to its gigantic pushy neighbour, has over the past few years negotiated changes with the US State Department that allow companies to comply with the ITAR as well as Canadian privacy and human rights legislation.
The Canadian government acted following public controversies, including a ruckus when General Motors Canada sent immigrant workers home with pay after the company was fined $US20 million for breaching the ITAR when it manufactured certain military vehicles.
There is no such outcry here. Instead, Freeland says, Australian governments continue to tolerate the ITAR’s workings because of the trade-off of lucrative business investment.
The president of Asia’s football governing body says Gulf nations want the Socceroos expelled from the continental confederation.
Sheikh Salman Bin Ebrahim Al-Khalifa
This was always going to happen. As Australia flexed its sporting muscle in the Asian Cup, there were always going to be people who would say we’re not welcome.
What no one expected is that the boss of Asian Football would echo those sorts of comments on the evening before the final of a hugely successful Asian Cup tournament hosted on Australian soil. But reports have emerged overnight that in an interview with a Dubai newspaper, Asian Football Confederation president, Sheik Salman Bin Ibrahim Al-Khalifa, said he was aware of a movement to have Australia expelled from Asian football. And it’s not just the Gulf nations like Bahrain, 2022 World Cup host Qatar and UAE (who the Soccerroos beat 2-0 this week in the semi final) who want Australia out.
Sheikh Salman Bin Ibrahim al-Khalifa said he was aware of momentum in the AFC for Australia’s removal from Asian football. Salman told Dubai-based newspaper Al-Ittihad that “Arabs are not the only ones” looking to exclude Australia. “Australia joined the AFC before I was elected as the president,” Salman said. “At that time, the AFC general assembly made no resolution about re-assessing Australia’s membership to determine whether it will stay or be evicted. There are indications that prove that such desire exists among the confederations of west Asia to evict Australia. Salman said “There are indications that prove that such desire exists among the confederations of west Asia to evict Australia, but I also know that the Arabs are not the only ones who are not convinced that Australia’s membership in Asia’s football is feasible.”
Salman says he is content with Australia’s involvement in the AFC but says dissenting nations could raise the issue at this year’s general assembly.
In other words, nobody likes us. Or perhaps they just don’t like that we’re successful at this level.
Australia’s involvement in Asian football dates back to the start of 2006, when we left the Oceania conference. As a member of Oceania, Australia had endured super tough qualifying roads to the FIFA World Cup. Every four years we were forced to play the fifth-best qualifier from South America. Every four years, we lost.
Then in 2005, we played Uruguay for a spot at the 2006 World Cup in Germany. The Socceroos famously squeezed through, thanks to Mark Schwarzer magic and that John Aloisi penalty with its shirt-swirling aftermath. It would be the last time we were forced to qualify via South America.
From 2006 onwards, Australia has sought World Cup qualification via one of the four spots reserved for Asian teams. The move has worked. We made it to the World Cup in both 2010 and 2014, and have also performed well at the Asian Cup (although we haven’t won one yet — but that could happen on Saturday against South Korea!)
But Australia’s World Cup qualification success and Asian Cup success has made life tougher for Gulf nations and other football hopefuls in Asia. And despite the 2015 Asian Cup being a fantastically successful, friendly tournament (as you’d expect for any major sporting event hosted here), there are apparently those who want Australia out.
The fiery quotes by Asian football chief Sheik Salman Bin Ibrahim Al-Khalif are not available online. However news.com.au did find on the Al-Ittihad website a piece from a columnist which appears very much in step. It reads:
“Is it time to assess the decision to allow entry of Australia into the AFC system, the question presents itself, and also pointed to achieve yesterday that the relationship between the two parties (Australia and AFC) is nothing more than the love of one party, is the Australian party certainly, private with confirmation of the marketing committee of the Asian continent, that football has not benefited from the participation of Australia.” – Google translated and reviewed for context.
To Australians, this just sounds like sour grapes from the oligarchs of oil-rich Arabian states unaccustomed to not getting things their own way. It is interesting that this is the same oligarchs that let Australia into the AFC, but perhaps they didn’t expect them to be so good. Now they are, they want to change their minds.
Now correct me if I’m wrong, the term Australasia is indicative of the country’s location. If Indonesia is Asian then so is Australia as they are neighbours. Or perhaps FIFA needs to do an overhaul of its confederation membership and World Cup selection procedures.
George Brown is a decorated soldier and health professional and 40 year veteran in the field of emergency nursing and paramedical practice, both military and civilian areas. He has senior management positions in the delivery of paramedical services. Opinions expressed in these columns are solely those of the author and should not be construed as being those of any organization to which he may be connected.
He was born in the UK of Scottish ancestry from Aberdeen and a member of the Clan MacDougall. He is a member of the Macedonian community in Newcastle, and speaks fluent Macedonian. While this may seem a contradiction, it is his wife who is Macedonian, and as a result he embraced the Macedonian language and the Orthodox faith.
His interests include aviation and digital photography, and he always enjoys the opportunity to combine the two. Navigate to his Flickr site to see recent additions to his photo library.
Џорџ Браун е украсени војник и професионално здравствено лице и 40 годишен ветеран во областа на за итни случаи старечки и парамедицински пракса, двете воени и цивилни области. Тој има високи менаџерски позиции во испораката на парамедицински услуги. Мислењата изразени во овие колумни се исклучиво на авторот и не треба да се толкува како оние на било која организација тој може да биде поврзан.
Тој е роден во Велика Британија на шкотскиот потекло од Абердин и член на Kланот MacDougall. Тој е член на македонската заедница во Њукасл, и зборува течно македонски. Иако ова можеби изгледа контрадикција, тоа е неговата сопруга кој е македонски, и како резултат научил македонскиот јазик и ја примија православната вера.
Неговите интереси вклучуваат авијација и дигитална фотографија, и тој секогаш ужива во можност да се комбинираат двете. Отиди до неговиот Фликр сајт да видите последните дополнувања на неговата слика библиотека.