The Silent Truth

By Roger Chao The Silent Truth In the tumult of a raging battle, beneath…

Nuclear Energy: A Layperson's Dilemma

In 2013, I wrote a piece titled, "Climate Change: A layperson's Dilemma"…

The Australian Defence Formula: Spend! Spend! Spend!

The skin toasted Australian Minister of Defence, Richard Marles, who resembles, with…

Religious violence

By Bert Hetebry Having worked for many years with a diverse number of…

Can you afford to travel to work?

UNSW Media Release Australia’s rising cost of living is squeezing household budgets, and…

A Ghost in the Machine

By James Moore The only feature not mentioned was drool. On his second day…

Faulty Assurances: The Judicial Torture of Assange Continues

Only this month, the near comatose US President, Joe Biden, made a…

Spiderwoman finally leaving town

By Frances Goold Louise Bourgeois: Has the Day Invaded the Night or Has…

«
»
Facebook

John has a strong interest in politics, especially the workings of a progressive democracy, together with social justice and the common good. He holds a Diploma in Fine Arts and enjoys portraiture, composing music, and writing poetry and short stories. He is also a keen amateur actor. Before retirement John ran his own advertising marketing business.

Is it fair to call Scott Morrison a racist? Here’s the evidence?

How much more proof does one need to advance the proposition that we have a racist government?

Moreover, its leader carries the tag of Christian more as a convenience than a truth.

The problem with that premise is that despite all the criticism of Morrison wearing his faith on his sleeve, he shows no inclination for using any Christian ethics in his decision-making.

I’m speaking of real Christian ethics like love, compassion, devotion, morality, sacrifice, loyalty, openness, truth, support, work, and human equality. Any separation of church and state doesn’t eliminate these words.

These are words or concepts that even non-Christians practice. Why are they absent from Morrison’s world view?

In many respects, he prosecutes a strange sort of separation of church and state. He practices all these things in his faith but not in his politics. Does that not seem rather odd?

It seems irrational to me. A practice dumber than dumb that invites its own dangerous problems.

I think what atheists find most offensive with religion is not only that they reject theist belief, but also the injustice, immorality and hypocrisy that often comes with it.

In 2015 The AIMN published Arise Scott Morrison, Lord Sixwords of Cronulla!, an in-depth series that examined the ‘real’ Scott Morrison. I offer this quote from Part 1 of the series:

“In December 2010, 48 asylum seekers died while attempting to reach Christmas Island by boat. Morrison’s attitude to the event was bitterly criticised by both the government and his own party for comments he uttered after the tragedy.

On February 15 2011, the then Shadow Immigration Minister questioned the decision of the Gillard Government to pay for relatives of the dead to attend funerals in Sydney.

Afterwards, fellow Liberal and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey denounced Morrison’s statements, saying that that he would “never seek to deny a parent or a child from saying goodbye to their relative.” Morrison acknowledged that the timing of his comments might have been insensitive but did not recoil from the comments themselves.

“Do you think you run the risk of being seen as heartless on the day of these funerals to be saying – to be bickering over this money?” asked ABC reporter Barbara Miller, whose report that morning was broadcast on the programme AM.

Here is what Morrison replied: “When it comes to the question of do I think this is a reasonable cost, then my honest answer is, ‘No, I don’t think it is reasonable.'”

The Fairfax press published a column which called him a “cheap populist”, with the outburst “harmful to the national interest”.

Caught unawares and always prone to equivocation, the Leader of the Opposition gave the remarks a lukewarm endorsement during the course of an interview with a notoriously Right-wing radio station. He said: “It does seem a bit unusual that the government is flying people to funerals.” Morrison’s comments were met with condemnation from former Liberal leaders.

One called the comments “inhumane”. Another expressed his hope that “Scott Morrison is just a fringe element in the party.

Herein lays my quandary. On reading the preceding words, you could not be blamed for thinking that the person must be a racist of sorts, as Morrison’s comments were directed at a particular cohort of people.

When he gives a directive to another group, who are citizens of Australia, that they cannot return home under threat of jail, one might be excused for thinking that this is also racism.

