Tuesday, January 24, 2017

Why I don't support a national day for Australia

Lisbeth Latham

There is an important discussion currently occurring about the status of “Australia Day” and the date of January 26 – particularly whether the day should simply be abolished or moved to an alternative date. I fully support the idea of there not being a public holiday celebrating Invasion Day. I personally I think that the debate is one that should be decided within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, with the rest of society taking our queue from the resolution of this discussion by those communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have been making powerful arguments explaining the need to abandon January 26 as a celebration – with articles written by Celeste Liddle and Amy McQuire being examples. However as some white groups and publications, such as New Matilda having argued for changing the date of Australia-- I will add my views as to why I think having a national day in Australia is problematic.

Obviously holding a celebration of Australia on the date that the ongoing dispossession and genocide against the First Nations people began, is seriously problematic and the celebration of that date needs to stop. My concern is that simply changing the date does not and will not fundamentally change the character of Australia Day. The idea of a national day - celebrating the nation- while fraught in any context is particularly so in the context of an imperialist colonial settler state such as Australia. To say moving the date will somehow change the character of the day, ignores that invasion and dispossession did not start and stop on January 26, 1788.

Some advocates of the date being shifted have noted that the day has not always been held on January 26. There have been other “Australia Days” held on May 24 and July 30 while other days have also been raised such as April 29. May 24, marked an attempt by Irish Catholics to subvert Empire Day held on Queen Victoria’s Birthday, while July 30 was used during the First World War to collect money for the war effort. April 29, was suggested by some members of the Australian Natives Association (a White Nativist organisation that had been central to the Federation project and subsequently to the institutionalisation of Australia Day) as an alternative day to January 26 (describing the date as a bad start). April 29 was the anniversary of Cook’s landing at Ka-may (Botany Bay).

Changing the date also doesn’t address the reality that Australia already has other public holidays to celebrate its imperialist and colonialist character such as ANZAC Day, which is a date that has been proposed as an alternative date for Australia Day, and the various state-based celebrations of invasion like Foundation day in WA. While ANZAC Day has changed in character over time, in my lifetime it has become even more of a celebration of war and imperialism, but it has always been an imperialist project – it was created as way to combat the widespread anti-war sentiment that existed in Australia after the First World War, particularly amongst returning service personnel.

All of these alternative dates were still celebrations of “White Australia” - and this goes to the question of what does "Australia Day" celebrate? I would argue it celebrates a project which fundamentally racist to its core and premised on the dispossession of the First Nations Peoples and a generally narrow definition of who or what is Australian (a definition which has expanded over the years but remains a basis for exclusion). Irrespective of the date you pick an Australian National Day will be a day that lends itself to jingoism, racism and attempts to erase the dispossession and genocide experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples whilst simultaneously marginalising these communities.


Friday, September 23, 2016

France: Thousands protest against regressive labour laws

Lisbeth Latham

More than 170,000 workers and students joined more than 110 protests across France on September 15 against new labour laws that dramatically deregulate France’s labour code.

The protests, called by four of France’s union confederations and three national student groups, continued the campaign of mobilisations against the anti-worker laws that began in March. They were the first mass protests since the laws were enacted in August.

Angering opponents of the laws, the government of Prime Minister Manuel Valls forced the bill through parliament in July without a vote, invoking the undemocratic clause 49.3 of the French Constitution. 

The new laws provide for a wide range of changes to working conditions and a significant weakening of the authority of unions in the workplace. Some of the most significant include greater ability for companies to increase working hours beyond the standard 35-hour week while cutting overtime rates.
Other changes make it easier for companies to sack workers and terminate collective agreements. The laws make it harder for unions to veto collective agreements.

As well as opposing the new laws, the General Confederation of Labour (CGT, France’s largest union confederation) has raised extra demands. The CGT is calling for cutting the working week to 32-hours to combat mass unemployment; restoring the retirement age to 60 and raising the minimum wage to €1800, up from €1466.

The September 15 protests mark a clear decline in the movement against the laws, which peaked with mobilisations of more than 1 million people on March 31 and July 14. The drop in size of the protests is linked to a sense of defeat now that the laws have passed, even though polls show about 70% of the population oppose the laws. Another factor is the growing levels of police repression against protests.

