Melnikov shared photographs from visits to Murugan Temple and Swaminarayan Temple in Deanside and Rockbank, showing him participating in religious rituals and greeting a religious representative.

“Thank you to Murugan Temple and Swaminarayan Temple (Deanside and Rockbank) for giving me your blessings for the upcoming state election in the Kororoit electorate,” he wrote.

“And a special thank you to my friend Manu Sharma for all of his help in facilitating the above.”

Hindu Victorian Manu Sharma told The Australia Today, “It was good to see Seva visit our temples, participate in the prayers and take an interest in our traditions.”

“Meeting people face to face gives everyone an opportunity to ask questions and understand each other.”

The visits come amid debate about One Nation’s call for a “monocultural” Australia and what that would mean for communities maintaining their religious and cultural traditions.

Indian Victorian community member who doesn’t want her name to be published told The Australia Today,

“I was pleasantly surprised by his visit, given the debate around One Nation and multiculturalism. Welcoming a candidate to our temple gives us a chance to discuss our concerns, but it does not automatically mean political support.”

Melnikov has also promoted a Diwali food donation drive encouraging people to contribute groceries and household essentials to help those struggling to put food on the table.

The campaign poster names International Idol Moksha Sewa and advertises a collection period from 19 October to 16 November 2026, with Manu listed as the contact.

Requested donations include rice, flour, pasta, lentils, canned food, long-life milk, tea, coffee, toiletries and cleaning products.

“Let’s share the light of Diwali by sharing what we have,” the poster says.

The initiative links Diwali celebrations with community service, asking families to consider people facing hardship while celebrating the festival of lights.

The candidate’s temple visits sit alongside a broader dispute over One Nation’s approach to cultural diversity.

Party leader Pauline Hanson’s call to end multiculturalism has attracted criticism from academics and political opponents. University of Melbourne Associate Professor Clayton Chin described the party’s vision of a monocultural Australia as “unworkable and exclusionary”.

Hanson has rejected interpretations that her position requires Australians to abandon their different cultural backgrounds. Defending her comments in June, she compared her vision to the Socceroos, with people from different backgrounds representing Australia under shared rules.

Melnikov’s own story includes migrating to Australia as a child.

According to his official candidate biography, he was born in the former Soviet Union, in what is now Ukraine, and arrived in Australia with his parents at the age of six without speaking English.

He later studied psychology and philosophy at Monash University and now works in cybersecurity. His biography describes his candidacy as an opportunity to give back to the country that offered his family a fresh start.

Melnikov thanked the temples for their blessings, but his statement did not announce a political endorsement from either institution.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post One Nation’s Seva Melnikov seeks blessings at Hindu temples ahead of Kororoit contest first appeared on The Australia Today.

One sikh institution reportedly supported protests and circulated photographs of 15-year-old Krishleen Kaur. At the same time, Sri Guru Singh Sabha in Craigieburn has urged community members to stop sharing her image, avoid speculation and respect her privacy.

Manvir Kaur, who identified herself as Krishleen’s maternal aunt, has now raised concerns on social media about communication between those supporting the teenager and her relatives.

“We heard she was with the Sikh family. No one discussed any of this for the confirmation with us!” Manvir wrote.

She said the family had received a different address from authorities and believed only a particular circle knew where Krishleen was staying.

“Only a particular group knew about it and no one bothered to keep us in the loop. Yes we thank the family for keeping her safe. But we want to know how she ended up in the family.”

Manvir’s account raises questions about what information was shared, when it was shared and with whom. It does not establish why information may have been withheld, or whether privacy considerations or advice from authorities affected communication.

In its statement dated Thursday, 29 October, Sri Guru Singh Sabha said its representatives had met Krishleen the previous day and found her “safe and well”.

The management committee said she was staying with a Gursikh family and that relevant authorities were aware of the arrangements. It said its team had been in contact with police and child protection services to help ensure appropriate support was in place.

Manvir’s post did not dispute the assurance that the teenager was safe. Instead, she questioned why those involved had not communicated directly with relatives or people attending the protest.

“Even if girl did not wanna return to mum dad or whatsoever but none of the members of that Sikh family or their circle bothered to tell us the relatives or any community members at the protest earlier about it,” she wrote.

The available accounts do not establish whether the people criticised in Manvir’s post were acting on behalf of either religious institution.

According to information provided to The Australia Today, another gurdwara helped circulate posters featuring Krishleen’s photograph and supported the gathering outside Wallan Secondary College.

Religious leaders backing the protest also challenged media representatives and maintained that allegations about her being missing, drugs and grooming directed at the school were correct. Those allegations have not been independently substantiated.

Sri Guru Singh Sabha’s statement took a different approach.

“There have also been rumours circulating regarding possible drug involvement and grooming. We urge everyone not to speculate or share unverified information,” the committee said.

It asked community members to stop circulating the teenager’s photograph and personal information and to refrain from further protests, warning that gatherings “may cause additional distress to Krishleen and affect her emotional wellbeing”.

The contrasting messages place publicity, privacy and communication with relatives at the centre of the disagreement.

The Australia Today has been told that rivalry between the institutions for influence within the Sikh community is contributing to the dispute.

Sri Guru Singh Sabha’s statement does not name another institution or accuse anyone of exploiting the situation. Its requests are directed broadly to the congregation and wider community.

Photographs from the protest show placards referring to grooming and drugs and demanding action against school management. A separate poster used Krishleen’s image to promote a gathering calling for her safe return.

Placing a child’s photograph alongside serious allegations can encourage the public to draw connections that have not been established. Community leaders’ insistence that those claims are correct does not substitute for evidence.

Questions also remain about when those circulating missing-person posters learned that Krishleen had reportedly been located and whether they updated their appeals.

Manvir previously told The Australia Today that police had informed her and Krishleen’s mother that the teenager was safe but did not want to return home at that stage. Her latest comments concern the arrangements surrounding her stay and the lack of direct communication she says followed.

The Australia Today has not spoken with Krishleen and cannot independently establish her wishes.

Wallan Secondary College previously declined to comment on the individual matter and referred enquiries to the Victorian Department of Education. A department spokesperson directed questions to Victoria Police.

Sri Guru Singh Sabha said it would not disclose further details because of the sensitivity of the situation and the need to protect the child’s privacy.

“At this time, Krishleen’s safety, privacy and wellbeing must remain our priority,” the committee said.

The unresolved issue is what communication occurred between the family, those supporting Krishleen and the relevant authorities.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post ‘Not Missing’ teenager case: Fight over who controls Sikh community issues comes to light as one gurdwara backs protest, another urges restraint first appeared on The Australia Today.

The gathering followed appeals circulated after Krishleen left with two friends on Friday, 23 October. While those appeals described her as missing, a woman identifying herself as her maternal aunt told The Australia Today that police had since found her.

Victoria Police had not provided a statement to The Australia Today at the time of publication. The account of Krishleen being located, and the circumstances surrounding her departure, have not been independently confirmed.

Manvir Kaur, who identified herself as the sister of Krishleen’s mother, said the teenager left with two girlfriends at about 2.30 pm on Friday. She said the family had not had direct contact with Krishleen since then.

Manvir said she regularly helped with school drop-offs and pick-ups because Krishleen’s mother was a single parent.

The Australia Today was also given to understand that Krishleen had been suspended from school on Friday, prompting Manvir to arrive before the usual school finishing time to collect her. According to that account, Krishleen had previously been suspended on several occasions for alleged misconduct.

It remains unclear whether any disciplinary action was connected to Krishleen’s decision to leave.

Manvir said that when she could not find Krishleen at school pick-up, she contacted an assistant principal, who allegedly suggested the teenager might have gone to the shops. The school has not provided a response to that account.

According to Manvir, Krishleen’s mother contacted Wallan Police Station on Friday. Manvir said school CCTV footage was subsequently reviewed and police were given addresses associated with the two girls Krishleen had left with.

Manvir said police later informed both her and Krishleen’s mother that the teenager had been located, was safe and did not want to return home at that stage.

The Australia Today has not spoken with Krishleen and cannot independently establish her wishes or her reasons for leaving.

The family’s concerns now include establishing direct contact with her and understanding how authorities are handling the matter.

The Australia Today was also told that some participants in Tuesday’s gathering were protesting what they regarded as dismissive treatment by police and school authorities. Those concerns remain allegations and have not been independently established.

Wallan Secondary College declined to comment on the individual matter and referred enquiries to the Victorian Department of Education’s media unit.

A department spokesperson told The Australia Today,

“The matter was with Victoria Police and directed questions to police.”

Melbourne social worker Anita Virk told The Australia Today that migrant families needed clearer information about how schools, police and child protection services operate in Australia.

She encouraged those involved to work through their concerns with the relevant authorities, including questions about the teenager’s welfare and communication with her family.

Questions remain about when those circulating the missing-person posters became aware of the family’s account that police had located Krishleen and said she was safe. Her decision to leave voluntarily would not, by itself, make an initial missing-person appeal inaccurate. However, if organisers knew she had subsequently been located, continuing to circulate the posters without an update could mislead the public about whether a search was still underway.

The Australia Today has received an allegation that a local religious group promoted the appeals to put pressure on local and Victorian politicians.

The Australia Today is seeking confirmation from Victoria Police about her welfare and whether any public assistance is still required.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Drugs, grooming allegations raised as community protests over “Not Missing’ 15-year-old Krishleen Kaur first appeared on The Australia Today.

Opposition Leader Jess Wilson said a Liberal and Nationals government would deliver approximately 30 kilometres of additional freeway lanes, alongside an existing $1 billion Commonwealth commitment.

On 6 September, the state funding contribution announcement was made by the Labor government for the same major works, putting delivery of the upgrade at the centre of the political contest over infrastructure in Melbourne’s west.

Under the Coalition’s plan, the freeway would be widened to three lanes in each direction between Ferris Road and Hopkins Road, and four lanes in each direction between Hopkins Road and Ballarat Road.

Interchanges at Ferris Road, Leakes Road and Hopkins Road would be upgraded, while a new half-interchange at Mount Cottrell Road would provide a Ballarat-bound exit and a citybound entry.

The commitment also includes a consistent 100 km/h speed limit between Ferris Road and Ballarat Road.

Wilson said families in Melbourne’s growing western suburbs had waited too long for infrastructure to keep pace with demand.

“For too long, families across Melbourne’s west have been stuck in traffic while Labor has failed to deliver the infrastructure these growing communities deserve,” she said.

“Victorians can’t trust Labor to deliver these vital road upgrades, but we will.”

Wilson said the proposal would help tens of thousands of motorists who rely on the corridor.

“Tens of thousands of motorists in the west need and deserve less congestion, safer roads and a quicker commute and under our team’s plan, that’s exactly what they’ll get.”

The Coalition said its $550 million contribution would sit alongside Commonwealth funding, bringing the combined investment to $1.55 billion.

It said its contribution would be supported by a broader savings program exceeding $24.5 billion, including a hiring freeze on back-office public service positions. The announcement did not provide a detailed breakdown of the savings allocated to the freeway project.

Shadow Minister for Transport Infrastructure Evan Mulholland said the corridor was essential for commuters, businesses and freight operators.

“The Western Freeway is a vital connection for families, businesses and freight, yet congestion continues to worsen as Melbourne’s west grows,” he said.

“Our commitment to widen the freeway and upgrade key interchanges will deliver the road capacity and safer connections these communities desperately need.”

The Coalition linked the announcement to its broader $5 billion roads commitment, which it says would repair and rebuild roads, eliminate one million potholes and fund congestion-reducing upgrades across Victoria.

Labor’s September announcement outlined the freeway widening, interchange upgrades and Mount Cottrell Road ramps. At that time, the state and federal governments said pre-construction work was underway, including design development, site investigations and planning approvals.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Coalition pledges $550 million for Western Freeway upgrade to ease congestion in Melbourne’s west first appeared on The Australia Today.

The latest survey of 1,634 eligible Victorian voters was conducted between 7 and 16 October 2026. It recorded the Liberal-National Coalition on 35 per cent, One Nation on 28 per cent, and Labor on 26 per cent.

The Greens recorded 7 per cent, while independents and other parties collectively attracted 4 per cent.

The result points to a significant shift in political mood among multicultural voters. It reinforces the view that this voting bloc is becoming more fluid and less predictable. It is also more willing to move away from traditional party loyalties.

The latest survey puts the Coalition four percentage points higher at 35 per cent, One Nation two points higher at 28 per cent, while Labor remains unchanged at 26 per cent. The Greens have fallen from 9 per cent to 7 per cent.

The most politically damaging finding for Labor is not simply that it trails the Coalition, but that it has failed to improve at all since The Australia Today’s last multicultural voter survey.

In last month’s survey, the Coalition was on 31 per cent, Labor on 26 per cent, and One Nation on 26 per cent.

In the latest survey, the Coalition has climbed to 35 per cent, One Nation has risen to 28 per cent, and Labor remains unchanged at 26 per cent.

That means Labor has failed to gain any visible ground, despite a strategy that has increasingly focused on warning voters about the prospect of the Liberals working with One Nation.

The results come as Victorian Labor increasingly warns voters about the possibility of the Coalition working with One Nation after the election.

The most striking finding is that Labor has made no measurable gain among respondents despite intensifying its campaign argument that a Liberal-National victory could lead to cooperation with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.

Premier Ben Carroll has made the prospect of the Coalition and One Nation working together a recurring theme of Labor’s election campaign. In September, Mr Carroll told reporters that “One Nation terrifies me.” He said he would “fight every day against the Liberal Party and One Nation coming together.” He argued that such an arrangement would occur if Labor lost the November election.

Opposition Leader Jess Wilson has rejected the suggestion of a new formal coalition with One Nation. She says the Liberals and Nationals are the only Coalition, and she is campaigning to form a majority government.

Looks like multicultural communities are believing Jess Wilson on this.

Still, the Labor Party has made the issue a core part of its election campaign argument. Campaign messaging has targeted traditional Labor constituencies in Melbourne’s multicultural western and outer suburbs.

What the figures do show is that Labor’s campaign against a possible Liberal-One Nation relationship has not been accompanied by any measurable increase in Labor support within this sample.

And it will raise serious questions for Labor as it heads deeper into the campaign.

For the Coalition, the numbers will be encouraging.

At 35 per cent, it not only holds first place but has widened the gap over Labor. The Coalition now leads Labor by nine percentage points, a substantial margin in a multicultural voter survey at this stage of the campaign.

For One Nation, the survey is also significant.

Its rise from 26 per cent to 28 per cent suggests the party is not being pushed back by Labor’s warnings. Instead, it continues to attract a large share of respondents and remains a major force in this sample.

That creates a highly unusual three-way contest within the multicultural electorate surveyed by The Australia Today.

Rather than a straightforward battle between Labor and the Coalition, the results show a far more fractured contest in which One Nation is competing strongly for support, and Labor is struggling to regain momentum.

The findings also reinforce a broader political reality: multicultural voters cannot be treated as a locked-in constituency for any one party.