Thus far, we might at least conclude that our Prime Minister isn’t favourable to brown-skinned people.

Before going further, let’s examine just what racism is:

  1. The belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate the others.
  2. Offensive or aggressive behaviour to members of another race stemming from such a belief.
  3. A policy or system of government and society based upon it.

In the situation with Indian Australians, as mentioned earlier, is Morrison – in denouncing the costs of Australia paying for the funerals of those who lost their lives in such a tragedy – just playing politics or was he race-baiting.

Lenore Taylor, in The Sydney Morning Herald back in February 2011 delivered an opinion that suggests Morrison back then – seizing Coalition sentiment – saw vote-winning in racist strategies:

“The opposition immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, urged the shadow cabinet to capitalise on the electorate’s growing concerns about “Muslim immigration”, “Muslims in Australia” and the “inability” of Muslim migrants to integrate… But after Mr Morrison’s comments this week on the cost of asylum-seeker funerals and his role in the controversial decision to cut a Howard government program to fund schools in Indonesia, colleagues are privately questioning whether he is trying to pursue an anti-Muslim political strategy unilaterally.”

On his website at the time, Mr Morrison, a member of the Assemblies of God Pentecostal Church, wrote; “My Christian faith remains the driving force for my family, beliefs and values.”

It was indeed a time when the conservatives in opposition and government tried to extract a view of Muslims with cynical manipulation driven only by race. Take the Cronulla Riots of which Alan Jones was found to have egged-on anti-Middle Eastern sentiment, or when Tony Abbott was delivering his own form of prejudice in an essentially racist manner.

A decade ago Kevin Dunn, professor of geography and urban studies at the University of Western Sydney, published a study on racism in Australia. In it, he wrote:

“Research has shown convincingly that geopolitical events, political events and political statements don’t affect Australian attitudes on race very quickly, but they do affect behaviour. People holding a grudge or who are just ill-informed; or acting on the sins of the father will feel empowered to act on them. They feel more empowered to act on them.” Racist abuse and discrimination follow.

Words and how you use them carry profound national responsibility (think about our current diplomacy with China).

Before addressing India, let’s examine Morrison’s statement that “there was no slavery in Australia.”

 

 

The government led by Morrison loudly condemned the Black Lives Matter protest marches while at the same time completely ignoring the reasons that make people protest.

It also ignored the written history of slavery that our First Nations People experienced. His flippancy when defending his comment was that of a man either playing the race card or one who is entirely ill-informed. I must, in my writing, dismiss the latter.

Aboriginals worked for years on cattle stations for no wages. If that isn’t slavery, then I don’t know what is. People responded by posting historic photographs of our First Nations Peoples in chains on social media.

“It was a pretty brutal place, but there was no slavery in Australia… While some bad things have happened in our past, we have apologised land moved on,” said the Prime Minister.

When I first read it, I was taken by the stench of its blatant racism given that we would jail Australian citizens in India from returning to Australia.

For me, it is obviously racism born of an inability to comprehend that many of our people were born overseas, or are of second or third generation. That when politicians leave us alone, we get on reasonably well together.

This seems to be married to the recent scare about terrorism in Australia rated as a likely event. Why they seem intent on these major scare campaigns is beyond me. I guess it’s because they work. Unfortunately, the answer to this is because they work.

Undeterred by public opinion, Morrison has fended off criticism by his most prominent allies, who said it “stinks of racism.” Among these were arch conservative Andrew Bolt, who has been found guilty of racism himself.

Morrison later said that it was:

“… highly unlikely that Australians who flouted the ban would be jailed. I think the likelihood of any of that occurring is pretty much zero.”

This, of course, raised the question of why the threat of jail in the first place.

Within the next twelve months, Morrison and his government face an election. They will do so with a few fewer votes from the Indian community, and rightly so.

Now we are confronted with yet more odious loathing. This time it is directed at those from India. It doesn’t matter what their country of origin if they are Muslim, they will suffer the entire thrust of minorities xenophobia. Just as 99 per cent of Muslims want peace, so do 99 per cent of Australians.