The September 15 demonstrations were met with large numbers of riot police, and the use of tear gas and other crowd control weapons. The most serious violence occurred in Paris, where Laurent Theron, an activist with the hospital federation of the militant Solidaires union, was hit in the face by a grenade and blinded in one eye.

In a statement, Solidaires said: “We strongly denounce the disproportionate use of sting ball grenades, tear gas and flash ball launchers that have left hundreds injured, sometimes very seriously. The General Inspectorate of the National Police has received complaints regarding many cases, especially by activists of Solidaires injured while they were demonstrating peacefully.

“To date, no sanction has been imposed and the main responsibility for this situation, the interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve, is still in office”.

No new mobilisations have been called in the campaign, but the CGT is refusing to concede defeat. In a September 15 statement, the CGT stated that, like the laws aimed at young workers passed in 2006 but which were defeated shortly after they were passed, “nothing is set in stone. What has been passed can be annulled.”

However, the campaign is expected to shift into a new phase of legal challenges to the laws’ implementation. Mobilisations of workers in local enterprises are also expected, with the aim of using these struggles to give the movement new impetus.

This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly issue 1112


Friday, August 26, 2016

Victorian gender recognition legislation an important step for equality

Lisbeth Latham

The Victorian government announced new legislation on August 18 aimed at simplifying the process for trans and gender diverse (TGD) people's to change the sex marker on their birth certificates and records. This has rightfully been welcomed as an important step forward for TGD people rights.
The new legislation, which follows similar legislation in the ACT and 2013 changes to policies regarding sex markers on Commonwealth documents, is a start towards eliminating medical gatekeeping on the lives of TGD people.

The Victorian government announced new legislation on August 18 aimed at simplifying the process for trans and gender diverse (TGD) people's to change the sex marker on their birth certificates and records. This has rightfully been welcomed as an important step forward for TGD people rights.
The new legislation, which follows similar legislation in the ACT and 2013 changes to policies regarding sex markers on Commonwealth documents, is a start towards eliminating medical gatekeeping on the lives of TGD people.

However, significant steps remain in overcoming all of the formal legal and medical barriers that confront TGD people.

The new changes will remove two key barriers that have been a feature of gender recognition processes. With the exception of those living in the ACT, individuals seeking to change their sex marker have been required to undertake at least some form of gender reassignment surgery (GRS), and all states and territories require that individuals not be married.

The requirement for individuals to undergo GRS is a significant barrier to many TGD people having their affirmed gender recognised on their birth certificates, both because surgery is very expensive and because many TGD people do not desire to undergo surgery as part of their affirmation of gender.
The need to be single — which is aimed at ensuring that there are no marriages of people of the same sex — has meant that TGD individuals who are married have been forced to divorce to change their gender marker.

The Victorian government is arguing that its proposed change to the marriage requirement does not bring the legislation into conflict with the federal Marriage Act, which stipulates that marriages are between a man and a woman, because this requirement applies only at the time the marriage takes place and not subsequent to the marriage.

The proposed Victorian legislation, like the 2014 ACT legislation, allows TGD people to change their sex marker. The ACT legislation also provided for the introduction of a third sex marker on birth certificates of “X” for “intersex, unspecified, or indeterminate”.

In 2013, the federal government changed its policies for people wishing to amend their sex marker on their passports and with other commonwealth agencies such as Medicare and the Australian Tax Office. The changes removed the need for an individual to have undergone GRS and introduced a sex not specified “X” category.

With both the ACT and federal processes, applications need to be accompanied by a statement from a clinician that the patient is “receiving appropriate treatment or as being intersex”, which acts to pathologise TGD and intersex experiences. It also means that medical practitioners remain as gatekeepers on the lives of TGD people. The requirement for a TGD person's decision to be supported by a medical practitioner is absent from proposed Victorian legislation.

The only role for medical practitioners in the Victorian legislation is to certify that a minor wishing to change their marker is able to make an informed decision and that it is, in the medical practitioner's view, in the minor's interests to make the change. For those over the age of 16, it is assumed that they can make a decision for themselves.