These communities are increasingly focused on practical concerns including cost of living, safety, housing, local services and trust in government performance. Where parties fail to respond to those concerns, voters appear more willing than before to look elsewhere.

That is what makes the current result so important.

Labor has not collapsed in this survey, but it has not advanced either. In a competitive political environment, stagnation can be just as damaging as decline.

While Labor remains on 26 per cent, both the Coalition and One Nation are moving upward. That shifts the political story from one of contest to one of momentum — and right now, the momentum is not with Labor.

The Greens, meanwhile, have dropped from 9 per cent to 7 per cent, while Independent/Others now account for 4 per cent.

Those smaller shifts matter because they suggest some consolidation is happening around the larger players, particularly the Coalition and One Nation.

The Australia Today survey methodology;

• Survey: The Australia Today multicultural voter survey
• Sample size: 1,634
• Fieldwork dates: 7 Oct to 16 Oct 2026
• Collection method: Email, text and phone calls
• Respondent eligibility: Eligible Victorian voters
• Margin of error: Approx. ±3%
• Important note: Results represent voting intention at the time of the survey

Its effort to frame the election around fear of One Nation does not appear to be translating into stronger support among these voters. However, the latest The Australia Today survey shows multicultural voters are still deciding for themselves. More of them are moving toward the Coalition, while One Nation remains strongly in the race.

The result leaves Labor facing a difficult question as the campaign intensifies:

If linking the Liberals with One Nation is intended to persuade multicultural voters to return to Labor, why does Labor remain on 26 per cent while the Coalition has risen to 35 per cent and One Nation to 28 per cent?

The survey suggests Victoria’s multicultural vote remains highly competitive, and increasingly difficult for any political party to take for granted.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post The Australia Today multicultural survey: Labor’s One Nation warning fails to move voters as Coalition jumps to 35% first appeared on The Australia Today.

The survey recorded One Nation support at:

• 34.5 per cent in Northern Victoria
• 27.0 per cent in Northern Metropolitan
• 25.5 per cent in Western Victoria
• 23.5 per cent in Western Metropolitan
• 23.5 per cent in South-Eastern Metropolitan
• 23.5 per cent in Eastern Victoria
• 22.5 per cent in Southern Metropolitan
• 19.5 per cent in North-Eastern Metropolitan

Under Victoria’s Legislative Council system, each region elects five MPs. A full electoral quota is approximately 16.7 per cent of the formal vote.

That means the survey places One Nation at just over two quotas in Northern Victoria, around 1.6 quotas in Northern Metropolitan, around 1.5 quotas in Western Victoria, and between roughly 1.2 and 1.4 quotas across the remaining regions.

The figures do not translate directly into seats, but they show One Nation polling well above the level required for one full quota in every region surveyed.

Northern Victoria stands out most sharply.

At 34.5 per cent, One Nation’s support in the survey is slightly above the equivalent of two full quotas. If that level of support were reproduced at the election, two One Nation candidates could theoretically reach the quota threshold largely on the party’s own primary vote.

That would represent a major change from the 2022 state election, when One Nation won only one Victorian Legislative Council seat.

Survey methodology

Survey: The Australia Today Victorian Upper House Multicultural Voter Survey
Sample size: 1,634 respondents
Fieldwork dates: 7 October to 16 October 2026
Collection method: Mixed-mode survey conducted through email, text messages and telephone calls
Geographic coverage: All eight Victorian Legislative Council regions
Respondent eligibility: Victorian residents aged 18 and over who were eligible to vote
Weighting: Results were not weighted
Indicative sampling error: For a simple random sample of 1,634 respondents, the maximum sampling error would be approximately ±2.4 percentage points at the 95 per cent confidence level. Because this survey used mixed recruitment methods and the results were not weighted, this figure should be treated as an indicative benchmark rather than a strict margin of error. Regional uncertainty is higher because each regional subsample contains fewer respondents.
Important note: The figures represent voting intention during the survey period. They are not election results or seat forecasts. Legislative Council outcomes will also depend on preference flows, candidate support, turnout and the distribution of votes within each region.

Northern Victoria emerges as One Nation’s strongest region

Northern Victoria already has an established One Nation presence.

Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell was elected to the Legislative Council from Northern Victoria in 2022, becoming One Nation’s only Victorian Upper House MP.

At that election, One Nation received about 3.7 per cent of first preferences in the region but secured the final seat through preference distributions under the former group voting ticket system.

The Australia Today survey now places the party at 34.5 per cent in the same region.

That is more than nine times its 2022 primary vote in Northern Victoria.

Northern Victoria covers a large part of regional Victoria, including Bendigo, Shepparton, Mildura, Wangaratta and surrounding rural communities.

Political frustration over the Emergency Services and Volunteers Fund, transmission infrastructure such as VNI West, regional roads, crime, health services and cost-of-living pressures has been prominent across parts of the region.

One Nation has sought to capitalise on those concerns by campaigning heavily on regional services, taxation, law and order, energy policy and opposition to several Labor government policies.

The survey suggests those messages are resonating most strongly in Northern Victoria.

Northern Metropolitan and Western Victoria also strong

The party’s second-highest result in The Australia Today survey is 27.0 per cent in Northern Metropolitan.

That is equivalent to about 1.6 quotas.

Western Victoria follows at 25.5 per cent, slightly above one-and-a-half quotas.

Those figures would put One Nation comfortably above a full quota on primary support in both regions, leaving a substantial surplus to flow to a second candidate.

A second seat would still depend on preference distributions and the strength of other parties, but the survey indicates One Nation could remain competitive well beyond the election of its first candidate.

In Eastern Victoria, Western Metropolitan and South-Eastern Metropolitan, the party records 23.5 per cent.

That equates to around 1.4 quotas.

Southern Metropolitan records 22.5 per cent, while North-Eastern Metropolitan produces One Nation’s lowest result in the survey at 19.5 per cent.

Even that lowest regional result remains above the approximately 16.7 per cent required for a full quota.

What the quota equivalents look like

Using an approximate quota of 16.7 per cent, The Australia Today survey translates into the following quota equivalents:

The distinction matters.

A party with 19.5 per cent support would be above one full quota but well short of a second.

A party with 23.5 per cent would elect one candidate on primary support and carry a substantial surplus into the contest for a second seat.

At 27 per cent, the surplus becomes larger again.

At 34.5 per cent in Northern Victoria, One Nation is slightly above the mathematical level required for two quotas.

Why the new voting system matters

The 2026 election will be Victoria’s first state election conducted without group voting tickets.

Previously, voters who placed a single “1” above the line effectively allowed their party to determine the flow of preferences.

That system enabled candidates with comparatively small primary votes to win seats through complex preference arrangements.

Under the new system, voters determine their own preferences.

That makes primary support far more important.

In 2022, One Nation won Northern Victoria despite receiving less than 4 per cent of first preferences.

The Australia Today survey suggests the party could enter the 2026 contest with primary support above one full quota in every Victorian Upper House region.

If reproduced on election day, that would make One Nation much less dependent on preferences for its first seat in each region.

The more important question would then become whether its surplus votes and incoming preferences were enough to elect additional candidates.

A major change from 2022

One Nation received just over 2 per cent of the statewide Legislative Council vote in 2022 and won a single seat.

The regional numbers recorded in The Australia Today survey represent a dramatically different political environment.

The highest result, 34.5 per cent in Northern Victoria, is above two quotas.

Three regions — Northern Victoria, Northern Metropolitan and Western Victoria — record support above 25 per cent.

Five other regions remain above 19 per cent.

Other public polling during 2026 has also detected a sharp rise in One Nation support in Victoria, particularly in regional areas, although individual polling organisations have produced different estimates.

The Australia Today results should therefore be read as a snapshot of voting intention among respondents during the October 7 to October 16 fieldwork period.

Because the survey was not weighted, the results should not be treated as a precise prediction of the final statewide or regional vote.

Balance of power implications

Victoria’s Legislative Council has 40 members — five from each of eight regions.

Legislation generally requires 21 votes to pass.

If One Nation converted even part of the support recorded in The Australia Today survey into seats, the party could emerge with a substantially larger presence in the Upper House than it currently holds.

That could make its MPs important in negotiations over legislation, particularly if neither Labor nor the Coalition controls the chamber.

But the final outcome will depend on more than primary voting intention.

Preference flows, candidate order, voter turnout and the performance of smaller parties will all influence who wins the fourth and fifth seats in each region.

What the survey does show is that, among its respondents, One Nation is above one full Upper House quota in every Victorian region — and in Northern Victoria, its support is above the equivalent of two.

That makes the party’s Legislative Council performance one of the major contests to watch ahead of Victoria’s November 28 election.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post The Australia Today Multicultural survey: 34.5% in Northern Victoria, One Nation breaks two-quota mark first appeared on The Australia Today.

Indian Australians Jagdeep Sukhija and Mahendrakumar Patel were among 16 older Victorians honoured for their community service. Sukhija received a Council on the Ageing (COTA) Victoria Senior Achiever Award, while Patel won the Emerging Impact Award.

The awards were presented at Government House on Tuesday, 20 October, by Governor Margaret Gardner, alongside Victorian Minister for Seniors Nick Staikos and COTA Victoria and Seniors Rights Victoria president Robert Caulfield.

For both men, the recognition reflects work addressing everyday barriers faced by older migrants, from social isolation and language difficulties to accessing health information and affordable meals.

Sukhija founded Compassionate Hands Inc. in 2020. Since then, the organisation has supported more than 175 older people and multicultural families through social gatherings, educational activities and practical assistance.

Its calendar includes health awareness sessions and celebrations such as Baisakhi and Diwali, giving older people opportunities to maintain cultural traditions while building connections with the wider community.

Among Sukhija’s initiatives was a breast cancer screening program involving 115 women from the organisation and surrounding community. According to his official award citation, two women received early diagnoses and timely treatment described as life-saving. Seniors online

The citation also recognised his personal approach to supporting people: listening to their concerns, offering guidance and encouraging them to participate in community life.

Members who had previously experienced isolation have gone on to volunteer, attend events and share their skills with others.

Patel’s Emerging Impact Award recognises the contribution of someone relatively new to volunteering who is already making a difference locally.

He joined the United Seniors Club in 2022 and, during his four years as secretary, has helped the organisation grow to support 380 members.

His work focuses on helping older migrants navigate daily life with greater independence. He tutors members in Gujarati and Hindi to help them prepare for driver’s licence tests, and organises healthcare seminars in both languages.

These activities give members access to information they may otherwise struggle to understand or use.

Patel has also coordinated more than 10,000 free meals for older migrants. His “Cooking together” program produces nutritious meals at low operating costs, while reusable crockery at weekly gatherings helps reduce waste.

The club charges a nominal, one-off membership fee, with no ongoing membership charges, encouraging older people to participate and contribute their own skills. seniorsonline.vic.gov.au

Sukhija was one of nine recipients of this year’s COTA Victoria Senior Achiever Awards, which recognise local champions contributing to positive ageing.

COTA Victoria and Seniors Rights Victoria chief executive Ben Rogers said the recipients shared a commitment to helping people connect.

“These honourees are united by a determination to help others feel valued, welcomed, and connected,” he said.

Other recipients across the broader awards program included Sandra Verdam, recognised for her work supporting people living with dementia and their carers, and Mark Edmonds, who received the Premier’s Award for Victorian Senior of the Year.

The awards have celebrated older Victorians’ contributions through volunteering for more than 30 years and form part of the annual Victorian Seniors Festival.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Fighting isolation, feeding thousands: Jagdeep Sukhija and Mahendrakumar Patel honoured at Victorian seniors awards first appeared on The Australia Today.

The joint Australian Institute of Criminology and eSafety Commissioner study surveyed 1,953 young people aged 16 to 18 and found 11.3 per cent had experienced sextortion in their lifetime. Among those affected, 57.7 per cent had experienced it before the age of 16.

In a social media post drawing attention to the findings, Ananda-Rajah urged people experiencing the abuse to stop communicating with the offender, preserve evidence and seek help.

“If you or someone you know is experiencing sextortion, stop the chat, take screenshots, block and report the account, and seek support,” she wrote.

The research was published in February 2025, based on a survey conducted in mid-2024. Its findings describe respondents’ experiences up to that point, rather than the number of incidents occurring this year. Researchers also cautioned against applying the prevalence estimate to other age groups.

Sextortion involves threats to release intimate photographs or videos unless a person meets demands, which can include money, further intimate material or sexual contact. When children are targeted, it is a form of child sexual abuse.

The study found that 32.3 per cent of affected teenagers had experienced more than one instance of sextortion. Almost two-thirds — 64.6 per cent — had been targeted by someone they had met online but never encountered in person.

The material used to threaten victims was not always genuine. About two in five affected respondents, or 41.4 per cent, reported being extorted using digitally manipulated material.

There were also differences in the demands made of boys and girls.

Among victims, 79.3 per cent of boys reported financial demands, compared with 33.6 per cent of girls. Girls were more likely to face demands for additional intimate material: 59.5 per cent, compared with 18.3 per cent of boys.

The warning comes amid continuing scrutiny of how technology companies respond to sexual extortion.

In July 2026, eSafety reported receiving more than 2,000 sextortion complaints between July and December 2025. Young men aged 18 to 24 were the most affected group in those complaints, while investigators were also seeing younger teenagers being targeted.

The regulator identified shortcomings in the use of technology to detect recurring blackmail tactics and gaps in accessible reporting tools across several services. It also recorded improvements by some companies in detecting grooming and child sexual abuse material.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant urged platforms to strengthen their response.

“Better reporting pathways and faster response times to victim reports are also vital,” she said.

For people facing threats, official advice is to stop contact and avoid paying or sending further intimate material. eSafety warns that complying with demands can lead to further demands, rather than ending the abuse.

Victims should preserve evidence of threatening messages and the offender’s profile before blocking contact. They should avoid deleting their accounts, which could remove evidence, and tell someone they trust.

There is an important distinction when collecting screenshots: eSafety advises people not to screenshot nude or sexual images or videos of anyone under 18. Evidence can instead include the threats, usernames and account details.

People under 18, or adults reporting on behalf of a child, can report the abuse to the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. Adults can also report sextortion through police or ReportCyber.

If intimate material has been shared online, victims can seek removal assistance through the eSafety Commissioner.

The regulator’s message to those being threatened is clear: the abuse is not their fault, and they do not have to deal with it alone.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Threats, fear and blackmail: Senator warns of sextortion targeting teenagers, especially boys first appeared on The Australia Today.

The Coalition says a Jess Wilson-led government would reverse Labor’s restrictions within its first 100 days, restore new gas connections for homes and businesses and seek additional conventional gas supply. The policy has become one of the clearest energy dividing lines ahead of the 28 November state election.

The opposition has also relaunched advertising against what it calls Labor’s “gas ban”, including campaigns aimed at multicultural audiences. Shadow energy spokesman David Davis argues many Victorian families, particularly those who prefer gas cooking, should not have their appliance choices dictated by government policy.

“Only a Jess Wilson-led Liberal and Nationals Government will restore consumer choice by reversing Labor’s gas ban,” Davis said.