We have a long history of finding fault with things we don’t understand. At various times we have blamed communists, Jews, women, the devil, Indigenous people and witches, even God for all manner of things.

I have been privy to the ignorance that history has recorded on these matters. I am angry with Pauline Hanson, Peter Dutton and our Prime Minister who would seek to deny Australia of others who desire to pursue their personal freedom and the opportunity to give themselves to the advancement of this great nation.

When I sit on the platform at Flinders Street Station and watch the passing parade of ethnicity, I can only admire a country I could never envisage from the same seat in the 1950s.

My thought for the day

Why does western art always depict Jesus as white when as a middle eastern Jew he would have been brown-skinned.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

What would you know anyhow?

1 Have you ever been reluctantly drawn into one of those political discussions that just seem to flare up randomly in the office, on the train home, during a dinner party or at half time at the footy or the local pub? You know, the sort that takes you by surprise.

After many years of experience, I learned that by giving them five minutes of listening time, which ones were worth engaging in and those that weren’t worth the pain. The ones that usually end with a loud. “What would you know anyhow?”

My observation of these matters taught me that it’s usually good when temper flares to put some space between it and my common sense. Presenting facts to people who have reasoned by virtue of their feelings that they are right is totally futile.

You see, experience also told me that people often argue from within the limitations of their understanding. When their factual evidence is scant, they revert to an expression of their feelings. Or, more often than not, opinions are based on our values rather than our understanding, and the difficulty is separating the two.

Sometimes I would – if the protagonists were just too much to bear – spend enough time trying to convince them of the point I was making, before saying my goodbyes.

I never said it arrogantly. Unfortunately, I found that less informed folk usually outnumber the more politically aware. Therefore, conservatives feed them all the bullshit they need, and the menu generally contains a fair portion of untruths. No, we are not a nation interested in how we are governed and it never ceases to amaze me just how little people know.

Perhaps a greater understanding of what I am saying might be obtained by exercising a greater willingness to think more deeply.

A good example was when Julia Gillard made her “There will never be a carbon tax under a government that I lead” statement on August 16, 2010. Then when the inference of a lie was growing, she said on August 20, “I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism. I rule out a carbon tax.”

Trying to explain to people that the clarifying statement negates the first one is almost impossible in politics.

I have learnt in the longevity of my existence that if I had a point of view, that I should feel free to express it. And if I did so with civility, my point of view would be laced with a degree of dignity. I still apply that principle today.

When people like Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt write or voice their opinions outrageously – based, so it seems, on ‘payment for controversy’ – they pick up on a statement like that of Gillard’s and run with it. You know that’s the end of the argument. They saturate the news media and other viewpoints aren’t heard.

Sometimes I allow myself the indulgence of thinking I know a lot. Then I realise that in the totality of things, I know little.

One thing I am sure of, however, is that there are known facts in the world because facts and science prove them so.

You see, a debate is not of necessity about winning or taking down one’s opponent. It is an exchange of facts, ideas and principles. Or in its purest form, it is simply the art of persuasion.

So millions of YouTube subscribers watch the first video (the edited one) and conclude that Gillard lied. The Murdoch media pushes the shit out out of it, and it sticks.

Julia Gillard was vilified for what was perceived as a lie about the carbon tax. Tony Abbott told lies outrageously, and survivors of his ministry are still pumping them out today.

The three categories of political lies that l identify with most are gross exaggeration, omission, and falsehood.

The first may be when a party grossly over exaggerates its performance, the second is when they deliberately leave things out, like saying we have lowered our emissions when they have only done so by using credits issued at the first Kyoto. Thirdly there is the blatant lie.

Now I constantly ask myself if we have reached a point in politics where truth is something that politicians have persuaded us to believe, like ‘alternative facts’ rather than truth based on factual evidence and arguments.

I am also convinced conservatives believe that the effect of lying diminishes over time and forget that they leave behind a residue of broken trust.

Over the years l have written much about lying and still see it as a stain on the profession. If politics is to be cleaned up, it is firstly by eliminating lying as a political tool.