An additional feature of the Victorian legislation is that it will enable individuals to have their birth certificates state that they are non-binary or list an alternative descriptor, with the only limitation being that the descriptor cannot be deemed to be offensive. This change is important as it allows a recognition of sexes and genders outside of the male-female/man-woman binary and reflects an individuals' actual identity.

The proposed Victorian legislation is important to the lives of TGD people, particularly trans women. Although trans people are protected by the Victorian Equal Opportunities Act from transphobic discrimination, under the Act and similar legislation across Australia, you cannot require a person to treat you as your affirmed gender unless your birth certificate states that it is your gender.

There are several circumstances under these acts where it is lawful to exclude individuals who are not of a specific gender, such as access to toilets, and the ability to play in sporting codes based on your affirmed gender or take up a position that is designated based on a specific gender. While this situation does not mean that organisations and companies have to discriminate in these circumstances, it does mean that they can lawfully do so.

While these changes represent significant advances in allowing TGD individuals the ability to determine their own lives, there are significant steps that need to be taken around the formal rights of transgender people.

Beyond pushing for all states and territories to adopt legislation similar to the proposed Victorian legislation, there is a continued need to decrease the gatekeeper role of doctors in determining if and when a TGD person can access medical technology to assist their gender affirmation.

Provision of hormones and other medical technology in Australia is guided by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care, which operates within a framework that pathologises TGD lives and ties access to medically-assisting affirmation technologies, such as hormones and surgery, to TGD people meeting doctors' expectations of what it is to be a particular gender.

TGD advocate organisations argue for an alternative model based on informed consent where individuals are able to access the medical technology they feel is appropriate to them, based on being informed of the possible impacts of that technology and consenting to use the technology based on them.

This model is at the centre of Argentina's 2012 Gender Identity Law which states “all persons older than eighteen (18) years ... will be able to access total and partial surgical interventions and/or comprehensive hormonal treatments to adjust their bodies, including their genitalia, to their self-perceived gender identity, without requiring any judicial or administrative authorisation”. This law also makes access to these technologies part of a Compulsory Medical Plan that covers all workers in formal employment.

An additional change that also needs to be made is ending the requirement for families of TGD children who wish to access Stage Two Hormones (the hormones associated with their affirmed gender) having to go to the Family Court to demonstrate that the child is able to give informed consent, a process which is both potentially traumatic and very expensive. Australia is the only jurisdiction in the world that has such a legal requirement.

There is still a long way to go to eliminate the legal and medical barriers that confront TGD people in Australia, and even more to addressing the high levels of social stigma and discrimination faced by TGD people.

However, the proposed changes in Victoria reflect the significant and rapid advances that are being made in Australia to make it easier and safer for TGD people to live their authentic lives.
This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1108

Sexist burkini ban based on Islamophobia, not secularism

Lisbeth Latham

Since the announcement of an ordinance banning the wearing of burkinis on the beaches of the French Mediterranean city of Cannes in late July, France has been swept up in a new wave of Islamophobia.

A further 17 municipalities have announced their own ordinances banning the burkini — the full-body swimsuit worn by some Islamic women. These bans have been endorsed not only by France's far right, but by the Socialist Party Prime Minister Manuel Valls.