The Coalition argues the changes could force households to spend thousands of dollars replacing appliances and upgrading electrical infrastructure, while also accusing Labor of reducing options for new homes and businesses.

However, the current rules are more limited than the opposition’s broad “gas ban” description suggests.

From 1 January 2027, all new homes and most new commercial buildings will be required to be built all-electric. Existing buildings without a gas connection will generally not be able to obtain a new connection from that date. Industrial and agricultural buildings are exempt.

From 1 March 2027, when a gas hot water system in an existing home reaches the end of its life and needs replacement, it must generally be replaced with an electric alternative. Exemptions apply where electrification is not technically feasible or would require certain major electrical upgrades.

Crucially, the government’s published rules currently say there is no requirement for existing households to replace gas cooktops or gas space heaters. Existing gas appliances can continue to be used, maintained and repaired.

That means the Coalition’s claim that Labor will “almost certainly” extend the restriction to cooktops is a political warning about what it believes could happen in future, rather than an announced government policy.

Labor has also said the current round of building electrification measures will be the final gas appliance reform in this term of government.

The government argues electrification will cut household bills, reduce emissions and preserve Victoria’s gas supply for industrial users that are harder to electrify.

State government modelling says replacing gas hot water with an efficient electric system can save around $400 a year, while a fully electric home can save about $1,900 annually, or more where rooftop solar is installed.

For new homes, the government estimates an all-electric property can save about $990 a year, increasing to around $1,920 with solar, compared with a dual-fuel home without solar.

The Coalition disputes the broader cost case.

Recent industry criticism has centred on the upfront expense of all-electric construction. Simonds Group chief executive Rhett Simonds has argued Victoria’s requirements can add as much as $15,000 to the cost of building some new homes.

Wilson has used those concerns to position the issue as one of affordability and consumer choice, arguing Victorians should be able to decide which energy source best suits their household.

The opposition has also highlighted cultural cooking preferences, saying gas remains important to many migrant and multicultural households.

The government’s regulations do not require people living in existing homes to stop cooking with gas, but future new homes covered by the January 2027 rules will generally be all-electric, meaning gas cooktops will not be installed in those properties.

The policy fight has already reached Parliament.

In August, Davis introduced the Domestic Gas Choice (Repeal of Gas Appliance Ban) Bill 2026, aimed at undoing planning and regulatory changes restricting new gas connections and appliance replacement. Davis told Parliament the bill was designed to restore household choice over cooking, heating and hot water.

The Coalition’s broader energy platform goes further.

It has promised to reopen Victoria to conventional onshore gas development, establish an Energy Security Requirement designed to encourage firm generation, including gas-fired power, and review or abandon major transmission projects including VNI West. It has also proposed urban solar parks on commercial and industrial rooftops.

Labor says that approach would undermine Victoria’s transition away from ageing coal-fired generation.

The government maintains electrification and renewable energy will help lower bills over time while reserving gas for industries that need it most. Its Gas Substitution Roadmap is part of Victoria’s broader net-zero strategy and has progressively restricted new residential gas connections since 2024.

The issue also comes against concern about future gas supply on Australia’s east coast.

Both sides agree Victoria will continue to need gas in some form for years to come, particularly for industrial use and electricity generation during periods of low renewable output. Their dispute is over how much gas households should continue using — and whether government should regulate that transition.

The Liberals and Nationals are framing the election choice simply: maintain Labor’s electrification timetable or restore the option of new household gas connections.

Labor, by contrast, argues the Coalition is defending a more expensive and emissions-intensive energy system at a time when efficient electric appliances are increasingly cheaper to run.

For Victorian households, the immediate practical position is clearer than the political rhetoric on either side.

Existing residents can continue using and repairing their current gas cooktops and heaters. From March 2027, most failed gas hot water systems will have to be replaced with electric alternatives. New homes permitted from January 2027 will generally be required to be fully electric.

Whether those rules survive beyond November will now depend on the election result.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Jess Wilson Coalition vows to scrap Labor’s gas ban within its first 100 days to restore household energy choice first appeared on The Australia Today.

In a statement released on 19 October, Hanson said One Nation would restore the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount, allow investors to negatively gear up to two residential investment properties and scrap Labor’s proposed 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trusts.

“Dr Jim Chalmers is experimenting on the Australian economy, and everyday Australians are his guinea pigs,” Hanson said.

“He’s playing with your home, your rent, your business and your savings. When his experiments fail, Australians will pay dearly.”

The attack comes after the Albanese government embarked on its biggest rewrite of property and investment taxation in years.

Under changes announced in the May budget, negative gearing for residential property purchased after Budget night will, from 1 July 2027, generally be restricted to newly built homes. Existing investments held before 7.30 pm on 12 May 2026 are grandfathered and retain their current treatment.

The government is also replacing the longstanding 50 per cent capital gains tax discount with inflation-based indexation for gains accruing from July 2027, together with a 30 per cent minimum tax on real capital gains. New-build investors will retain a choice between the existing discount and the new regime.

Labor argues the package will redirect investor incentives towards new housing supply and give first-home buyers a better chance of competing for established homes.

Chalmers has said the reforms will help an estimated 75,000 additional Australians into home ownership over the next decade, while the government says existing investors are protected from retrospective changes.

Hanson rejects that argument.

She said One Nation would retain negative gearing, but cap it at two investment properties per taxpayer rather than returning to unlimited concessions.

“Australians should be able to work hard, invest and get ahead,” Hanson said.

“For many young Australians, an investment property was one way they could get a foot into the property market.”

Her position puts One Nation between Labor and the Coalition on negative gearing. Hanson argues Labor has gone too far by limiting future concessions to new builds, while also criticising the previous system for allowing investors with large property portfolios to claim unlimited tax deductions.

“The status quo of allowing unlimited taxpayer concessions for property tycoons was not working for Australians,” she said.

“One Nation would continue to allow Australians to negatively gear up to two investment properties.”

Hanson also singled out Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, accusing Labor of “pulling the ladder up” on younger Australians while politicians and established property owners retain investments purchased under the previous rules.

Because Labor’s changes are grandfathered, properties acquired before the May 2026 cut-off continue to receive existing negative-gearing treatment. That protection applies to existing investors generally, not only politicians.

Hanson nevertheless called on cabinet ministers who own investment properties to disclose whether they recused themselves from decisions affecting negative gearing and capital gains tax because of potential conflicts of interest.

There is no suggestion in the material released by One Nation that any minister breached cabinet or parliamentary conflict-of-interest rules.

The party is also promising to reverse Labor’s capital gains tax changes and reinstate the 50 per cent discount.

That would unwind a reform Chalmers says is designed to tax real gains rather than inflation while reducing what Labor regards as an excessive tax advantage for asset income compared with wages.

The government’s legislation provides for the cost base of investments to be indexed for inflation before tax is calculated, meaning investors would generally be taxed on gains above inflation rather than nominal gains.

One Nation has framed the measure much more starkly, arguing it will deter investment and make it harder for Australians to build wealth.

The political fight is also expanding beyond property.

Last week the government introduced legislation for a 30 per cent minimum tax on discretionary trusts from 1 July 2028, arguing some high-income Australians use trusts to split income among lower-taxed beneficiaries in ways unavailable to ordinary wage earners.

The government says more than 95 per cent of individual taxpayers receive no trust income and more than 90 per cent of small businesses would be unaffected in any given year. Fixed trusts, charities, special disability trusts, superannuation funds and some other categories would be exempt.

But the proposal has triggered strong opposition from business groups, tax professionals, the Coalition and Greens, with concerns about restructuring costs and its effect on family businesses.

Industry estimates cited during the debate have suggested hundreds of thousands of small businesses could have to review or restructure their affairs.

Hanson said One Nation would scrap the measure.

She also accused Labor of mishandling the Australian Taxation Office’s proposed move away from accepting direct credit-card payments.

That issue became politically damaging for the government earlier this month after it emerged ministers had known for months that the ATO was considering phasing out credit-card payments following changes to card surcharging rules.

The government ultimately intervened and agreed to fund a transition period, with the ATO continuing to accept credit cards until 30 June 2027.

Hanson said the episode demonstrated why businesses should be wary of further tax reform.

“They botched the ATO credit card ban and lied about their involvement,” she alleged.

Labor disputes the characterisation that it misled Australians, saying it worked with the ATO and business groups before extending the transition period.

Hanson’s statement also pointed to the government’s expanded 5 per cent Deposit Scheme, claiming more than 1,100 participants were now estimated to owe more on their homes than the properties were worth.

Reserve Bank analysis released this month confirms that recent buyers and borrowers using higher loan-to-value ratios — including participants in the government’s 5 per cent scheme — are more likely than established borrowers to be in negative equity following recent house-price falls.

However, the RBA said less than 1 per cent of Australian mortgage borrowers overall are estimated to be in negative equity, and said risks to financial stability from first-home buyers in the scheme remained limited.

The government says the expanded deposit program has helped more than 102,000 first-home buyers since October 2025 and more than 280,000 since Labor came to government.

Hanson went further in her attack by warning Australians that their family home, superannuation and inheritances could eventually become tax targets.

“One Nation will never impose a death tax. We will never impose a tax on the family home,” she said.

“My warning is that your family home, your super, and what you leave your children will be in the firing line next.”

Labor is presenting its reforms as a shift away from concessions that favour established investors and higher-income households, arguing the savings can fund tax cuts for workers and improve access to home ownership.

One Nation is positioning itself differently: protecting property investment and family wealth while accepting a cap of two negatively geared investment properties rather than an unrestricted system.

For Hanson, the political message is clear.

“One Nation will end this disastrous experiment and reverse Chalmers’ destructive budget experiments,” she said.

“You should not have to spend your life paying for Labor’s spending addiction, then have them send your children the final bill.”

With negative gearing, capital gains tax and trusts now all under active political contest, the argument over who should carry more of Australia’s tax burden — wage earners, property investors, businesses or holders of accumulated wealth — is shaping as one of the sharpest economic battles of the current parliamentary term.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Pauline Hanson promises to reverse Labor’s negative gearing and capital gains tax changes first appeared on The Australia Today.

Balan will officially open the three-day festival, marking a new milestone for Indian cinema in Australia and expanding the reach of a cultural event that has already established a presence in Melbourne and Sydney.

The festival is the latest initiative from the team behind the Indian Film Festival of Melbourne (IFFM), one of the largest celebrations of Indian cinema outside India, and the Indian Film Festival of Sydney (IFFS).

Speaking about the announcement, festival director Mitu Bhowmick Lange AM said bringing the festival to Perth was a significant milestone for the team.

“Having built platforms for Indian cinema in Melbourne and Sydney, we are delighted to now bring this celebration to Western Australia and connect with a new community of audiences and film lovers.”

She said cinema had the ability to bring people together, transcend borders and foster a deeper understanding between cultures.

“We are thrilled to welcome Vidya Balan as the Chief Guest for our inaugural edition, and we look forward to creating a festival that celebrates the extraordinary diversity of Indian storytelling while building meaningful cultural connections between India and Western Australia,” Lange said.

The Perth edition aims to showcase the diversity of Indian storytelling across languages, genres and perspectives, while creating opportunities for filmmakers, audiences and the wider creative community to connect.

The festival was announced during Western Australian Premier Roger Cook’s visit to India, highlighting the growing cultural and creative ties between India and Western Australia.

Balan, one of Indian cinema’s most acclaimed actors, is known for championing distinctive storytelling and female-led narratives through films that have challenged conventional portrayals of women on screen.

Her participation as chief guest is expected to add prominence to the inaugural event, which aims to bring Indian cinema to new audiences in Western Australia and encourage cultural exchange through film.

Organisers hope the Indian Film Festival of Perth will become a new destination for Indian cinema in Australia, bringing together audiences, filmmakers and industry professionals for screenings, conversations and potential collaborations.

The inaugural edition is scheduled for 22–24 January 2027.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Acclaimed Bollywood actor Vidya Balan to open inaugural Indian Film Festival of Perth in January 2027 first appeared on The Australia Today.

The damaged boards were promoting Northern Diwali 2026, a free family festival scheduled for 31 October at the City of Whittlesea Civic Centre lawns in South Morang. The event, now in its ninth year, is organised by Mission Smile Inc and supported by the City of Whittlesea through its Community Grants Program. It will feature cultural performances, Bollywood dance workshops, food stalls, henna, music and fireworks.

The vandalism prompted a strong response from Melbourne community member Vijeth Shetty, who described the incident as an attack on a Hindu festival and questioned what he sees as an increasingly hostile environment towards Hindu Australians.

In a public statement, Shetty said the damaged signs had become symbolic of a wider concern about anti-Hindu sentiment and online hostility directed towards Indian and Hindu communities.

“You can vandalise a Diwali board, but you cannot vandalise our spirit,” he wrote.

“You can damage a sign, but you cannot erase thousands of years of civilisation, philosophy, knowledge and cultural heritage.”

Shetty also urged people unfamiliar with Hindu traditions to attend a Diwali celebration rather than view the community through political or social-media narratives.

“Come to a Diwali festival,” he wrote.

“Enjoy the music, the food, the dancing, the colours and the celebrations. Hindu culture is filled with joy, happiness, spirituality, music, dance and vibrant traditions.”

The Australia Today has not independently established who damaged the signs or whether police have determined a motive.

Community members have told The Australia Today the timing and the apparent targeting of Diwali promotional material have caused concern that the damage may have been directed at the festival because of its Hindu and Indian identity.

The incident comes in an area with a large and diverse migrant population.

According to the 2021 Census, more than 14,300 people in the City of Whittlesea identified as Hindu, representing 6.2 per cent of the municipality’s population — almost twice the Victorian average of 3.3 per cent. More than 10 per cent of residents reported that their mother was born in India, while Punjabi was among the most commonly spoken languages other than English.

Northern Diwali has become an established part of Whittlesea’s multicultural calendar.

The council has previously described the festival as a celebration of “light, love and unity” that welcomes people from all backgrounds. In 2025, it said the annual event had become a “much-loved” local celebration and noted that it was supported through the council’s community grants program.

This year’s festival is scheduled to run from midday until 9 pm on 31 October, with fireworks planned for the evening. Organisers are again promoting the event as a free celebration open to the wider community.

Shetty said the vandalism should not be used to portray the broader Australian community as hostile.

He stressed that his criticism was directed at acts of hatred and divisive narratives rather than Australians generally, saying he had personally experienced kindness, fairness and friendship in the country.

He also rejected the idea that individual migrants should be blamed for broader concerns about population growth, housing shortages or infrastructure pressure.

“If Australia’s immigration policies have allowed more migrants than the country’s infrastructure, housing supply and public services can reasonably accommodate, that is a matter of government policy,” he wrote.

“It is not the fault of individual migrants who have entered this country legally, worked hard, followed the rules and contributed to society.”

The remarks reflect a wider concern among some Indian and Hindu Australians that arguments about migration can sometimes spill over into hostility towards individual communities.

Shetty said Hindu migrants had made substantial contributions across healthcare, education, business, science, technology and volunteering, while their Australian-born or Australian-raised children increasingly regarded themselves simply as Australians.