2 On a lighter note, Mike Carlton was as totally upset (NOT) as I upon hearing the news that George Christensen was leaving politics:

 

 

While Peter van Onselen noted that there was something smelly about this:

 

 

3 The usual approach by this government is to promise outcomes without the government accepting responsibility for any action to achieve that outcome. Nothing new there.

4 The PM tells us that what the country needs right now is the church. Good lord!

5 Not sure about Morrison’s laying on of hands stuff. It didn’t do much for Malcolm.

6 Of our ten most recent prime ministers, only Morrison was not politically active in his or her youth. Hawke joined Labor at 18. Keating at 15 or 16. Rudd at 15. Howard was involved in the Liberal Party in his early twenties, as was Fraser. Gillard was in student politics.

7 New fighter planes and submarines. Are we under threat? Who would want to invade us? We can hardly harvest enough water for our own thirst, let alone a significantly increased population.

8 The Coalition ride a wave of popularity and portrays itself as an election-winning powerhouse. It is not. It is highly dysfunctional with very average politicians. But lying is a very potent tool, and it comes in many forms. They are revealed in the sorts of situations l mentioned earlier.

9 It is the young who have a manifestly different view of the future and know that the time has come for change, not just to clean up the environment but also to rid the parliament of corruption. Where to start? Well, start with a Royal Commission into every aspect of the Murray Darling Basin Plan. Instigate a National ICAC with teeth and the power to conduct retrospective inquiries.

10 We must have the courage to ask our young that they should go beyond desire and aspiration and accomplish not the trivial but greatness. They should not allow the morality they inherited from good folk to be corrupted by the immorality of evil minds.

11 The drums of war are also drumming up a scare campaign for the next election. This is just the prelude.

12 Two more deaths in custody, now totalling 7 in the past few weeks. Is anyone in the government interested?

13 Criminalizing Australian citizens for wanting to return home is a disgusting thing to do, and the way the Prime Minister is so flippantly treating the decision is equally so.

I agree with Malcolm Turnbull that Australian citizens must be repatriated and quarantined at Howard Springs or elsewhere.

14 Distant threats of war with China and Peter Dutton as Minister for Defence. What could possibly go wrong?

My thought for the day.

What would l know anyhow?

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Allow me to fill you in on how Scott Morrison sees himself as our prime minister

I finished my last piece with this quote and begin this one by repeating it.

“Power must be malevolent possession when you are prepared to forgo the principles of a secular government and your country’s well-being for the sake of a theocracy.”

What is meant by a secular government?

It could be as simple as where religion and politics are separate. Where:

“Religion is not removed from the public sphere; rather, it is just one voice among many, including those with no religion.”

Arguably or ultimately, however, how you see secularism will depend on what version you use, for it can vary from country to country.

For me, as far back as I can remember, it meant religion should not interfere with politics in Australia. It can have a say, but that is as far as it should go.

Lenore Taylor tweeted and, in doing so, explained the right of the press to report on the religious activities of our Prime Minister.

 

https://twitter.com/lenoretaylor/status/1386843321994145795

 

Section 116 of our Constitution says:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.”

 

What is a theocracy?

It is a government or a state led by immediate divine guidance or officials who are regarded as divinely guided by God.

The Bible says in Romans 13 of the New International Version:

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”

The problem I see here for the Prime Minister is that the denomination he belongs to are literalists. By that, I mean they believe every word of scripture is accurate and literally true even if there is some difficulty in marrying the past with the present.

Scott Morrison has never been afraid to lay his faith on the line and, in doing so, has always taken the risk of upsetting those of little or no faith. Most politicians prefer to park their faith outside the house rather than taking it with them into a room of political debate. Not our PM.

His recent speech to those assembled at the Australian Christian Churches biennial conference raised a few eyebrows among those unfamiliar with the language of the Pentecostal church.

His use of expressions such as “speaking in tongues”, “called to do God’s work”, “laying on of hands”, the “evil one” when referring to the devil Suggests that God, without so much as an application, made him Prime Minister, going so far as to describing an encounter with a picture of an eagle after asking God for a sign during the closing weeks of the election campaign.