On August 27, France's highest administrative court suspended the bans after they were challenged by rights groups. However, the ruling still gives local authorities the ability to impose the bans if they can show a “proven risk” to public order. Those supporting the bans have sought to justify them in terms of defending women's rights, France's secular society and social order. But in reality, they are sexist and anti-secular — and promote the further marginalisation of France's Islamic community. The July 28 ordinance in Cannes prohibiting the burkini states: “Access to beaches and swimming in Cannes is prohibited … until August 31, to any person not properly dressed, in a way which is respectful of morality and secularism and that respects the rules for hygienic and safe swimming.” David Lisnard, Cannes's Mayor and a member of Nicolas Sarkozy's right-wing Les Republicains party, has defended the city's ordinance on the basis that only radicals would be upset by it. Lisnard described the burkini as “the uniform of extremist Islamism, not of the Muslim religion”. Lisnard has also argued that the ordinance is needed to maintain public order against a background of terror threats. But Lisnard's argument only makes sense if you accept the motivations that he projects onto women who choose to wear a burkini. France's Human Rights League and the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, on the other hand, have challenged the bans as an illegal restriction on the religious rights of individuals. However, the Nice administrative tribunal's ruling, that upheld the ban in Nice, said: “The state of emergency context and recent Islamist attacks in particular in Nice … wearing a distinctive dress, other than a usual swimwear, can indeed be interpreted as not being, in this context, a simple sign of religiosity.” Supporting the bans, Valls said the burkini represents “the enslavement of women” and reflects an “archaic vision” of feminine modesty “not compatible with the values of France”. Valls also endorsed the idea that banning the wearing of burkinis could contribute to public safety by saying “in the face of provocation, the nation must defend itself”. Although Valls has avoided supporting the idea of a France-wide ban of the burkini, this should not be seen as opposition on Valls's part to France-wide attempts at controlling the clothes of Muslim women. In April, he publicly called for a ban on wearing hijabs at France's universities. The bans on burkinis are not the first time that women's rights have been mobilised in France to justify bans on the clothes of Muslim women. Similar arguments were made in support of the 2004 law on secularism and conspicuous religious symbols in public schools, which banned the wearing of hijabs in public schools. There was also controversy in 2010 around the decision by the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) to stand Ilham Mousaid, a member of the far-left party who chose to wear a hijab, as a candidate in regional elections, and to support the 2010 law banning the wearing of face coverings in public. This was effectively a ban on the niqab, although popularly referred to as the burqa ban. This mobilisation of public concern over the rights of women is problematic on a number of levels. First, as University of Toulouse academic Rim-Sarah Aloune suggests, it creates the idea that the struggle of women over the right to choose how they dress only operates to reduce the amount of clothing that women are required to wear. But, as Aloune says, “women's rights imply the right for a woman to cover up”. Indeed, women workers in a number of Western countries have struggled to desexualise the clothes they have been required to wear — for example, in the airline industry. Secondly, it creates a false dichotomy between “archaic” and “misogynistic” Islamic cultures and “progressive” Western cultures. This dichotomy ignores the sexism that exists in Western societies. Finally, these bans in the name of protecting the rights of Muslim women in France have all worked to exclude Muslim women from French social life — whether it is from schools; standing for election to public office; going out in public or swimming at the beach. This alone demonstrates the thoroughly sexist character and effect of such bans. Defence of France's secular society may seem an easy argument to support bans against “religious clothing” but it isn't. This is particularly the case with efforts to justify bans on the burkini — its advocates and defenders are also arguing that the burkini is not religious dress. This sleight of hand is primarily aimed to cover the idea that the bans are themselves Islamophobic. However, arguments justifying attacks on Muslims in the name of defending secularism (which are not limited to France) are clearly hypocritical. They are overwhelming concerned with the actions of marginalised Muslims, with little concern over the influence of Christianity on Western states. But they also reflect an extremely one-sided understanding of secularism. Secularism is not simply a question of religion not influencing the state. Secularism is also about freedom for people to practice their religions without interference from the state. Part of the problem with the debates around the clothes of Muslim women in France is that decisions by individual Muslims regarding the clothes that they choose to wear is perceived as being influenced by religion in a way that clothing decisions — and other actions — by non-Muslims are not. This results in Muslims, particularly Muslim women, being seen as having less agency in their actions, particularly their choice of dress. It results in the most mundane actions being perceived as being religious when performed by Muslim women. An example of this can be seen with the 2004 ban on hijabs in public schools. In response to this ban, some Muslim students began wearing bandanas — which other people in French society also wore. In some schools, the wearing of bandanas by Muslim girls was then policed by schools and if a bandana was deemed “too modest” then the wearer was liable to be excluded from school. This position was upheld by the French Council of State — France's highest court — in 2006 on the basis that the bandana was deemed by the court to have been worn for a religious reason. The wave of bans against the burkini is also motivated on the basis of promoting “public order”. Instead, it will achieve the opposite. As NPA member Ugo Paleta points out, linking the wearing of particular clothes associated with Muslims, such as the burkini, with support for terrorism creates an image of all Muslims as potential threats to French society. It works to strengthen the discourse within France regarding the alleged “incompatibility of Islam with the French Republic”. The effect is that Muslims come to be seen as a “foreign body” within French society. This language serves to not only justify the draconian actions of French police in fining and excluding Muslim women from the beach for wearing burkinis and other covering clothing. It also legitimises the rising levels of Islamophobic violence against France's Islamic community — and places responsibility for this violence at the feet of the community rather with the perpetrators of that violence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was originally published in Green Left Weekly #1108


