#australian federation

[whats-in-a-sentence]

Vosper wanted the Colony in the Federation but was demanding better terms. D'arcy interjected:

A Voice: I earn my money by working – that's more than you do, Vosper.

Mr Vosper: Yes, working as the local tool of that monopoly. I should be ashamed to show my face at a public meeting if I stood in Mr Uhr's place.

Considerable uproar here took place, and Mr Uhr promptly accepted Mr Vosper's challenge to come up on the platform. He then characterised Mr Vosper's comments on the Bill, which had been drafted by the combined genius of Australia, as a piece of impertinence.—Loud applause. For years he had known Mr Vosper as a strong Federalist, his present attitude was that of a turncoat.—Cheers. He (Mr Vosper) had never been anything but a noisy agitator—Cheers.—He (Mr Uhr) trusted all would be unanimous on Tuesday and vote for Federation—Cheers . . . Mr Uhr then resumed his seat in the audience.

"Killing for Country: A Family History" - David Marr

[tenth-sentence]

He supported Federation.

"Killing for Country: A Family History" - David Marr

[jeeez-louise]

[sinnerjannik]

fedal headers

like/reblog if you save x

- requested ❤️

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

by Andrew Wallace

Today, radical left-wing protestors breached parliamentary security and led an abhorrent protest from the top of Australian Parliament House.

Shouts like “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free” and “Sovereignty Was Never Ceded” echoed across the Parliamentary Lawn as radicals clad with balaclavas and keffiyehs made a delusional equivocation between Israel, Australian Indigenous issues and Australia’s peacekeeping and military operations abroad.

This is a shameful display. It’s vile. And it’s illegal.

This was an attack on the Jewish people and the people of Israel, at a time when antisemitism has reached levels we have not seen since we stood on the threshold of Hitler’s Holocaust.

It was an attack on our parliamentary democracy, disrupting the important work of parliament while families contend with crises in Australia’s economy, society, and national security.

It was an assault on the memory of those who have paid the ultimate price to protect Australia’s security and sovereignty, and to preserve peace in the global rules-based order.

In the conflicts of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and East Timor, Australian servicemen and women stood up to the tyranny of communism, Islamic extremism, and dictatorship. They purchased our freedom with their sacrifice, and that is a debt we cannot repay.

This extremist behaviour is made possible by a government which has been slow to act on antisemitism and virulent hate of extremists on the far-left and far-right.

It’s not just virulent; it’s viral, and it’s infected our campuses, communities, social media and now our Parliament.

I call on the Federal Labor Government to legislate for a Judicial Inquiry into Antisemitism on Australia’s University Campuses.

I call on the Federal Labor Government to step back from its unqualified support for a Two State Solution, without acknowledging how the war in Gaza actually started, after the atrocities of October 7, 2023.

I call on the Prime Minister to sack Senator Fatima Payman and anyone else who defends the use of terror slogans such as those we have seen today.

And I call on every Australian, from every walk of life, to call out antisemitism wherever you see it or hear it.

Last time the world failed to act, six million Jews were murdered.

We must show “never again” is more than mere words; it is a promise made to a people whose share of oppression has been unrivalled through many centuries.

We must show that Australians keep their promises.

[janesurlife]

Favourite L'Equipe newspaper covers of Rafa

[psubell]

guys, which matches do you recommend i watch while i have the tennis channel free trial?

[zingaplanet]

hi new tennis fan here, do you mind explaining the 2011 fedal fallout? I tried looking around but couldn't find much. Thanks in advance!

Oh ho ho mutual, thanks for the question altho I fear this might get too complicated too political too quickly hahaha I'll try to keep my answer neutral. Tennis politics is an underworld of nasty nasty business and as much as it is fascinating, it is unfortunately very different from the clean, elegant, prestigious look the sport is presented as at front, as is expected when big prize money is on the line. This is going to be quite long, as usual, so be prepared hahaha

There's a good NYT article about this whole Nadal-Federer-Djokovic council debacle which I highly reccommend (around their 2019 return to the council), but let me provide a bit of a back story to that as well.

Now this all started back in the early 2010s, Federer and Nadal were still world number 1 and 2 (oh the good old days), and they were also the leaders at the players' council (Nadal was Federer's VP). So the gist of it by end of 2011, there was a bit of a dispute, esentially about prize money, but quickly turned into a bit of everything.

Basically, after the ATP finals of that year, there was talk of changing ATP into a 2 year ranking system. This is a bit unconventional but it's actually related to how points are accumulated throughout the whole tour and the accessibility of the sports to newcomers.

Everyone kinda knows that tennis is one of the most difficult sports to break into, not only because tournament seedings are based on rankings (unlike in football for instance where it's random), meaning top players will always have preference to go all the way to the final, but also because prize money has also been reported as highly unequal. Players at the top level like Serena, Federer, Sharapova, Nadal etc earned a gazillion times more than even the top 20 players, this is because of sponsorship, but also because of the gap in prize money. More reports have been coming out on this recently, where the top 5 players in India and other countries can't even sustain themselves with prize money alone and has to take up side jobs.

The idea is that with a 2 year ranking, points will be distributed more evenly, rankings will be much more accessible and players in the top 50 will have access to better prize money. It's a bit complicated to explain technically but that's the gist of it as far as I understand.