Unless you are of the faith, these things can be hard to fathom. As is this:

“God has, I believe, been using us in those moments to be able to provide some relief and comfort and just some reassurance.”

I think what atheists find most offensive with religion is not only that they reject theist belief, but also the injustice, immorality and hypocrisy that often comes with it.

In opining about the meaning of community, he walked both sides of the street.

“Morality is about focusing not on you but on the person next to you. It’s about focusing, for me, on you not me. That is the essence of community. You can’t pass a law for it. You can’t create a building for it. It is essentially what springs from each and every one of us. Community.”

A community was both individualistic and collective. Morrison concluded that community was everything but mustn’t express itself in “identity politics” – this to me seemed to be a contradiction in terms because identity politics is but a description of how individuals with shared values come together to form collectives and fights against oppression and injustice. However, it had to fit into the conservative philosophy about the individual.

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. Or anything else, in my experience.

 

Social Media is a “weapon”

Scott Morrison sees social media as a weapon from the side of evil:

“… but those weapons can also be used by the evil one, and we need to call that out.”

Praying for people and “laying hands on them in various situations” would be confrontational if they knew and were affronted by the attention. Some would say this is an unwanted invasion of their space if they knew what was secretly being done.

Social media is a weapon “used by the evil one”, The evil one being the devil. Even Christians find it difficult enough to put together a coherent description of their God. You get that many variations; it becomes a word game. You can imagine what pictures people might paint of the evil one.

But perhaps the most controversial notion is that Scotty was put in his current leadership position by God. That’s a huge mouthful for people to swallow. Some would say impossible – no wonder the polling was so far out.

Does the scripture include leaders like Stalin, Pol Pot and Hitler, or does it mean only the charismatic Pentecostal Christian ones?

There is sure to be another scripture you can refer to that will sought it out for you.

Most churches exist to do good works. Some see their existence as working for the poor or disadvantaged. Others like Catholics are institutionalised, while others like the charismatic churches see their presence as being to save souls.

Nobody can go to Heaven unless they confess that Jesus is their Lord and saviour. All others go to hell. That includes some rather fine people.

More from Scott Morrison’s recent speech:

“And this came home to me, importantly, during the last election campaign, in fact, and I was up on the Central Coast, and I was up there with Jenny. It was a pretty tough week actually, last couple of weeks of the campaign and I was at Ken Duncan’s Gallery. And I hadn’t, I didn’t know we were going to go to Ken Duncan’s Gallery, we were speaking at a rally that day and we had to go and hold somewhere as we often do before we go over to the next event. And, uh, I must admit, I was saying to myself “where are you?”, where are you? I’d like a reminder, if that’s okay”. And so I walk in, so I didn’t know i was supposed to be at Ken’s Gallery, and Ken’s a great Christian guy and I walked into his gallery and there right in front of me was the biggest picture of a soaring eagle that I could imagine. Of course, the verse hit me that soaring on the wings of an eagle, run and do not grow weary, walk do not grow faint. But the message I got that day was, “Scott, you’ve got to run to not grow weary. You’ve got to walk to not grow faint. You’ve got to spread your wings like an eagle to soar like an eagle.”

“But those who wait on the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings like eagles, they shall run and not be weary, they shall walk and not faint” (Isaiah 40:31).

And why the reference to an eagle?

“Eagles are the “king of birds”, and throughout the Bible, God likens Himself and His children to an Eagle. Eagles are mentioned 34 times in the Bible and are considered an international symbol of strength, stamina, power, majesty, authority, and freedom. You can’t fly as an Eagle unless you stay strong.”

Coincidence is never a possibility when it gets in the way of a good God encounter story.

As an expression of Christianity in practice, the Prime Minister travelled to the conference from Sydney using his taxpayer-funded aircraft.

There was no video of his address, nor was it promoted on his Facebook or official pages. His office has not released a copy of his speech, as usually occurs when he speaks in his official capacity as prime minister.

He never mentioned women in the current context or how the Bible traditionally portrays them. Just as well, l think.

My thought for the day

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, is the best way of providing solutions to human problems.

PS: George Christensen is to retire at the next election. That’s a weight off my mind.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Can Labor win the next election?