Describing Hindu Australians who carry both their cultural heritage and their local identity, he wrote

“Our next generation? They are Aussie, Aussie, Aussie.”

His broader message was one of resilience rather than retaliation.

Diwali, known as the Festival of Lights, is celebrated by Hindus and several other South Asian faith communities and symbolises, among other traditions, the victory of light over darkness and good over evil.

That symbolism has taken on added meaning for community members following the vandalism.

The City of Whittlesea has previously said Northern Diwali is intended to bring people from different backgrounds together and that “all are welcome” at the event.

Shetty echoed that invitation.

“Happy Diwali, folks,” he wrote.

“May light always triumph over darkness.”

Victoria Police advises that non-urgent property damage and vandalism can be reported through the Police Assistance Line on 131 444 or through its online reporting system.

The Australia Today has sought clarification from Premier Ben Carroll, Minister for Multicultural Affairs Paul Edbrooke and Shadow Minister for Multicultural Affairs Evan Mullholland about this allegedly racial or religiously motivated vandalism.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Diwali signs vandalised in Melbourne — Hindu community asks: why are our festivals being racially targeted? first appeared on The Australia Today.

Raizada, whose campaign material identifies him as Werribee-based, says he wants to bring his community service and professional experience to Parliament, with an emphasis on inclusion, opportunity and government accountability.

“After decades of community service and professional leadership, I believe the time has come to contribute in a new way,” he said in his announcement.

“My commitment is simple: to listen, to serve, and to bring practical experience, integrity and independent thinking to public life.”

His campaign posters outline four broad priorities: stronger communities, a more sustainable Victoria, a fairer economy and a more accountable government.

The material supplied does not set out detailed policy proposals, costings or positions on specific legislation. Raizada says he plans to meet residents across the region to hear their concerns and aspirations.

“I believe in stronger communities, greater opportunities, inclusion and accountable leadership,” he said.

His campaign is using the message: “Service before self. Community before division. Opportunity for all.”

Raizada’s announcement builds on a documented history of involvement in community initiatives in Melbourne’s west.

The Australia Today coverage of the launch of Women of Wyndham identified him as president of the not-for-profit organisation Ramon Helps and coordinator of the launch event. The initiative focused on women’s participation, cultural inclusion, gender equality and awareness of domestic violence.

Women of Wyndham’s account of its 2017 Family Well Being Day also identified Raizada as the founder of Ramon Helps. The event promoted support for people affected by family violence and brought together community representatives involved in education and advocacy.

Earlier community records indicate a professional background in banking. A 2011 Melbourne event report identified him at the time as head of Indian banking for Commonwealth Bank in Victoria. That historical reference does not establish his current employment or position.

Raizada is seeking an upper-house seat across a region rather than contesting a single Legislative Assembly electorate.

Western Metropolitan encompasses 11 lower-house districts: Footscray, Kororoit, Laverton, Niddrie, Point Cook, St Albans, Sunbury, Sydenham, Tarneit, Werribee and Williamstown.

Each of Victoria’s eight Legislative Council regions elects five members, giving the upper house 40 seats.

The Council reviews legislation passed by the lower house and scrutinises government activity. For an independent, securing a seat would provide an opportunity to advocate for regional priorities and negotiate over legislation, although the extent of that influence would depend on the chamber’s composition.

Western Metropolitan’s current representatives are Labor’s Lizzie Blandthorn and Ingrid Stitt, Liberal MP Trung Luu, David Ettershank of Legalise Cannabis Victoria, and Moira Deeming, according to the Victorian Electoral Commission.

Raizada’s campaign launch establishes his intention to stand. Formal nomination and inclusion on the ballot are separate steps in the electoral process; neither has been independently confirmed for this article.

The Victorian election will be held on 28 November.

Raizada has invited residents to share ideas and support his campaign, saying his aim is to listen across the region rather than focus solely on one community.

“I look forward to meeting residents across the region, hearing your concerns and aspirations, and working towards a better future for everyone,” he said.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Community leader Rakesh Raizada announces independent bid for Victoria’s Western Metropolitan upper-house seats first appeared on The Australia Today.

Victoria’s latest polling offers enough ammunition for competing political narratives. What it does not offer is certainty about who will govern after November 28.

That distinction is being buried beneath the numbers.

Two assessments of Victoria’s election prospects have produced sharply different headlines: one suggests the Coalition could win majority government, while the other places Labor and the Greens within reach of a combined parliamentary majority.

The gap demands scrutiny. But the central problem is that the releases measure different things over different periods, making a direct comparison less straightforward than their headlines suggest.

The Australian Financial Review’s Redbridge/Accent Research poll is a recent statewide voting-intention survey. Roy Morgan’s release combines months of survey responses with electorate profiles to assess parliamentary outcomes and One Nation’s electoral opportunities.

Both offer useful information. Neither provides enough evidence to treat its preferred outcome as settled.

The Redbridge/Accent survey, conducted between 2 and 8 October among 1,008 respondents, recorded the Coalition on 30 per cent, Labor and One Nation on 24 per cent each, the Greens on 16 per cent and other candidates on six per cent.

Respondent preferences produced a Coalition lead over Labor of 56–44. Compared with the previous survey, Labor was unchanged, the Coalition and Greens each rose one point, and One Nation and others each fell one point.

Those figures support a clear conclusion: this particular survey found Labor in a weak position and the Coalition substantially ahead after preferences.

They support a less confident conclusion about momentum.

A one-percentage-point movement is too small to establish a change in public opinion without examining the uncertainty surrounding both surveys. Differences in respondents, weighting and ordinary survey variation can produce movements of that size.

The Coalition’s reported rise should therefore be distinguished from its broader lead. Likewise, the Greens reaching a polling high does not necessarily demonstrate a sudden breakthrough.

Labor remaining on 24 per cent also means the latest survey does not show a fresh decline since Redbridge’s previous reading. It shows persistent weakness.

For Premier Ben Carroll, that is still a serious political problem. A government seeking a fourth term cannot take reassurance from being steady at a low level. But accurate criticism requires distinguishing a poor position from a newly worsening one.

Roy Morgan’s assessment tells a different story. Published on 9 October, it projects 40 seats for Labor, 31 for the Coalition, 11 for One Nation and six for the Greens.

That would leave neither Labor nor the Coalition with the 45 seats needed for a majority in the 88-member Legislative Assembly. Labor and the Greens would hold 46 seats between them, compared with 42 for the Coalition and One Nation.

The release draws on responses from 7,708 Victorian electors collected between March and September. Its “Winnability Score” combines voting intention with the degree to which an electorate’s population resembles a party’s support base.

The distinction between those two products is fundamental.

Roy Morgan’s larger overall sample is a strength, but it does not resolve the question of how accurately the release measures the electorate’s present mood.

Pooling interviews over several months provides more observations and can help identify patterns among demographic groups. It also creates a potential tension with describing the result as an election held “today”.

An interview conducted in March captures a different moment from one conducted in September. The importance of that difference depends on how the analysis weights older responses, accounts for changes in voting intention and incorporates political developments during the collection period.

The public release does not explain those adjustments in sufficient detail to independently reconstruct the headline seat forecast.

That is a transparency limitation, rather than proof the forecast is incorrect.

The same caution applies to the relationship between Roy Morgan’s opportunity rankings and its projected victories.

An electorate whose residents resemble One Nation supporters may offer favourable conditions for the party. That does not establish that its candidate will win.

Candidate recognition, local campaigning, incumbency, competing candidates and preference flows can affect the result. A demographic opportunity score needs a clearly explained connection to electoral outcomes before readers can judge how it supports a forecast of 11 seats.

The published appendix ranks electorates by One Nation’s “winnability”. It does not provide a complete set of projected candidate vote shares, winning margins and uncertainty ranges for every district.

Without that information, readers cannot readily assess whether the projected seats are comfortable victories or narrow contests vulnerable to small changes.

Redbridge faces a different limitation: moving from a statewide lead to a parliamentary majority.

Victoria’s lower-house elections use full preferential voting. Where no candidate receives an absolute majority initially, preferences are distributed through the elimination process until a winner emerges. The decisive contest therefore depends on which candidates remain in contention in each electorate.

A statewide Coalition–Labor two-party estimate is informative, but it does not reproduce every local contest.

Some electorates may finish as Labor versus the Greens, the Coalition versus One Nation, or another pairing. Where several parties are competitive, relatively small changes in first preferences can alter the elimination order and redirect the path to victory.

The Coalition’s six-point statewide primary-vote advantage over both Labor and One Nation cannot establish that it leads those parties everywhere.

In the Financial Review report, Redbridge director Tony Barry and Accent Research principal Shaun Ratcliff make their majority-government assessment conditional on the polling result being replicated at the election.

That condition matters. It preserves the distinction between a plausible consequence of the survey and a prediction guaranteed to occur.

Preference estimates deserve particular attention in this contest.

Asking respondents how they would preference parties can capture changing attitudes that historical election flows might miss. But answers given before the final candidate field and campaign are known remain statements of intention.

How-to-vote recommendations may influence voters; they do not control voters’ choices. A statewide preference pattern may also conceal substantial differences between electorates.

Roy Morgan acknowledges that elimination order and preference flows can change its assessment of a seat. Redbridge’s reported Coalition lead likewise depends on how respondents’ preferences are interpreted.

The relevant question is how sensitive each conclusion is to different plausible preference outcomes.

Would modest changes leave the Coalition comfortably ahead? Would they move enough marginal electorates to overturn Roy Morgan’s projected balance?

There is also a distinction between sampling uncertainty and forecast uncertainty.

A conventional margin of error describes uncertainty around a survey percentage under specified assumptions. It does not automatically account for recruitment bias, inaccurate recall, changes after interviewing or errors introduced by converting votes into seats.

Nor does a statewide sample of 7,708 mean every electorate has been directly surveyed with comparable precision. Modelled local estimates borrow information from wider patterns; their reliability depends on whether those patterns accurately describe the district.

Redbridge and Accent have previously published useful methodological detail. Their September Victorian release identified online-panel recruitment, demographic quotas, weighting efficiency and the exclusion of respondents who remained undecided after a follow-up question. It also warned that subgroup findings carried greater uncertainty. Those disclosures concern September’s survey and should not automatically be assumed to describe October’s unchanged.

Equivalent detail for the latest survey is needed to assess recruitment, effective sample size, undecided voters and the preference questions behind its headline figures.

One argument can, however, be rejected without needing further methodological disclosure: that Labor cannot lose support while the Greens gain.

There is no electoral rule requiring those parties to move together. Dissatisfied Labor voters may move left, right or towards independents. Different groups can shift in different directions simultaneously.

Headline percentages alone cannot identify those movements. Evidence about previous votes and current intentions would be needed to establish where the Greens’ support originated.

Finally, Roy Morgan’s combined parliamentary totals should not be confused with governing agreements.

Forty-six Labor and Greens members could provide the numbers for a government, but those numbers would not settle the terms of support. The same applies to combining Coalition and One Nation seats.

The most defensible reading is that Redbridge’s recent survey provides evidence of a substantial Coalition advantage under its preference assumptions, while Roy Morgan’s longer-period analysis identifies a possible fragmented parliament.

Their disagreement does not prove that both are wrong. It demonstrates why voters need more than the headline: recent fieldwork, clear methods, electorate-level evidence and an explanation of how readily the forecast changes when its assumptions change.

Those are the tests both assessments should face before their numbers become campaign certainties.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Victoria state election: Coalition victory or hung parliament? What conflicting polls really reveal first appeared on The Australia Today.

In a media release dated 12 October, the One Nation leader questioned the government’s grant screening procedures after reports that MyCentre’s umbrella organisation, Multicultural Youth Centre, received $68,136.20 for a community language school.

A separate $500 Australian Federal Police grant supported an iftar dinner in 2018, years before the alleged attempted hijacking.

The funding revelations follow statements by United Arab Emirates prosecutors that accused co-pilot Hamam al-Hammami developed extremist views while studying in Melbourne in 2017 and became acquainted with individuals associated with an organisation known as “My Centre”.

Those allegations remain part of an overseas investigation. They do not establish wrongdoing by the Australian organisation or its leadership.

There is no evidence in the material reviewed for this article that the grants funded extremist activity, that MyCentre was responsible for al-Hammami’s alleged radicalisation, or that its imam, Samir Mohtadi, known as Abu Hamza, knew about or participated in the alleged plot.

Hanson said in the supplied release,

“Tony Burke must answer whether he or his department sought security advice before signing off these grants and whether any other organisations linked to people under ASIO investigation have received taxpayer money under this program.”

She also alleged that the government was awarding grants without adequate checks. The release did not provide evidence establishing that the recipient organisation had promoted terrorism or misused public funds.

According to the Herald Sun, the language-school funding covered four years from 2024 and was awarded through the Department of Home Affairs. The newspaper reported that the grant details were publicly listed on GrantConnect.

The department describes its Community Language Schools Grants Program as supporting young Australians to learn or maintain languages other than English, preserve connections with their families and communities, and broaden employment opportunities. That stated purpose does not establish how any particular recipient spent its allocation.

The AFP payment was a separate grant for a separate purpose.

An AFP spokeswoman told the Herald Sun that the 2018 contribution partly funded a Ramadan iftar dinner. She said such events brought together representatives of different faiths, state police and the AFP as part of community liaison work.

That grant was awarded before the Albanese government took office in 2022. It should therefore be distinguished from the later funding criticised in Hanson’s release.

Burke said on Sunday that he did not have further information immediately available about the MyCentre grants and would seek details, according to the newspaper’s account of his television interview.

He also pointed to online radicalisation, saying authorities needed to examine material entering Australia through internet browsers as well as threats crossing its borders.

The political dispute comes as investigators examine the background of al-Hammami, a 29-year-old Omani national accused of attempting to seize control of Flydubai flight FZ1073 from Dubai to Tel Aviv on 30 September.

UAE prosecutors allege he intended to crash the aircraft into a passenger terminal at Israel’s Ben Gurion Airport. They said he admitted acting alone and provided a confession in the presence of his lawyer. These are prosecution allegations, rather than findings established at trial.

The captain, Smit Machchhar, was allegedly attacked with a cockpit crash axe. Passengers and crew intervened, and reserve pilots landed the aircraft in Saudi Arabia.

The Australian reported that the AFP was investigating possible Australian connections to the accused pilot. An investigation into those connections does not itself establish criminal involvement by anyone he encountered in Melbourne.

MyCentre’s website identifies Multicultural Youth Centre Ltd as its registered charitable entity and describes its work as providing education, youth support and community activities in Melbourne’s northern suburbs.

Hanson’s release also claimed multicultural grant awards rose from less than $6 million in 2022–23 to more than $325 million in 2025–26, with 94 per cent going to Labor-held seats in the latter year. The underlying calculations were not included in the supplied release and have not been independently verified for this article.

The funding controversy leaves the government facing questions about its assessment procedures. Whether there were failures in those procedures requires evidence about the checks conducted and information available when the grants were approved.