Wednesday, May 11, 2016

France: "Employment" Bill - After the government coup, the inter-union coordiation call for the amplification of mobilisations

Wednesday, May 11, 2016
CGT, FO, FSU, Solidaires, UNEF, UNL, FIDL call workers, youth, and students to strikes and demonstrations on May 17 and 19.

Draft Employment Law: Amplify the mobilization against the denial of democracy! Communique of the inter-union coordination.

While wage earners, young people, private sector employees, and retirees mobilised for more than two months for the withdrawal of the labor bill and to obtain new rights, and while public opinion remains overwhelmingly opposed to the text of the bill, the government decided to force it through using Clause 49.3[1]. Unacceptable!

These mobilisations forced the government to propose amendments[2] to the bill that would minimise its impacts. But this is not enough!

A labour code for business which undermines the "hierarchy of norms" which provides protection and equality, endures in the bill. Scandalous!

Several professional sectors continue to develop actions and strikes (railway, road transport, energy, chemicals, construction, Paris airport, etc.), which are supported by dynamic elements in pursuit of amplifying and expanding the balance of forces.

This reinforces the need to amplify the mobilisations already planned throughout the country for May 12.

From all this, the trade unions CGT, FO, FSU, Solidaires and youth organisations, UNEF, UNL and FIDL invite their structures to hold general meetings with the wage earners to discuss the forms of actions and strikes and for their renewal.

They call their organisations to build two new days of strikes and demonstrations for Tuesday, May 17 and Thursday, 19 May.

In addition, they do not depart from any initiatives for the coming weeks, including a national demonstration.

To assert their proposals they decide to go together to the President of the Republic to be received urgently.

A new meeting of trade unions will be held early next week to decide on new mobilisations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Refers to Article 49-3 of the French Constitution, "commitment of responsibility" it allows the government to pass a bill without a vote unless a vote of no confidence is successful against the government with 48 hours of bill being pushed through.
2 More than 5000 amendments were made to the bill when it was introduced into parliament, the text of the bill had also undergone significant changes during the process of it being accepted by the council of ministers - these changes had been aimed at splitting more conservative forces away from the more militant unions and to undermine mobilisations.


Monday, May 9, 2016

France: Facing the provocations of a beleaguered government, continue for the withdrawal of the El Khomri law

Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste
Originally published May 3, 2016

The parliamentary debate on the law began Tuesday, May 3 with 5000 amendments were tabled, which will require either a long negotiation, or for the government to impose its will by the using Article 49-3[1].The media say that the government short 40 votes it needs to pass its legislation. Hollande and Valls are very low in the polls. All this shows the political weakness of the government.

Violence is on the government side and the police
We understand better, then, why they use large-scale violence to try to stop the movement. On April 28, as on May 1, it was Cazeneuve[2] and Valls and who were responsible for violence that took place on the sidelines of events. It is the behavior of the prefects and police who provoked the violence. Who instructs the CRS[3] to be permanently in contact with the protesters? Who sends in plain clothes police, causing the disruption in the demonstrations? The Minister of the Interior obviously. Fifty students were even summoned by the Police and put in custody in the Department 92 [4] on Monday, May 2!

The right and the extreme right go even further, claiming the ban on demonstrations and the standing night. The FN prime demand is the for dissolution of groups of the "extreme left."

All these people, defenders of the rich, Medef [France's largest employer organisation], and the banks are afraid. They see that the movement that has risen rejects their unjust and inhuman system where a privileged few get rich without limits at the expense of the majority of the population.

Legitimacy is on our side
They fear, provoke and repress because they know full well that their policy does not serve the interests of the people but the banks and multinationals. They know their stories of recovery, it's phony: unemployment is not declining, while the number of unemployment benefit recipients fell but the number experiencing precarity increased!