The latest News Poll figures that surfaced last week after I had posted The polls are in search of some lasting credibility demonstrated the stability of the Coalition vote. They show you that the Coalition would have to commit a crime of catastrophic proportion to have Newspoll move a few percentage points.

Great indignities have been committed against women, but the polls have not budged. They have engaged in crimes of enormous corruption, but the polls remain steadfast in their support of this rotten government. They have repeatedly and consciously told lies with significant consequences for the people. Nothing has changed.

Yet nearly half of the nation’s eligible voters see them as worthy of another three years in power. I have spent much time discerning the why of it without ever finding a satisfactory answer to this most perplexing question. Why does the Coalition maintain an election-winning lead over Labor when they have made so many blunders?

Could it be voter ignorance or that they see Labor as being a much worse proposition? Do they view Albo as being as bad as Shorten? Are the Polls wrong? Perhaps Morrison’s handling of the pandemic has impressed them, or do they like Morrison’s style and agree with his policies. He is a Christian, and God has ordained him. He said as much to a meeting of the Australian Christian Churches last week.

Maybe the propaganda of the Murdoch media overwhelms people.

It may be one or a combination of the reasons mentioned above. In looking realistically at Labor’s chances of defeating the conservatives at the next election, one must also consider these factors:

Albanese and Leadership

For all the criticism he gets, people neglect to mention that it is hard for an opposition leader to get much attention at the best of times, let alone during a pandemic. Albanese has never been tested running an election campaign, and he might well prove to be better at it than many people think.

The best thing about him is that he came into the Labor Party leadership squeaky clean and carries no heavy luggage. Conversely, Morrison is a proven liar and this, on top of his professed Christianity, also makes him a hypocrite.

Morrison and Leadership

Pentecostals believe in an explicitly literal interpretation of the word of God. Therefore, every word is literal and is to be regarded as God’s truth.

Romans:13.1:

Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

COVID-19

Having said all that, let’s pretend Labor is conceding an edge to the Coalition going into the (April/May) 2022 election.

Scott Morrison will be favourite to be re-elected because by April of next year, vaccinations will have been (hopefully) completed, and the country will be returning to the better place we once knew.

Our experience of COVID-19 has been mild compared to that of other countries, and Morrison will paint a picture of his government’s success even though the states have been the most responsible. Just how much of the government’s propaganda people will swallow is anyone’s guess.

Currently, the government is suffering from a massive negative in so much as they have overseen an enormous stuff up of the vaccine rollout. This will have to be righted before Budget time, or they will suffer the consequences of a public view that they are incompetent.

However, the government will get much applause from what is really a perception and not the government’s truth.

Redistributions

The national Electoral Commissions redistributions seem sure to favour Labor.

Women’s Vote

Strangely, men don’t seem to be as concerned about the plight of women as women are. So far, Morrison hasn’t handled this most severe challenge to his re-election very well at all, and he is cutting it fine to do so. Women will undoubtedly be a critical issue in this election, and at the moment, women will account for many additional votes going to Labor.

Ask Pentecostal women how they fit it. Know your place.

Climate and the Environment

Facing world condemnation, Morrison seems intent on pursuing a policy of turning a significant world problem into a minor issue just when it has become a major one. And Labor, just because they blame it for losing the last two elections, want it to disappear altogether just when it could be a winner.

A net-zero emissions target by 2050 is also a profoundly divisive proposal within the Coalition. Going too far during an election campaign might ignite a fire of perpetual longevity in the party that won’t extinguish quickly.

“Liberal MPs representing wealthy Sydney and Melbourne seats fear they will face an electoral backlash if their party treats the issue as unimportant.

As a result, the PM has been pivoting towards the target slowly in an attempt to avoid too much infighting.”

Scare Campaigns

Morrison’s throwback to the Reds under the beds scare campaigns of Menzies’ time in power by exploiting our relationship with China will go down well because Australians have been conditioned to think this is possible.

Longevity

The government will have been in power for nine years. In that time, they have collected a level of dissatisfaction that reflects their incompetence. Scandal after scandal has followed them through their tenure.