Neither the reported funding nor the accused pilot’s alleged acquaintance with people associated with the centre establishes that taxpayer money supported terrorism.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Hanson demands investigation into Home Affairs grant funding for Melbourne Islamic centre named in Flydubai investigation first appeared on The Australia Today.

In a ProductReview.com.au post referring to 29 September, the reviewer alleged a full refund had been agreed on 13 August but remained unpaid. They described spending hours pursuing the money and being referred between Air India and booking agency Aunt Betty. The account has not been independently verified, and responsibility for the alleged delay has not been established.

The complaint raises a basic question for an airline selling its transformation: how effectively does it help passengers when their journey falls apart?

At the time of checking, Air India’s ProductReview.com.au listing showed a rating of 1.5 out of five from 235 reviews, with 90 per cent classified as negative. Those voluntary reviews are not a representative survey of passengers and cover more than Australian routes. Nevertheless, they provide a public record of dissatisfaction that the airline’s makeover has yet to overcome.

An earlier complaint involving a Sydney departure illustrates how one disruption can turn into missed connections, additional flights and unexpected expenses.

A passenger travelling from Sydney to London through Delhi said Air India flight AI301 departed two hours and 49 minutes late on 12 August 2025, causing them to miss their onward connection.

In a complaint posted on ComplaintsBoard on 19 August, the traveller alleged they then spent three hours in a holding room at Delhi Airport without assistance or updates before being rerouted through Amsterdam.

They said they eventually reached Heathrow that evening, too late for their planned lift home, and incurred hotel, taxi and train costs. The website labels the reviewer a verified customer; that designation does not independently establish every allegation in the account.

The Australia Today reviewed Australian Government aviation records, Air India announcements, Indian regulatory findings and recent passenger accounts involving the airline’s Sydney and Melbourne operations.

The records show that Air India’s Sydney–Delhi service required special permission to operate beyond Sydney Airport’s night curfew on at least two occasions in 2025 after separate engineering problems.

On 14 June 2025, Air India flight AI301 from Sydney to Delhi was delayed after the Boeing 787 displayed faulty emergency lighting across rows 25 to 28.

Australian Department of Infrastructure records show engineers were required to attend the aircraft before departure.

The flight was carrying 236 passengers, including 35 wheelchair passengers, and 17 crew members.

Because the repairs pushed the departure beyond Sydney Airport’s 11 pm curfew, Air India sought a special dispensation. The aircraft eventually departed at 11.38 pm.

Less than two months later, the same Sydney–Delhi flight number faced another engineering problem.

On 12 August 2025, passengers had already boarded AI301 when an engine leak was reported.

Government records show everyone was required to leave the aircraft while engineers carried out repairs and testing.

The flight was carrying 247 passengers, including 29 wheelchair passengers, and 17 crew members.

Air India again required a Sydney curfew dispensation, with the aircraft eventually departing at 11.45 pm.

The incidents did not result in reported injuries, and the aircraft departed after engineering attention.

They nevertheless provide a documented glimpse into the operational pressures facing the airline on one of its two major Australian routes.

Passenger frustration has not been limited to Sydney.

A verified Australian passenger review published this year alleges that Air India flight AI309 from Melbourne to Delhi was cancelled on 25 March 2026 after passengers had checked in and boarded.

The passenger said travellers were seated aboard the aircraft for about two hours before the cancellation and alleged there was little immediate assistance available afterwards.

He said the alternative flight offered to him departed on 27 March, causing him to miss a medical appointment in India.

“This experience has been extremely disappointing and unprofessional,” the passenger wrote.

The account is an individual passenger complaint rather than an official regulatory finding, and The Australia Today has not independently verified the circumstances surrounding the cancellation.

Other recent Australian reviews make similar complaints about delays, communication, wheelchair assistance and the condition of older aircraft cabins.

A Victorian passenger who travelled from Delhi to Melbourne in January 2026 said a gate change created difficulties for an elderly traveller for whom wheelchair assistance had been booked.

The passenger said wheelchair support was eventually provided after the family raised concerns.

Another detailed account of the Delhi–Melbourne route in 2025 described an in-flight entertainment system that did not work, broken controls, non-functioning overhead lights and assistance buttons, and seats that would not recline properly.

The same passenger said food had improved and did not criticise the cabin crew, highlighting the inconsistent nature of Air India’s transformation rather than suggesting every part of the journey was poor.

Those complaints matter because Air India has repeatedly presented Australia as an important market in its effort to reinvent itself under Tata Group ownership.

But Australian passengers have also experienced reductions in direct services.

Following the fatal crash of Air India flight AI171 in Ahmedabad in June 2025, Air India introduced what it called a “Safety Pause”, cutting parts of its international schedule while enhanced aircraft checks were undertaken.

Delhi–Melbourne and Delhi–Sydney services were reduced from seven flights a week to five.

The airline said affected passengers would be offered rebooking, complimentary rescheduling or refunds.

Australian services were cut again in 2026.

In May, Air India announced that both Delhi–Melbourne and Delhi–Sydney would fall from seven weekly flights to four between June and August.

Air India attributed the changes to continuing airspace restrictions and record-high international jet fuel prices, saying the reductions were intended to improve network stability and reduce last-minute disruption.

That temporarily left Air India operating just eight direct Australia services a week across Melbourne and Sydney.

The Australian issues have unfolded while Air India has faced much broader regulatory scrutiny in India.

That scrutiny intensified following the June 2025 crash of AI171, a Boeing 787-8 travelling from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick.

The disaster killed 241 of the 242 people onboard and people on the ground, with the investigation into the cause continuing.

It would be wrong to link the cause of that crash to the engineering faults seen in Sydney without evidence.

Indian aviation regulators subsequently carried out enhanced surveillance of Air India’s Boeing 787 fleet and reported that they found no major safety concerns with the aircraft or maintenance systems.

However, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation also raised concerns with Air India about maintenance practices, coordination between departments and the availability of spare parts.

Separate regulatory findings concerning other Air India aircraft also raised questions about internal oversight.

In 2025, India’s aviation regulator warned Air India after finding three Airbus aircraft had operated despite mandatory inspections of emergency escape slides being overdue.

The DGCA said the cases indicated aircraft had operated with “expired or unverified emergency equipment” and criticised what it described as inadequate internal oversight.

Air India told Reuters it was accelerating verification of maintenance records.

The regulator also took action over pilot scheduling.

It ordered three Air India executives responsible for crew scheduling to be removed from their positions after what it described as “repeated and serious violations” of pilot duty-time rules involving Bengaluru–London flights.

Air India said it had implemented the regulator’s order and remained committed to full adherence to safety protocols.

Further DGCA warnings followed over fatigue management and training.

Reuters reported that the regulator raised issues including mandatory rest periods, simulator training and airport-specific training after Air India itself disclosed a series of violations.

The regulatory notices were not specifically connected to Australia, but they form part of the wider environment in which the airline is attempting to rebuild confidence internationally.

Air India has also taken substantial steps to improve its Australian product.

From 1 July 2026, the airline began deploying upgraded Boeing 777-300ER aircraft on Delhi–Melbourne services, replacing the older Boeing 787-8 product.

The aircraft introduced First Class to the route, alongside fully flat Business Class seats, Wi-Fi, upgraded entertainment and refreshed food and beverage offerings.

Air India described the move as part of its continuing transformation into a “world-class global carrier”.

The airline also said Melbourne services were scheduled to return to seven flights a week from September.

That investment creates a striking contrast.

Air India is spending heavily to present a newer, more competitive face to Australian passengers while simultaneously carrying the legacy of ageing aircraft, operational disruption and customer dissatisfaction accumulated during its transformation, and it does not mean Air India’s Australian operation is unsafe.

The Indian regulator has also specifically said it found no major safety concerns with Air India’s Boeing 787 fleet after enhanced inspections.

The issue instead appears to be one of consistency.

For Australians travelling between India and Australia, Air India has an obvious advantage: non-stop flights between Delhi and both Melbourne and Sydney, without the need to transit through Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok or the Gulf.

That convenience has made the airline important to one of Australia’s fastest-growing international travel markets.

But direct flights alone may not be enough.

An airline asking passengers to embrace its transformation must also convince them that the aircraft will depart reliably, that systems inside the cabin will work, that passengers will receive help when things go wrong and that the standards being promoted in corporate announcements are reflected consistently at the airport and onboard.

Air India’s upgraded Melbourne aircraft suggests that the airline knows its older product was no longer good enough.

Its schedule reductions suggest it also recognises that operating fewer reliable flights can be preferable to promising a timetable it cannot consistently deliver.

The question for Australian passengers is whether those changes represent the beginning of a genuinely different Air India — or whether the airline’s ambitious makeover is still running ahead of the experience passengers receive.

For now, the evidence points to both stories being true at the same time: Air India is investing heavily in improvement, while recent Australian operations continue to reveal the difficult legacy it is trying to leave behind.

Note: The Australia Today contacted Air India for comment but had not received a response at the time of publication, despite follow-up reminders. This article will be updated if Air India responds.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Behind Air India’s Australian expansion: engineering faults, refund delays and missed connections first appeared on The Australia Today.

There is just one problem with the Premier’s attack.

Four nights earlier, Wilson stood in front of Carroll, around 1,200 members of Victoria’s Indian community and political leaders from across the spectrum at the Premier’s annual Diwali State Reception and publicly declared that there was only one coalition she was taking to the election — the Liberal and National Coalition.

Carroll was sitting at table one, barely three metres away.

Wilson could hardly have delivered the message more directly.

“Before I finish, I want to leave you with one final thing,” Wilson told the gathering.

“People will stand before you tonight and every day between now and November with a baseless scare campaign about the Coalition government.

“But I want you to hear the truth directly from me. There is only one coalition running for government at this election, and it is a Liberal and National Coalition.

“And our coalition is with you, for you and for all Victorians.”

It was an unusually pointed political intervention for a Diwali reception, but its target was obvious.

Wilson was responding directly to Labor’s increasingly aggressive attempt to tie the Liberals and Nationals to One Nation.

Yet on Thursday, Carroll was back before the cameras advancing essentially the same argument Wilson had rejected in his presence days earlier.

The exchange came as pre-election policy announcements accelerated across Melbourne.

Carroll announced that a re-elected Labor government would spend $167 million on 150 new fire trucks by 2030 — 100 tankers for the CFA and 50 vehicles for Fire Rescue Victoria. The announcement followed sustained criticism from firefighters over ageing vehicles and shortages.

The firefighters’ union welcomed the commitment but said more needed to be done. Only days earlier, it had publicly called on Carroll to act, saying there were “not enough trucks” and warning that another hot and dry fire season was approaching.

The Coalition, meanwhile, was promoting new cancer-care commitments, including $10.4 million towards establishing proton beam therapy at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre and $95 million for the next stage of an integrated cancer centre at Goulburn Valley Health. Herald Sun

It should have been a day dominated by competing health and emergency-services policies.

Instead, One Nation again became part of Labor’s attack on Wilson.

Carroll’s argument is not new.

During an ABC interview in Melbourne’s west last month, he said he would “fight every day against the Liberal Party and One Nation coming together”, adding: “That is what will happen in November if Labor is not successful.”

Asked in the same report whether she would rely on One Nation to form government, Wilson said the Coalition was running to win majority government.

When pressed on whether she would work with One Nation if she fell short, she declined to engage with what she called a hypothetical.

“I am running to win majority government at this election,” Wilson said.

That distinction is important.

Wilson has now explicitly said there is only one coalition running for government — Liberal and Nationals.

But she has not provided the kind of categorical post-election undertaking Carroll has given regarding the Greens.

Carroll has said he would rather “throw the keys back” than govern through an agreement with the Greens if Labor failed to secure a majority. Wilson, by contrast, has rejected the proposition of a formal Liberal–One Nation coalition but has stopped short of ruling out every conceivable confidence-and-supply arrangement in a hung parliament.

That leaves Labor with political room to ask questions.

It does not, however, establish that a Liberal–One Nation coalition exists.

No such coalition has been announced.

There is no publicly disclosed agreement between Wilson and Victorian One Nation leader Warren Pickering.

Wilson told ABC’s 7.30 last month that she had not spoken to Pickering and said she was focused on securing majority government.

That makes the language being employed by Labor increasingly important.

There is a substantial difference between saying Wilson has not ruled out accepting support from One Nation in a hypothetical hung parliament and suggesting she is actively “rolling out the red carpet” for the party.

The first is supported by her refusal to eliminate every possible post-election scenario.

The second implies a degree of active courtship or cooperation for which no public evidence has yet been produced.

And that is where Carroll risks turning a legitimate political question into a scare campaign.

The Premier has good reason to make One Nation part of the election conversation.

The party is no longer a marginal presence in Victorian polling.

The Australia Today’s own Multicultural Voter Survey paints an even more striking picture among culturally diverse Victorians. The survey of 1,268 multicultural community members, conducted between 5 and 28 September 2026, put the Liberal-National Coalition on 31 per cent of the primary vote, with Labor and One Nation tied on 26 per cent each. The Greens were on 9 per cent and Independents on 8 per cent.

The result suggests One Nation is not merely drawing support from traditional conservative voters, but is polling at the same level as Labor within this surveyed multicultural sample.

Other recent polling has similarly placed One Nation above 20 per cent, transforming what was once a two-party contest into a much more complicated electoral landscape.

Carroll is also particularly focused on the potential impact of One Nation in multicultural electorates.

Speaking to The Australia Today after the Diwali reception, the Premier said Victoria could not allow One Nation to gain a foothold in multicultural communities and raised concerns about the party’s positions on multiculturalism.

That is a legitimate political case for Labor to make.

One Nation should be scrutinised on its policies, its candidates and its statements, just as Labor, the Coalition and the Greens should be.

But that is different from asking multicultural voters to believe that voting Liberal automatically means voting for a Liberal–One Nation government.

At the very event where Carroll was speaking about the importance of multicultural Victoria, Wilson looked at an audience of about 1,200 people and rejected precisely that proposition.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Ben Carroll’s One Nation attack on Jess Wilson collides with what she actually told him three metres away first appeared on The Australia Today.

Patekar was found unconscious at his residence in Dona Paula on Thursday morning and was rushed to hospital. Doctors attempted to revive him for about 45 minutes, but he was declared dead at 5.20 am. A medico-legal case has been registered, and a post-mortem examination is expected to be carried out.

His son Malhar Patekar confirmed his death, according to Maharashtra Times.

Born Vishwanath Patekar on 1 January 1951 in Murud-Janjira in Maharashtra, Patekar built a career spanning nearly five decades across theatre, Marathi cinema and Hindi films. He studied at Mumbai’s Sir J.J. Institute of Applied Art before moving into theatre and films.

He made his film debut in Gaman in 1978, but it was his work through the 1980s and 1990s that established him as an actor unlike almost anyone else in mainstream Indian cinema.

Patekar rarely relied on conventional star glamour. Instead, he brought an unpredictable intensity to the screen — sometimes restrained, sometimes explosive, often unsettling.

His breakthrough performances included Ankush, Pratighaat, Mira Nair’s Salaam Bombay! and, most memorably, Vidhu Vinod Chopra’s Parinda in 1989.