They know that if "it gets better" as claimed by Hollande, it is only for profits and paychecks but not for employees, not for young people.

That is why their policy of intimidation should not set us back quite the contrary. We are in process of demonstrating to the government, right, and FN that legitimacy of the demands of the movement is complete. Yes, we must impose the withdrawal of the El Khomri law must begin to impose another power struggle.

If we come together, we will have the strength to win
To achieve victory, it is necessary that all employees stop working at the same time, for not one but for several days, stopping the country and production! This would show that the power of all the wealthy comes only from our work! Let us ensure the changing of which camp is confident!

This is what passes through the minds of many employees, of all those who mobilized against the closure of their business against layoffs or against job cuts in the public service. Often we fought isolated from each other and often we have experienced losses. Today we finally see the opportunity to join forces and bring a halt to the government and employers.

We know that to force the government to cede, we can not content ourselves to isolated strike days.We need to build a global movement that paralyzes the economy, a general strike.

The railway workers, nor all workers and young people have not said their last word. We can win, confident in our own strength.

Employees, youth, private sector employees and pensioners, together!
1 Refers to Article 49-3 of the French Constitution, "commitment of responsibility" it allows the government to pass a bill without a vote unless a vote of no confidence is successful against the government with 48 hours of bill being pushed through.
2 Bernard Cazeneuve is the current French Minister of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior is responsible for internal security within France including the French National Police and the French Gendarmerie.
3 Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (Republican Security Companies) are the riot control force of the French police.
4 France's Department 92, of Hauts-de-Seine covering the Western inner suburbs of Paris. Fortyseven students involved in protests were summoned questioning with 13 taken into custody over a blocade of a high school being set on fire and damaging the school.


Friday, April 8, 2016

France: Call of the National Student Coordination of mobilised students

April 3 2016
Originally published by Solidaires

We, students are mobilized against the labour law, national student coordination meeting, mandated by 70 universities and higher education institutions, call for total withdrawal and without negotiation of the labour bill. The day of March 31 was a great success throughout France: nearly 1.2 million people showed their anger at and rejection of this anti-social act. For three weeks now, there are hundreds of thousands of university students with high school students, wage earners and unemployed that are mobilising despite the vain attempts of the state to divide and suppress the movement. Today, while Manuel Valls opts for negotiation with some trade union organizations, we reaffirm that this movement is self-organizing in General Meetings and in Coordination: only the movement can represent himself.

This law is a continuity of pro-management policies implemented by successive governments. It aims to facilitate redundancies, increase working time, and reduce the rights of workers. Only total withdrawal is an acceptable outcome faced with the widespread insecurity provided by this bill.

The government is afraid of this movement that is growing and is trying by all means to silence. Police repression and administrative penalties are unacceptable: on March 31 alone, there were more than 100 arrests and dozens of wounded. We will conduct a campaign against police violence, we will not back down, and we will not stop.

On 5 April we will be back on the street. We call on that date all the wage earners and their unions to build with us the indefinite general strike. To roll back government, an overall movement of university students, high school student, private sector employers and workers will be essential. To build this convergence of struggles, we call for intensifying the rhythm of mobilisation: April 9, we will be on the streets across France alongside wage earners. And in the following weeks, we will continue the movement on 12th, 14th and 20th of April. These dates should be a fulcrum to move towards a renewable strike. To make this prospect a reality, we call on all students to connect with workers and group together in interprofessional meetings.

The government relies on holiday to weaken the student mobilization: on the contrary, we will use this period to strengthen the mobilization and diversify e.g. by intervening in the occupation of places like the approach of the Nuit Debout (Standing Night). With the exams approaching, we demand that universities take steps to not impede the continued mobilization, including postponing the exams.
We are determined and we will fight to the finish to achieve:

  • the total withdrawal, without negotiation, of the Labour Law
  • redistribution and reduction of working time
  • an immediate end to police repression and prosecutions as well as the immediate lifting of the state of emergency


About This Blog

Revitalising Labour attempts to reflect on efforts to rebuild the labour movement internationally, emphasising the role that left-wing political currents can play in this process. It welcomes contributions on union struggles, internal renewal processes within the labour movement and the struggle against capitalism and imperialism.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP  

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Australia License.