Conservative Achievements

Nothing comes to mind.

Failures

Although they might try to rectify them in the budget, the worsening plight of many in aged care (despite reports, willing themselves to be implemented). Frequent exposés and increased spending. Transparency and integrity will also be questioned, together with accountability and, of course, the ramifications of cronyism.

Not dealing with integrity issues and their many ramifications – corruption, “benefits for donors, and the absence of accountability and transparency” – people will also figure out the overuse of COVID-19 as an excuse for doing nothing else.

Other factors going against the Coalition will be:

“… handicaps of unfavourable redistributions and retirements by an increasing number of sitting MPs also hinder Morrison’s chances.” (Dennis Atkins, The New Daily).

As is usual, it is the older generations from which the conservatives garnish their votes. This time there will be a lot fewer.

At the moment, Morrison has a lot of work to do – he looks stuffed before the race has begun.

While the electorate has very short memories, it will be tough for them to overlook the Coalitions nine years of misery. “Enough is enough,” you can hear Albo repeat.

Factors against Labor

Albanese must avoid looking like a poor man’s Bill Shorten. Shorten outlined his many policies in a thoughtfully truthful manner, and it proved a disaster.

Albanese believed it to be a lousy strategy and that he wouldn’t repeat it. Therefore, he will be playing a small target campaign, so we have nothing to praise or, conversely, criticise.

I’ll leave the final word to Roy Morgan:

“A recent poll conducted by Roy Morgan research found that a slim majority of 51% of Australians disapprove of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s handling of COVID-19 and all related issues compared to 49% that approve. The 51% of Australians that disapprove of Morrison’s handling of COVID-19 and related issues have consistently brought up the ‘bungled’ vaccine rollout and also the perception Morrison is always ‘passing the blame’ to the states and others for anything that goes wrong and taking credit when it is the states that have done the greater part of the job dealing with COVID.”

This tells us that the “COVID-19 advantage” (for the sake of a better name) may not be the road to success at the next election that many people think.

My thought for the day

Power must be a malevolent possession when you are prepared to forgo the principles of a secular government and your country’s well-being for the sake of a theocracy.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

“It was as clear as mud, and it covered the ground, and the confusion made me brain go round”

Watching Question Time Monday, June 22, I was reminded of the old Harry Belefonte lyrics to the song; “Man Piaba“.

The song tells the story of a boy who is confused about growing up.

And so it was when the Prime Minister of Australia stood before the parliament with its assembled MPs and said:

“I have been very clear with this house.”

It was followed by laughs of mischievous intent from the opposition.

Scott Morrison, true to form, had not shown the slightest bit of clarity at all. It was as clear as mud. A look of defiance descended upon his lie beaten brow.

When Labor asked him to update the House as to the progress of a report he had commissioned by the head of his department, Phil Gaetjens, he looked like a man ready for an unnecessary war.

He is a man much used to lying, but this time he couldn’t seem to drag one from the closet, so he sought out the cousin to the lie, confusion.

In the muck-ridden conservative party formerly called the Liberal Party, there were once people of integrity. Or people who would let scandal pass through the sewer of their internal problems but always stop before it got beyond their conscience. Only a few remain.

Before I go on, I must tell you that my wife interrupted my writing to say that Morrison was on the television. It was last Tuesday at about 10am. A press conference of importance was taking place. Because of our natures, my wife and I are suckers for tears of sad moments, regrets, or mistakes well worn.

Morrison was pouring it on, and the tears were welling in our eyes. When it became apparent that he was answering the criticism of his handling of the accusations of rape over the past month and that this press conference was actually more about him than the scandals themselves, we quietly put the tissues aside.

He was so used to confusing people every time he gave a press conference that he breezed through most of the questions. Then when confronted with a fair dinkum question from Sky News journalist Andrew Clennell alluding to an employer of theirs “dealing with a person who has made a complaint made against them for harassment of a woman in a women’s toilet”, the dog was out of the kennel. The attack dog was back.