As the gangster Anna in Parinda, Patekar delivered a performance that remains one of the defining villainous turns of Hindi cinema. It earned him the National Film Award and Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actor.

That success was followed by a series of roles that blurred the traditional Bollywood divide between hero, villain and character actor.

In Krantiveer in 1994, his portrayal of journalist-turned-crusader Pratap Narayan Tilak became one of the most remembered performances of his career. The film’s fiery climactic speeches entered popular culture and won Patekar the National Film Award for Best Actor.

He would eventually win three National Film Awards during his career and received the Padma Shri, India’s fourth-highest civilian honour, in 2013.

Films including Agni Sakshi, Wajood, Yeshwant, Khamoshi: The Musical, Ab Tak Chhappan, Apaharan and Raajneeti demonstrated the breadth of a performer capable of moving between brutality, vulnerability, humour and moral ambiguity.

For another generation of audiences, however, Nana Patekar was Majnu Bhai.

His comic partnership with Anil Kapoor in the 2007 blockbuster Welcome produced an entirely different cultural afterlife, with scenes and dialogue from the film becoming memes and social-media staples years later.

That ability to move from intimidating police officers and gangsters to absurdist comedy was central to Patekar’s longevity.

He continued working well into his seventies.

His later credits included The Vaccine War, Vanvaas, Housefull 5, O’Romeo and Subedaar.

Only days before his death, footage of the 75-year-old actor exercising and performing triceps dips had attracted attention online, underscoring how sudden his death appeared to many admirers.

Yet Patekar’s public life extended well beyond cinema.

In 2015, he and actor Makarand Anaspure established the NAAM Foundation after drought and farmer suicides devastated parts of Maharashtra.

The organisation began by helping families affected by farmer suicides and later expanded into water conservation, village development, education and disaster relief. Its work has included restoring water sources and supporting farming communities across drought-affected regions.

Patekar’s involvement was not merely symbolic.

Before the foundation was established, he had personally distributed financial assistance to farming families in Vidarbha, Latur and Osmanabad. He had also donated prize money and film earnings to charitable causes.

For many in rural Maharashtra, that work became as important a part of his public identity as his films.

Patekar was also known for an austere personal style that stood apart from Bollywood’s usual celebrity culture.

He frequently spoke about his modest upbringing and the financial hardship his family experienced when he was young. That background, he said in interviews over the years, shaped both his temperament and his understanding of struggle.

His association with India’s armed forces was another unusual aspect of his life.

Patekar underwent extensive military training for his 1991 film Prahaar, which he also directed, and later maintained a long association with the Territorial Army and the Maratha Light Infantry.

His career was not without controversy.

In 2018, actress Tanushree Dutta accused Patekar of sexually harassing her during the filming of Horn Ok Pleassss in 2008, allegations he denied.

Mumbai Police later filed a closure report saying there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case.

The episode became one of the most widely discussed cases during India’s #MeToo movement and remained part of the public debate around his career.

But Patekar was never an actor who fitted comfortably into the polished image of a Bollywood star.

His voice cracked rather than purred.

His characters frequently appeared angry before they spoke.

His pauses could be as threatening as his dialogue.

And even when playing powerful men, there was often something visibly wounded beneath the surface.

That combination made him instantly recognisable.

In Marathi cinema, his portrayal of Ganpat Belwalkar in Natsamrat was particularly celebrated, introducing his work to another generation and reinforcing his stature as one of Maharashtra’s major dramatic actors.

The role of an ageing Shakespearean stage actor confronting family rejection and mortality seemed almost designed for Patekar’s theatrical intensity.

Outside films, stories about his loyalty to colleagues frequently emerged.

Just a day before his death, veteran Marathi actor Ashok Saraf recalled an incident from their theatre days in which Patekar reportedly helped him escape an angry crowd, drove him away in a rickshaw and later returned to help other members of the troupe.

Such stories helped create a public image that was simultaneously intimidating and deeply personal.

For generations of moviegoers, Nana Patekar was never merely performing a part.

When he entered a scene, it often felt as though the temperature of the film changed.

His eyes, voice and pauses could create menace without movement; moments later, the same actor could become comic, fragile or unexpectedly tender.

That quality is difficult to teach and even harder to imitate.

Indian cinema has produced bigger stars, but very few actors who sounded, moved or performed quite like Nana Patekar.

His death brings to an end a career that stretched from experimental theatre and parallel cinema to blockbuster Bollywood, Marathi classics, comedy franchises and social activism.

He leaves behind not only a formidable filmography, but also a body of humanitarian work through NAAM Foundation that continues across Maharashtra.

For audiences who grew up with Parinda, Krantiveer, Yeshwant, Ab Tak Chhappan, Natsamrat or Welcome, his voice will be difficult to forget.

Nana Patekar was 75.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Veteran actor Nana Patekar dies at 75 after severe cardiac arrest in Goa first appeared on The Australia Today.

The Victorian Electoral Commission confirmed on 30 September that The Republican Make Australia Great Again, abbreviated on the register as The Republican, had satisfied the legal requirements for registration. The party first applied on 26 May and was required to demonstrate it had at least 500 members enrolled to vote in Victoria. The VEC said it verified that requirement by contacting members whose names had been submitted with the application.

The registration means the party can have its name printed beside endorsed candidates on Victorian state election ballot papers, centrally nominate candidates and register how-to-vote material, and potentially qualify for public funding under Victoria’s electoral laws.

The VEC lists Raj Kumar Saini as the party’s registered officer, with a registered officer address in Point Cook.

The party says it intends to contest a significant number of Legislative Assembly seats across Greater Melbourne as well as Legislative Council positions, with candidate announcements expected in the lead-up to the election.

Victorians go to the polls on Saturday, 28 November 2026, when all 88 Legislative Assembly seats and 40 Legislative Council positions will be contested. Candidate nominations open on 4 November and close on 9 November.

In material provided to The Australia Today, Saini described the registration as an important step for what he says is a grassroots political movement built around families, workers, small-business owners, professionals and community volunteers.

“The registration of The Republican is an important milestone, but it is only the beginning,” Saini said.

“We created this party because many everyday Victorians want their voices heard on the issues affecting their families and communities — the cost of living, community safety, housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure and opportunities for the next generation.”

The party is campaigning under the message “A Safer, Stronger and Fairer Victoria” and has nominated cost-of-living pressures, community safety, housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, small business and government accountability as its main areas of focus.

Its published policy material includes commitments to review state government fees, fines and charges, reduce red tape, increase housing supply, improve infrastructure in growth corridors and strengthen oversight of public spending. It also says it wants more visible policing, tougher responses to violent and repeat offending, shorter hospital waiting times and a stronger focus on literacy, numeracy and vocational pathways in schools.

The party has also placed strong emphasis on Melbourne’s rapidly growing outer suburbs, arguing that roads, public transport, schools and health services have not always kept pace with population growth.

Who is Raj Saini?

Saini enters the 2026 election with a background in multicultural community advocacy rather than as a newcomer to politics.

According to his party biography, he arrived in Australia as an international student in 2008 and has spent more than a decade involved in migrant support, community organisations and engagement with government.

From 2017 to 2022, he served as president of the Indian Cultural Association of Victoria, where he was involved in organising major community events including the Footscray Diwali Festival. Maribyrnong City Council publicly identified Saini as president and organiser of the inaugural Footscray Diwali Festival in 2017.

He was also appointed to Victoria’s South Asian Ministerial Advisory Council, established to provide a direct line of communication between South Asian communities and the state government on issues including economic participation, multicultural representation and social cohesion. SBS reported Saini among the council’s members when it was announced in 2018.

Saini’s party biography says he founded Success to Migration in 2014, an initiative providing migrant settlement support, career guidance and community integration assistance, and has also served as a consumer adviser with Mercy Health.

He also has a history inside the Labor movement.

The Republican’s own biography says Saini joined the Australian Labor Party in 2014, later serving as assistant secretary of the Melton branch and as a state delegate for the Australian Workers’ Union before resigning from Labor.

That background makes his decision to establish a new political party notable, particularly at a time when both major parties are competing heavily for support in Melbourne’s multicultural growth corridors.

Saini has also previously contested an election.

At the 2025 federal election, he headed an unendorsed Victorian Senate group alongside Kirti Alle and Yashaswini Srinivas Kanakagiri. Australian Electoral Commission records confirm the three candidates appeared together as Group T on the Victorian Senate ballot.

Final Senate results show Group T received 2,103 first-preference votes, equivalent to about 0.05 per cent of Victoria’s formal Senate vote.

The Republican therefore represents a considerably more organised political vehicle than Saini’s previous independent Senate campaign, particularly because registered-party status gives it access to a party label on ballot papers and streamlined candidate nomination arrangements.

The ‘Make Australia Great Again’ name

The party’s full registered name is likely to draw attention.

The Republican Make Australia Great Again carries an obvious similarity to the “Make America Great Again” slogan associated internationally with US President Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

The VEC nevertheless accepted the name after the statutory application and objection process. Its June notice recorded the proposed full name as The Republican Make Australia Great Again and the intended ballot abbreviation as The Republican.

The name attracted media attention while registration was pending, including reports describing it as a “MAGA” party application based in Point Cook.

However, the policy material currently published by Saini’s party is focused overwhelmingly on Victorian state issues rather than US politics.

Its website describes the organisation as a “community-driven movement” built around “hard work, responsibility and respect” and says it was established to give everyday Victorians a stronger voice on affordability, infrastructure, healthcare, education and community safety.

Saini has also framed the party as distinct from traditional political structures.

“Our candidates will come from the communities they seek to represent,” he said.

“We want to listen to Victorians, understand the challenges they face and put forward practical policies that deliver better outcomes.”

The party says it is still finalising its candidate team, and it has not yet publicly released a complete list of seats it intends to contest.

Its performance will be closely watched in Melbourne’s west and other growth corridors, where cost-of-living pressures, transport congestion, housing affordability, crime and infrastructure have become major political issues.

The VEC expects almost 4.7 million Victorians to vote in the November election, which it says will be the largest Victorian state election yet.

For Saini, the shift from community advocate, former Labor member and independent Senate candidate to founder of a registered political party marks a new stage in his political career.

Whether The Republican can convert its community networks and newly acquired registered status into votes will become clearer when it begins naming candidates and campaigning across Melbourne ahead of 28 November.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Former Labor figure Raj Saini registers political party ‘The Republican’ ahead of 2026 Victorian state election first appeared on The Australia Today.

The United Workers Union campaign is appearing in paid online advertising and on a dedicated election webpage, where Wilson is pictured alongside One Nation federal leader Pauline Hanson and Victorian leader Warren Pickering.

One advertisement declares: “They’re not on your side”, while claiming Wilson, Hanson and Pickering would together deliver “$40 billion in cuts to services Victorians rely on”.

The campaign goes further on the union’s website, asserting:

“Polling shows that Jess Wilson & the Liberals can only form government with the help of One Nation.”

But the union webpage does not identify the poll, provide field dates, publish a seat projection or explain the modelling behind that claim.

That distinction matters.

A recent Freshwater Strategy poll conducted between September 24 and 28 put the Coalition on 29 per cent of the primary vote, Labor on 24 per cent and One Nation on 22 per cent, with the Coalition leading Labor 53–47 on a two-party-preferred basis. Polling can indicate statewide voter sentiment, but it does not by itself establish that the Liberals could “only” form government with One Nation support because Victorian governments are determined seat by seat.

The increasingly aggressive campaign also raises questions about how independently voters should view the union’s political messaging.

The United Workers Union is not simply an outside workers’ organisation commenting on the election from the sidelines.

Its own audited financial statements show substantial formal affiliation payments to branches of the Australian Labor Party.

For the financial year ending June 2025, the union recorded $196,996 in affiliation fees to the Victorian branch of the ALP. Across Labor branches in Queensland, NSW, the ACT, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, those affiliation fees totalled more than $880,000 for the year.

A year earlier, its accounts recorded $193,528 in affiliation fees to Victorian Labor.

That financial relationship does not make the union’s claims false, and trade unions are legally entitled to campaign on issues affecting their members.

But it is highly relevant context for voters seeing paid advertisements presenting the campaign principally as a warning from workers about Wilson and One Nation.

The union itself says it represents workers including cleaners, teacher aides, hospitality workers, manufacturers and security guards and argues that political decisions can affect wages, conditions and job security.

Its campaign urges voters to ask who will protect workplace rights and “stand with workers when powerful interests push the other way”.

Yet the most prominent political target of the advertising is Wilson.

Wilson placed alongside Hanson and Pickering

The strategy appears designed to connect the Liberal leader visually and politically with One Nation at a time when Hanson’s party is polling strongly in Victoria.

The union’s webpage devotes one section to Hanson and Pickering before turning directly to Wilson and the Victorian Liberal Party.

It points to comments by Hanson about workplace laws and claims One Nation has advocated making it easier for businesses to terminate employees. It then notes Wilson’s refusal in June to decide preference arrangements months before election day.

Wilson did indeed leave the question of preferences open when questioned in June.

But her full comments provide more context.

She said preference discussions would occur closer to the election once the Liberals knew the parties, candidates and policies involved. Asked whether Hanson had approached her, Wilson replied: “No.”

By September, Wilson was publicly saying she was campaigning to win a majority government.

“I’m not really interested in the other parties,” she told ABC’s 7.30, adding that she had not spoken to One Nation Victorian leader Warren Pickering.

That does not settle how preferences will ultimately be allocated or what would happen in a hung parliament.

But it makes the union’s presentation of Wilson and One Nation as an emerging governing combination more politically loaded than a simple description of an existing agreement.

There is currently no announced Liberal–One Nation coalition in Victoria.

Where does the $40 billion claim come from?

The second major attack in the advertising is the claim that Wilson and her allies would deliver $40 billion in cuts.

It is a figure Labor itself has repeatedly used.

Then-Premier Jacinta Allan’s government claimed in May that Wilson had announced a plan to remove $40 billion from the state budget and argued such reductions could not occur without affecting hospitals and schools.

Labor MPs have repeated the figure extensively in parliament and government media releases, linking it to proposed reductions in the size of the public service.

The United Workers Union is now using essentially the same attack line in its election advertising.

But the Coalition disputes Labor’s characterisation.

During a May parliamentary debate, Coalition MPs said Labor was describing what they said was a $22 billion plan as more than $40 billion in cuts, accusing the government of running a scare campaign.

That difference is important.

The advertisements state the $40 billion figure as a straightforward consequence for Victorian services. The underlying political dispute about how that number is calculated is substantially less visible.

The union webpage says:

“You can’t make cuts that deep without impacting services. It’s everyday Victorians who will pay the price.”

That is an argument, not an independently established outcome.

A familiar election playbook

The United Workers Union is no stranger to large-scale political advertising.

During the 2025 federal election, The Guardian reported that Australian Unions and the United Workers Union together spent about $1.85 million on digital advertising, including more than $826,000 on geographically targeted YouTube and Meta advertisements.

The union is also one of Labor’s substantial organisational financial supporters.