Now the problem starts when in November that year, the players meeting saw all players (including Nadal) except Federer, the president, support the 2 year system. They were also planning to boycott the Australian Open, that they deemed were far too unfair in terms of prize money distribution as all other Grand Slams.

The dispute between the two of them also has another layer into it however. Unsurprisignly, the ranking debate is related to discussions about scheduling, in which Nadal has been strongly advocating for change since the beginning of his career.

I managed to dig up some quotes on this, it's pretty nasty (hmu if you want sources):

“"For him, it's good to say nothing, (His attitude is) "Everything is positive. It's all well and good for me, I look like a gentleman,' and the rest can burn themselves. He likes the circuit. I like the circuit. It's better than many other sports, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be better.”

Rafa and some other players are protesting about the number of mandatory events a pro player is required to compete in during the year, arguing this is not actually sustainable for an athlete's physical condition which he himself has felt the brunt too many times.

"I love the game and there are a lot of things I'm grateful for,” Nadal said. “The game has allowed me to lead a fantastic lifestyle. But to finish your career with pain all over your body, is that a positive? No. Maybe (Federer) has got a super body and he'll finish his career like a rose. Neither myself, nor (Andy) Murray, nor (Novak) Djokovic are going to finish our careers like a rose. Tennis is an important part of my life, but it's a tough sport. We're not like him, where it's effortless to play. For all of us, it's a battle."

I believe this is the period Federer was referring to when he said "He used to follow me around with everything but then he grew to be his own person," etc.

Federer and Nadal before this period were strangely civil towards each other, even after those French Open and Wimbledon finals back to back - but this seemed to be the beginning of their souring relations. Federer handled it very discretely and only said he had “no hard feelings” toward Nadal for the comments, and Nadal also later admitted that his comments “must stay in the locker room.”

I'm not saying one player is right and the other is wrong, there is always 2 sides of the coin. A 2 year ranking system will mess a lot of things up in terms of the sport's competitiveness and spectatorship, but there is also a real pay gap problem in tennis, especially in Grand Slams, it's a very top heavy sport. It's very evident that Nadal and Federer's frustrations with each other relate a lot to their different career trajectories and playing style. Nadal said many times from the beginning that his style of play is too physicaly disruptive and I remember him saying he'd be very surprised if he's still playing in his 30s and it's obvious that Federer's injury-free career bothered him a bit, while Federer, I think is always the perfect middle-man between the players and the tournament organisers (he has very good relationship with all of them), and he understood nuances of the sports' politics and that it's never that simple to change everything, something a lot of young players don't really get I think (Nadal is a bit more politically diplomatic nowadays).

The story of the 2019 council dispute is a bit more complicated, and it actually shows how much they've built bridges over their differences as this time it was more the case of Novak vs the two of them, quite literally haha. Nadal and Federer were no longer part of the council then. I think it started with the firing of the ATP chief executive, Chris Kermode (Djokovic was the president at that time I think). Nadal and Federer were very unhappy about this and that they weren't consulted on the decision.

Federer said: “I tried to meet Novak on the deadline; unfortunately, he had no time, That’s hard to understand for me.” Nadal, who met with Federer at that tournament to discuss tour business, also echoed his displeasure.

Very spicy, huh? This actually ended up bringing both Nadal and Federer back together into the council. Federer agreed to rejoin, and he talked about it with Nadal: "I would only do it if you were going too. And he said: I also only participate if you are there too."

See his cute full interview here:

The sweetest cherry on top is actually Andy Murray, bless his little heart (he is unsurprisingly quite uninvolved with the drama hahaha). He also left the council recently and actually was really happy Federer and Nadal the duo managed to get back together into the fray. “Despite the sport’s current success we live in chaotic times,” Murray wrote on Twitter. “My biggest achievement on the council may well prove to be being part of the group of resignations that presented the opportunity for this to happen. Good luck!!!”

Anyhow, there you go, a few thousand? words on tennis politics that you clearly did not ask for but hey! nothing better to start saturday morning than some spicy drama between the world's top athletes, eh?

[bluespring864]

As found on twitter.

[thevioletcaptain]

.

[mailmiocuoredipietratremaancora]

I was talking with my dad about the 2017 AO final and we were remembering all the anxiety we suffered during Roger’s matches, and my God I would give anything to be able to watch him playing again without knowing the result

[thelionsship]

First time with ✨️ACRYLIC PAINT🎨✨️

[claraameliapond]

Tanya Plibersek on the causes of violence against women, now recognised as a national crisis

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tanya Plibersek (@tanyaplibersek)

[thatnerdyqueer]

hey fellow australians. This is your yearly reminder that as fun as barbeques, pool parties, fireworks, and beach days can be, you need to remember that you are barbequeing, partying, and swimming on stolen land.

Always was, always will be.

January 26 is not a day for all Australians.

[timmurleyart]

Kudos to Coco. 🥂🎾🏸🏏

[hometoursandotherstuff]

Paul says he has seen some excellent clones of old Victorian and Federation villas but this one is a unique blend of several styles. This home is in the west suburbs of Adelaide, Australia. 

These photos show the construction of this home from 2007 to now.

And, guess where I found it- on an Architecture Shaming Group.

https://www.facebook.com/Urbex.Indigo