Australian Electoral Commission data reported after the 2022 federal election showed Labor had recorded $947,148 in receipts from the United Workers Union during the relevant disclosure period.

The latest Victorian campaign therefore fits into a much larger political relationship between organised labour and the Labor Party.

There is nothing unusual in unions campaigning politically.

Business groups, environmental organisations, industry bodies, lobby groups and wealthy individuals all spend money attempting to influence Australian elections.

The question for voters is transparency.

When an organisation with financial and institutional connections to one side of politics buys advertising attacking the other side, those connections form part of the story.

The UWU advertising does contain an authorisation stating it is authorised by G. Bullock of the United Workers Union in Docklands.

What most voters encountering a brief display advertisement may not immediately know is that the same organisation paid almost $197,000 in affiliation fees to Victorian Labor in its latest publicly available annual accounts.

One Nation becomes Labor’s preferred attack line

The campaign also comes as Labor increasingly tries to make One Nation central to its case against Wilson.

Government statements have repeatedly used formulations such as a “Liberal-One Nation Coalition”, despite no formal coalition between the parties having been announced.

Premier Ben Carroll has intensified those warnings as One Nation support has risen.

The political logic is clear.

One Nation is now drawing support from voters who might otherwise have backed both major parties, including in parts of Melbourne’s west and regional Victoria. ABC reporting has found the party’s rise is complicating the electoral calculations of Labor and the Coalition alike.

For Labor and Labor-aligned organisations, linking Wilson to Hanson creates an opportunity to frame the election not simply as Labor versus Liberal, but as a choice between Labor and a potential conservative bloc involving One Nation.

For Wilson, the challenge is the reverse: attracting voters dissatisfied with Labor without allowing Labor to define her campaign through another party’s policies.

Unions entitled to campaign — voters entitled to know who is campaigning

The United Workers Union has every right to argue that Liberal or One Nation policies would be bad for its members.

It also has every right to purchase political advertisements and participate heavily in the Victorian election.

But the advertisements deserve to be understood for what they are: political campaigning by an organisation with an established financial affiliation to the Australian Labor Party, not independent voter information detached from party politics.

Its own accounts establish that relationship.

Its election webpage establishes its target.

And its advertising makes clear the central message it wants Victorian voters to absorb: Jess Wilson, Pauline Hanson and Warren Pickering belong politically in the same frame.

Whether voters accept that argument is another matter.

There is no announced Liberal–One Nation coalition. Wilson says she is seeking majority government and says she has not spoken with Pickering. The union’s claim that polling proves the Liberals can only govern with One Nation is presented without an identified poll or seat analysis on the campaign page. Meanwhile, the $40 billion figure at the heart of its attack remains fiercely contested between Labor and the Coalition.

What is beyond dispute is that, with Victoria heading towards a volatile November election, one of Labor’s major union affiliates has entered the advertising battle — and Jess Wilson is firmly in its sights.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post ‘They’re not on your side’: Labor-linked union targets Jess Wilson in Victorian election ad blitz first appeared on The Australia Today.

The mentorship, supported by Wyndham City Arts & Culture in partnership with Deakin University, will see Chowdhury travel to Venice from 19 to 24 October to participate in Venetian Bind, a collaborative project hosted by the European Cultural Centre.

Born in Bangladesh’s river delta, Chowdhury draws on personal and family histories to examine memory, place and belonging, with a particular focus on first-generation Bangladeshi Australian women.

Her practice spans digital image-making, painting, installation, textiles and socially engaged art. She explores how photographs, oral histories, materials and everyday cultural traditions carry knowledge and shape identities across generations.

During the six-day programme, Chowdhury will work alongside artists, designers, filmmakers, writers and researchers from Deakin University, participating in workshops, creative exchanges, feedback and critique sessions.

Curated by Cameron Bishop and David Cross, Venetian Bind will encourage participants to develop site-responsive artworks informed by Venice’s history, culture and material environment.

The collaborative works will be exhibited at Palazzo Mora in Venice in November 2026 before returning to Melbourne, with further exhibition opportunities to be explored.

The mentorship is designed to support Chowdhury’s professional development while strengthening Wyndham’s creative community through international collaboration, new ideas and cross-cultural exchange.

An emerging artistic voice

Chowdhury has exhibited in Australia and Bangladesh, including at the 19th Asian Art Biennale in Dhaka in 2022. She has held seven solo exhibitions since 2021, most recently Inheritance at RMIT First Site Gallery in 2026.

Her awards include the RMIT Cultural Vision Scholarship in 2022 and the ADFAS Yarra Young and Emerging Artist Award in 2023.

The mentorship offers an opportunity to expand her artistic practice, build international professional networks and explore new approaches to presenting stories of migration, identity and intergenerational memory.

Wyndham City Council said the programme would help a local artist develop her practice on an international stage while bringing fresh perspectives and creative connections back to the community.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post Melbourne artist Mita Chowdhury to explore migration and identity on Venice’s international stage first appeared on The Australia Today.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong said, On October 7, we remember those killed by Hamas’ horrific terror attacks on Israel, including Australian Galit Carbone.

“Our thoughts remain with her loved ones and all affected by Hamas’ abhorrent acts. We continue to work to combat antisemitism and terror in all its forms.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese issued a statement,

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and Opposition Leader Angus Taylor issued statements on X remembering those killed, abducted and affected by the attacks of 7 October 2023, when Hamas-led terrorists killed about 1,200 people in Israel and took 251 hostages, according to figures widely reported at the time.

Hanson described the attacks as a brutal reminder of the threat posed by terrorism and said the victims and their grieving families should be remembered.

“We remember the innocent civilians who were murdered, the families torn apart, and those who endured the horror of being taken hostage by a fanatical terrorist movement.”

She condemned the deliberate targeting of civilians and called for unity against terrorism and extremism.

Taylor said the anniversary was an opportunity to remember those murdered, survivors still dealing with the trauma and families affected by the loss of loved ones.

“October 7 was the greatest loss of Jewish life on a single day since the Holocaust.”

He also referred to his visit to Israel in October 2025, when he visited the site of the Nova music festival, where festivalgoers were killed, and kibbutzim attacked during the assault.

Taylor said the experience reinforced the importance of remembering the victims and confronting antisemitism.

“The fight against antisemitism is therefore a fight for the truth – a fight that continues on our soil too.”

Netanyahu warns those responsible for attacks

At a memorial ceremony for the victims, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a warning to those involved in the attacks and the taking of hostages.

“Anyone who was involved in the attack against us and holds our hostages — lives on borrowed time.”

The anniversary comes amid continuing debate over the attacks, Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza and the impact of the conflict on communities in Australia.

Planned Sydney demonstrations criticised

Plans by pro-Palestinian organisations to hold events on the anniversary have prompted criticism from Jewish community representatives and the NSW Government.

NSW Premier Chris Minns described the planned demonstrations as “heartless” and “in poor taste”, arguing that the anniversary should be a day of remembrance for those killed in the attacks.

Minns said the events could not simply be prohibited if they were lawful, while emphasising that police would work to protect public safety.

“There are some people suggesting it can be stopped; the constitution doesn’t allow that,” he said.

“They can certainly do that, it’s not against the law but as a citizen I’ve got a right to make a judgement on it too.”

The Premier also urged Labor colleagues not to attend the demonstrations.

Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, called on organisers to choose another date, describing 7 October as a solemn day for Jewish and Israeli communities.

“I ask those people: Leave that day alone,” Ryvchin told ABC.

“Choose any other day in the calendar and carry on your obnoxious protest and divide society as you do.”

Ryvchin said he had been told of government concerns that anti-Israel demonstrations could contribute to extremism and antisemitism.

He also linked this year’s commemorations to wider concerns about antisemitism in Australia following the Bondi Beach attack in December 2025.

Commemorations across Australia

Jewish organisations across Australia are holding commemorations to honour those killed in the 7 October attacks and remember the hostages and survivors.

Australian Jewish filmmaker Danny Ben-Moshe has released a 2D version of his short documentary Shloshim: Israel and the First 30 Days After October 7.

Filmed in the weeks following the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023, the documentary was originally produced as a 360-degree virtual reality (VR) experience.

Ben-Moshe is inviting schools, museums, film festivals, community groups and other organisations interested in exhibiting the film as an immersive VR experience to contact him directly.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post October 7 Anniversary: Political leaders condemn Hamas terrorism as Sydney pro-Palestinian protests spark backlash first appeared on The Australia Today.

The policy, announced on 6 October by One Nation education spokeswoman and Victorian upper house candidate Colleen Harkin, would apply to government, Catholic, independent and Islamic schools. Hijabs, which leave the face visible, would not be affected.

Harkin said the policy was about what she described as a basic classroom standard.

“It is a simple requirement that when a student walks through the school gate, teachers and fellow students can see who they are speaking to.”

She also argued the proposal had a gender-equality dimension, saying girls should grow up knowing they were “equally entitled to be seen, heard, educated and to participate fully in Australian life”.

One Nation says Australia would not be acting alone. Harkin has pointed to restrictions on full-face coverings in at least 24 countries, including several Muslim-majority nations, as evidence that such measures are already used internationally.

There is some basis for that broader claim, although the laws differ widely in scope. France and Belgium have nationwide public-space restrictions on concealing the face, Bulgaria prohibits full-face veils in state, administrative and educational institutions, while the Netherlands and Norway have targeted restrictions in settings including schools and universities.

Italy has also moved in that direction. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced in September that her government was preparing legislation to ban burqas and niqabs in schools, alongside other measures dealing with foreign students and integration.

Harkin described the Italian approach as “common sense”.

The school face-covering policy was announced separately from One Nation’s main Victorian election education booklet, which also proposes school vouchers, changes to curriculum priorities and the removal of programs the party characterises as ideological.

According to the party’s broader education platform, government funding would follow students to the government, independent, faith-based or specialist school chosen by their parents. It also wants to strip cross-curriculum priorities, including Indigenous histories and cultures, sustainability and engagement with Asia, from some core subjects, arguing schools should place greater emphasis on literacy, numeracy, science, history and civics.

The policy puts One Nation directly at odds with Victoria’s current approach to school dress requirements.

Victorian government school councils can establish their own student dress codes, but those rules must comply with human rights and anti-discrimination legislation and support cultural and religious expression. Department guidance specifically gives the hijab and turban as examples of religious clothing that schools must accommodate.

Schools are also required to provide an exemption process where uniform rules conflict with a student’s religious belief or prevent them from meeting a religious, ethnic or cultural requirement.

Under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010, Victorian educational authorities may set reasonable standards of dress and appearance, but those standards remain subject to anti-discrimination protections. Department guidance warns that even a rule applied equally to every student may amount to indirect discrimination if it disproportionately disadvantages students because of religion or another protected characteristic.

That means any attempt to impose a blanket Victorian prohibition would have to be carefully framed against existing state and federal legal protections.

One Nation argues its proposal is distinguishable from a general ban on religious dress because it applies only where the face is covered.

The distinction between the garments is central to the policy. A hijab covers the hair and neck but leaves the face visible. A niqab covers most of the face except the eyes, while a burqa generally covers the body and face, with a mesh screen across the eyes.

The proposal also revives a long-running political debate led by One Nation leader Pauline Hanson.

In November 2025, Hanson attempted to advance a federal bill seeking broader restrictions on burqas and other full-face coverings in public places. The move did not proceed to debate after an objection in the Senate.

Hanson has also previously worn a burqa in the Senate chamber while arguing for restrictions on face coverings, an action that attracted widespread criticism and parliamentary condemnation.

More recently, Hanson visited the Islamic College of Brisbane and discussed the issue directly with female students wearing the niqab. She acknowledged students who said wearing it was their choice while maintaining that some women could be pressured into doing so.

One Nation’s latest policy moves that debate squarely into Australian classrooms.

Supporters of the proposal are likely to argue that visible faces assist communication, identification and safeguarding, while opponents are likely to question whether a blanket prohibition would unnecessarily restrict religious freedom or disproportionately affect Muslim girls.

Victoria’s current policy takes a different starting point: government schools are secular but students may dress in accordance with their faith, provided they comply with the school’s dress code and applicable law.

There is also a practical constitutional and jurisdictional issue with One Nation’s promise of a ban across “all Australian schools”.

Education is largely administered by state and territory governments, while Catholic and independent schools operate under separate governance arrangements and overlapping state and federal laws.

A Victorian One Nation parliamentary presence could advocate changes within Victoria, but creating a uniform rule across every Australian school would require a much broader legislative or intergovernmental pathway.

Harkin is contesting the South-Eastern Metropolitan Region at Victoria’s election on 28 November.

With education already emerging as a battleground over curriculum, school choice, discipline and religious expression, One Nation’s full-face covering proposal adds another contentious issue to the campaign.

The central question is now likely to be whether voters see face visibility in classrooms primarily as an identification and communication issue, or as a matter where religious freedom should continue to be accommodated under existing school policies.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post One Nation pushes for ban on burqas, niqabs and other full-face coverings in schools ahead of Victorian state elections first appeared on The Australia Today.

The survey of 1,268 Australian citizens eligible to vote, aged between 20 and 60 and living in Victoria, was conducted between 5 and 28 September 2026.

Respondents came from households where a language other than English is spoken at home and were recruited through The Australia Today’s subscriber database and community networks.

The survey found the Liberal-National Coalition on 31 per cent, with Labor and One Nation both on 26 per cent.

The Greens recorded 9 per cent, while independent candidates attracted 8 per cent.

The Coalition holds a five-point lead over both Labor and One Nation.

However, arguably the most striking finding is One Nation drawing level with the governing Labor Party within the surveyed multicultural households.

For a group of voters often treated as automatically aligned with one of the established major parties, the result points to a much more fragmented political picture.

The Coalition and Labor together account for 57 per cent of the respondents.

The remaining 43 per cent selected One Nation, the Greens or an independent candidate, suggesting a sizeable share of the surveyed voters are looking beyond the traditional Labor-Coalition contest.

One Nation alone was selected by more than one-quarter of respondents.

That makes the party’s 26 per cent result one of the most noteworthy findings of The Australia Today survey.

It places One Nation exactly level with Labor and only five percentage points behind the Liberal-National Coalition among respondents.

The result should not, however, be interpreted as a prediction of the statewide Victorian election result.

The Australia Today survey was designed specifically to examine voting intention among multicultural households, rather than produce a representative poll of all Victorian voters.

The survey population was restricted to Australian citizens eligible to vote who were aged between 20 and 60 and lived in Victoria.

That means eligible voters aged 18 and 19 were not included, nor were voters aged over 60.

The survey also defined a multicultural household as one where a language other than English is spoken at home.

This provides one practical measure of cultural and linguistic diversity, but it should not be interpreted as capturing every Victorian with a multicultural background.

Likewise, the term “multicultural voter” encompasses an enormous range of communities.

People of Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino, Nepalese, Sri Lankan, African, Middle Eastern, European and many other backgrounds can have very different political priorities and experiences.

The topline result therefore represents the combined responses of the survey participants rather than suggesting that multicultural Victorians vote as a single bloc.

A forced-choice survey

An important feature of The Australia Today survey was its forced-choice format.

Respondents were asked:

“If the Victorian state election were held today, which party or type of candidate would you give your first preference to in the Legislative Assembly (lower house)?”

The response options were:

• Labor
• Liberal-National Coalition
• One Nation
• The Greens
• Independent candidate

There was no “Other” option.

There was also no undecided or refused option.

Every respondent therefore had to select one of the five categories.

This means the survey does not measure the proportion of multicultural voters who remain undecided ahead of the election.

It also means people who might intend to support another minor party could not nominate that party.

The 31-26-26-9-8 result should consequently be understood as how respondents divided when required to choose between the five available alternatives.

The percentages total 100 per cent because every completed response was allocated to one of those categories.

Coalition leads as dominant party?

The survey puts the Liberal-National Coalition in first place at 31 per cent.

But it also shows that no political force comes close to commanding majority primary support among respondents.

Almost seven in every 10 surveyed voters selected someone other than the Coalition.

Similarly, almost three-quarters selected someone other than Labor, and almost three-quarters selected someone other than One Nation.

Rather than showing one dominant political party, the survey presents a three-way contest, with just five percentage points separating the first three positions.

That fragmentation could matter politically because multicultural voters are an increasingly important part of Victoria’s population, particularly across Melbourne’s western, northern and south-eastern suburbs.

The Australia Today survey does not provide electorate-level results, however, so it cannot establish where the strongest support for each party is concentrated.

A statewide or statewide-style percentage within a particular community sample does not automatically translate into individual seats.

Labor faces pressure within the sample

Labor’s 26 per cent result places it five points behind the Coalition and level with One Nation.

For the governing party, that indicates substantial competition for multicultural voters within The Australia Today sample.

The finding is particularly notable because multicultural communities have traditionally been heavily courted by Labor governments and candidates through policies relating to migration, international education, multicultural affairs, community organisations and culturally specific services.

The Australia Today survey cannot explain why individual respondents made their choice because it did not ask voters to nominate the issues influencing their decision.

It therefore cannot say whether respondents moving away from Labor were motivated by cost of living, crime, housing, migration policy, government performance, taxation, social policy or another issue.

Any attempt to assign a particular motivation to the 26 per cent Labor result would go beyond what the survey measured.

What the survey does establish is that Labor did not hold a clear advantage among respondents from multicultural households.

Instead, it found Labor sharing second place with One Nation.

One Nation’s result stands out

One Nation’s 26 per cent result deserves particular attention because it challenges assumptions about how multicultural voters might respond to the party.

Within this sample, more than one in four respondents selected One Nation when asked which party or candidate type they would give their first preference to.

That puts the party level with Labor and only five points behind the Coalition.

The survey does not establish why those respondents selected One Nation.

Nor does it measure whether they are long-term supporters, former Labor or Coalition voters, or people simply considering One Nation at this stage of the campaign.

But the scale of the result suggests that political parties would be unwise to treat multicultural voters as predictable or politically uniform.

The survey instead indicates that at least among The Australia Today respondents, dissatisfaction or political realignment may be cutting across traditional community assumptions.

Greens and independents account for 17%

The Greens attracted 9 per cent of respondents, while independents received 8 per cent.

Combined, that represents 17 per cent of the survey.

That share further underlines the fragmentation of the sample.

Independent support is particularly difficult to interpret at a statewide level because independent candidates vary considerably between electorates.

Some campaigns are built around local infrastructure or planning issues, while others centre on integrity, climate, social policy or dissatisfaction with the major parties.

The survey grouped all independent candidates together rather than asking respondents to name a specific individual.

The Greens result similarly represents support for the party across the sample but does not show where that support is geographically concentrated.

No two-party-preferred estimate

The Australia Today has not produced a two-party-preferred figure from the survey.

That is deliberate.

With One Nation on 26 per cent, the Greens on 9 per cent and independents on 8 per cent, attempting to produce a Labor-versus-Coalition two-party-preferred result would require assumptions about where almost half of all respondents would direct their preferences.

The survey did not ask respondents how they would allocate subsequent preferences.

It would therefore be misleading to manufacture a 2PP figure by assigning assumed preference flows.

The Australia Today is publishing only the results that were directly measured.

No seat projection

The survey also does not produce an electorate-by-electorate projection or predicted seat count.

Victoria’s Legislative Assembly is decided through individual electorate contests.

A party’s statewide support can produce very different parliamentary outcomes depending on where its voters live.

For example, 26 per cent support spread evenly across Victoria would have a different electoral effect from 26 per cent heavily concentrated in a smaller number of electorates.

The survey did not gather sufficient electorate-level data to make such projections.

For that reason, The Australia Today is not using the figures to predict which party will form government.

How the survey was conducted

The survey was conducted between 5 and 28 September 2026.

It received 1,268 completed responses from Australian citizens eligible to vote, aged between 20 and 60 and living in Victoria.

Participants came from households where a language other than English is spoken at home.

Respondents were recruited through The Australia Today’s subscriber database and community networks and were contacted by email and text message.

Answers were submitted through an online link, by text reply, or through a combination of the two methods.

The survey contained only one question — voting intention.

That means there were no policy or leadership questions immediately before the voting question that might have influenced how respondents answered.

Results were not weighted

The results were not weighted.

Weighting is commonly used in political polling to adjust a sample so that characteristics such as age, gender, geography or other demographic factors better reflect the target population.

No such adjustment was made to The Australia Today survey.

That means groups that responded in greater numbers have correspondingly more influence over the overall result.

For example, if one language community, age group or geographic region responded at a higher rate than another, the topline figures would reflect that imbalance.

The Australia Today has therefore chosen not to present the results as representative of every multicultural voter in Victoria.

Why there is no conventional margin of error

A conventional margin of error does not apply to the survey.

Participants were recruited through The Australia Today’s subscriber database and community networks rather than being randomly selected from the entire target population.

This makes it a non-probability survey.

If 1,268 respondents had been selected through a genuine simple random sample, the theoretical maximum margin of sampling error would be around ±2.8 percentage points at the 95 per cent confidence level.

But applying that figure to this survey would give a false impression of statistical precision.

The key source of uncertainty is not simply sample size — it is who chose to participate and whether respondents differ from those who did not.

The results should therefore be described as indicative.

What the survey can — and cannot — tell us

The survey provides a clear picture of how these 1,268 respondents divided when given five choices.

It tells us:

31 per cent selected the Liberal-National Coalition.

26 per cent selected Labor.

26 per cent selected One Nation.

9 per cent selected the Greens.

8 per cent selected an independent candidate.

It does not tell us how undecided voters are leaning because respondents were not allowed to select undecided.

It does not measure support for other minor parties.

It does not tell us why people chose their preferred party.

It does not provide age, language or regional breakdowns.

It does not provide a two-party-preferred estimate.

And it does not predict how many seats any party will win.

Multicultural voters cannot be taken for granted

Despite those limitations, the survey raises an important political question.

Multicultural voters are frequently discussed by political parties as though they form a relatively predictable electoral constituency.

The Australia Today survey suggests a more complicated picture.

Among respondents, the Coalition leads but does not dominate.

Labor is tied with One Nation.

The Greens and independents retain a combined 17 per cent.

And no party receives even one-third of the primary vote.

The result suggests political allegiance among multicultural households may be far less fixed than commonly assumed.

For Labor, the survey raises questions about its ability to retain support in communities it has spent years courting.

For the Coalition, the 31 per cent lead is encouraging, but One Nation sitting only five points behind demonstrates that dissatisfaction with Labor does not automatically translate into Coalition support.

For One Nation, the result shows that its appeal among The Australia Today’s respondents extends into multicultural households in a way that challenges conventional political assumptions.

And for the Greens and independent candidates, the combined 17 per cent suggests there remains a sizeable group looking beyond the three largest political forces in the survey.

With the Victorian election approaching, the central message from The Australia Today survey is therefore not a prediction about who will win.

It is that multicultural voters cannot simply be assumed to belong to one political camp.

Among the 1,268 voters surveyed, Victoria’s political contest looks genuinely three-way: Coalition 31 per cent, Labor 26 per cent and One Nation 26 per cent.

Whether that pattern changes before election day remains unknown.

But within this survey, the era of taking multicultural votes for granted appears increasingly difficult to defend.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post The Australia Today multicultural voter survey: Liberal-National Coalition emerges on top as Labor and One Nation battle for second first appeared on The Australia Today.

Johal, 39, from Dumbarton in Scotland, was released on Thursday, October 1, almost two weeks after the High Court ordered his bail. He was arrested in Punjab in November 2017 while visiting India for his wedding and has remained in custody since then without being convicted in the cases that continue against him.

His release does not amount to an acquittal. Johal remains accused in multiple cases under India’s Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, and will be required to remain in India and comply with an extensive list of bail conditions while the trials continue.

The Delhi High Court granted bail on September 18 after concluding that Johal’s lengthy imprisonment, combined with the slow pace of the prosecutions, raised serious questions about his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

A bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja noted that only 40 prosecution witnesses had been examined while another 123 remained, including about 63 witnesses common to the different cases.

Despite repeated directions from India’s Supreme Court aimed at accelerating proceedings, the High Court said the trials were “certainly not likely to conclude any time soon”.

Johal had already spent more than eight years behind bars when the bail decision was handed down — approaching nine years by the time he was actually released.

The seven cases before the Delhi High Court relate to a series of alleged targeted killings and attempted killings in Punjab during 2016 and 2017.

India’s NIA alleges the attacks were part of a wider conspiracy linked to the banned Khalistan Liberation Force, or KLF.

The prosecution does not allege Johal personally carried out the shootings. Instead, investigators accuse him of acting as a financier and facilitator who helped support members of the alleged conspiracy.

According to the NIA charge sheet cited by the High Court, investigators allege Johal travelled from Britain to France and delivered about £3,000 to KLF-linked figures, with some of that money subsequently used to support the recruitment of an alleged operative involved in the conspiracy. The agency also alleges witnesses linked Johal to the KLF.

Johal has denied the allegations.

The cases include allegations involving murder, criminal conspiracy, terrorism offences and firearms offences. They stem from incidents involving victims associated with right-wing organisations, the Christian community and Dera Sacha Sauda in Punjab.

Johal’s lawyers have consistently argued that the cases against him are unsupported and that his detention became unconstitutional because the proceedings dragged on for years.

The High Court did not determine Johal’s guilt or innocence when granting bail.

Instead, it considered whether he should remain incarcerated while the trials continued, particularly given the extraordinary length of his pre-trial detention.

The court relied partly on Indian Supreme Court precedents holding that even the strict bail restrictions contained in the UAPA cannot completely prevent constitutional courts from intervening when prolonged imprisonment threatens rights protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

At the same time, the bench stressed that delay does not automatically entitle every person accused under the UAPA to bail.

Courts must consider the allegations, evidence, stage of proceedings, reasons for delay, risk of absconding, potential interference with witnesses and whether conditions can adequately protect the integrity of the trial.

For Johal, however, the combination of almost nine years in custody and the number of witnesses still to be examined weighed strongly in favour of release.

The High Court also took into account a significant development from another case.

In March 2025, a court in Moga, Punjab, acquitted Johal and seven other defendants in a separate case involving similar allegations of terror financing.

That acquittal was not challenged by prosecutors and has become final.

The Delhi High Court said the Moga judgment could not determine the cases still before it, because each prosecution must be considered separately. But it found the acquittal had “strong persuasive value” when considering Johal’s bail application because similar allegations had been made against him as a co-conspirator.

Johal had also been granted bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in another NIA case as far back as March 2022, when he had already spent about five years in custody, and the prosecution was proposing to call almost 200 witnesses.

But he remained imprisoned because other cases against him continued.

His lawyer has said a total of 11 cases were registered against Johal — eight investigated by the NIA, two by Punjab Police and one by the Delhi Police Special Cell. Bail had already been obtained in several of them before September’s High Court ruling cleared the remaining cases that were keeping him behind bars.

The NIA strongly opposed his release.

Prosecutors argued that Johal was a foreign national and therefore posed a flight risk. They also raised concerns that witnesses had allegedly received threats and argued his release could prejudice proceedings.

The High Court rejected the proposition that his liberty could continue to be restricted simply because he was British, saying stringent conditions could address the risk of him leaving India.

It also noted that no material had been produced before the bench linking the alleged threats against witnesses directly to Johal or establishing that they had been made at his direction.

Those conditions are nevertheless extensive.

Johal has been ordered to provide a ₹500,000 personal bond and two sureties of the same amount, surrender his passport and remain available to investigators.

He can use only one mobile or landline number during the trial and must keep it switched on.

His address, telephone number and email details must be supplied to investigators and the trial court, and he cannot change his residence or contact details without providing prior written notice.

Johal must appear before the trial court whenever required, unless specifically excused, and report to the investigating officer once every fortnight unless the court later changes that requirement.

He is prohibited from contacting or attempting to influence prosecution witnesses, complainants or others connected with the cases, and cannot tamper with documents, devices or electronic material.

The court has also imposed restrictions on what he can say publicly.

Johal must not make statements to the media or on social media concerning the merits of the cases, the evidence or witnesses.

He has also been ordered not to join WhatsApp groups or social-media platforms where what the court described as “anti-national material” is uploaded or circulated, and cannot distribute such material himself.

Any alleged breach could allow prosecutors to seek cancellation of his bail.

Despite receiving the September 18 bail order, Johal did not immediately leave prison.

He remained in Tihar Jail for another 13 days, leading his lawyers to file a habeas corpus petition seeking his release.

Reports from India say release orders were eventually issued after the Delhi High Court intervened, with Johal walking out of Tihar on October 1.

The delay further intensified criticism from his family and supporters, who have spent years campaigning internationally for his release.

Johal’s brother Gurpreet Singh Johal described finally seeing him outside prison as a moment of relief after repeated disappointments.

“There have been so many setbacks and disappointments in the last nine years that I didn’t dare to believe it until I saw Jagtar walking out of the prison gates with my own eyes,” he said.

But he emphasised that the family does not regard bail as the end of the case and wants Johal ultimately returned to Scotland.

The case has attracted sustained international attention.

The UK Government said after his release that it had repeatedly raised concerns about Johal’s prolonged pre-trial detention and had called for a proper investigation into allegations of mistreatment.

“We are in contact with the family of Jagtar Singh Johal following his release on bail today,” a UK Government spokesperson said.

“Today’s bail is not the end of the process and we will continue to provide consular support to Mr Johal and his family.”

Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney also welcomed the release as a “significant step”, while acknowledging that legal proceedings remained underway.

Johal’s case now enters a very different phase.

For the first time since November 2017, he is no longer behind prison walls.

But he is not free to leave India, is subject to tightly controlled communication and movement, and still faces multiple serious criminal trials.

The Delhi High Court’s decision therefore does not resolve the central allegations that have followed Johal for almost nine years.

Support our Journalism

No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.

The post British national Jagtar Singh Johal released from Indian prison as legal battle continues in terrorism-related cases first appeared on The Australia Today.