The following day the media was full of apologies from the Prime Minister with regrets that he had even raised the matter. The presser was really about two sides of the Prime Minister’s personality. The front end was just sanctimonious bullshit about how he was listening; he heard all the problems women have living in a society that treated them so pathetically.

The problem was that he gave so much time to listen that there was little left over to pursue answers. He had none.

The back end saw the return of the Morrison we know so well. The know-all, the snake oil salesman untrustworthy liar, prepared to do or say anything that would progress his cause.

Later in the day, on Facebook, he apologised.

Sorry, I just had to fit that digression in. Now back to Question Time and some background. Morrison had asked the Secretary of the Prime Minister’s department, Phil Gaetjens, to undertake an inquiry – to check if any communications between members of his office and the former government staffer Brittany Higgins existed. That was February 17.

Remember the date because a short time after Higgins had come forward with her allegation that she had been raped in Parliament House by a colleague on February 19, varying views had emerged as to who knew what and when.

Now let’s move on. On February 12, Morrison has identified Fiona Brown as the one who had first heard of the allegation. This is after news.com.au submitted a series of questions to the office about the events of March 2019.

This statement was incorrect and can be proven so. Fiona Brown, a member of Morrison’s staff, was all over it. Why? Well, “she managed the fallout while employed as chief of staff to Linda Reynolds.”

She was also employed by Morrison before she worked for Reynolds. Then she returned to the prime minister’s office after the 2019 election.

Clear as mud, isn’t it?

It seems evident that Brown (now a Morrison Staffer) knew what had happened, which also suggests that others could have learned about it in the manner of human gossip.

It was revealed by Guardian Australia that:

“… another senior Morrison staffer had been in the office of the special minister of state at the time the man alleged to have raped Higgins left the government.”

Brittany Higgins also remembered an approach via WhatsApp from Yaron Finkelstein, one of Morrison’s senior political advisers. A “how is it all going call?”

It was about the Four Corners program exploring workplace culture at parliament that had aired in 2020.

With all the goings-on:

“Morrison asked Gaetjens to get to the bottom of what had gone on. But then the investigation seemed to fall into a black hole.”

With their ears, pricked Labor began to ask questions.

One month bled into the next. Morrison gave no indication of when the report would be tabled. No information was forthcoming at all. Morrison had not given any indication that it had been “paused”.

Following on from that, The Guardian reported that:

“Gaetjens told Senate estimates on Monday he had “paused” his investigation after advice from the Australian federal police commissioner Reece Kershaw on March 9. Kershaw wanted a “clean corridor” for a criminal investigation into the rape allegation.

Disconcertingly, the deliberation accounts in early March between Gaetjens and Kershaw (who was in another estimates committee on Monday morning) didn’t align entirely on the first telling. But Kershaw later issued a clarifying statement confirming that pausing the inquiry had been his “strong” advice to Gaetjens.

Gaetjens duly paused his efforts, and says he conveyed the decision to hold off to the prime minister’s office and to Morrison himself shortly after.”

So this is where we are at now?

After many questions to the Prime Minister regarding Gaetjens investigation, the prime minister (according to Gaetjens in Estimates) was fully aware the inquiry was on hold.

But instead of being transparent, instead of just telling it like it was, Morrison continued to deceive.

In response to Labor’s questions, Morrison said Gaetjens:

“… has not provided me with a further update about when I might expect that report.”

It is a mystery why Morrison would risk being accused of misleading the Parliament when Gaetjens had already given him an update about the timeline for reporting.

“Gaetjens had told him, implicitly, that he wouldn’t be reporting soon because Kershaw needed “a clean corridor” for the criminal investigation.”

Gaetjens is undoubtedly the most influential public servant in Canberra, and as such, it is unusual for him to appear before Senate hearings.

When one compares the evidence of Gaetjens before Senate Estimates and the statements Morrison has made in the House, one can reasonably, I think, conclude that Morrison was misleading the House.

By playing this silly game of one-upmanship, all the Prime Minister achieved was to make himself look mischievous.

Katherine Murphy writing in The Guardian, got it right when she wrote that all he had to say was:

“I am aware there has been a development, but I can’t convey it to the house in detail for probity reasons, but Gaetjens will advise you about that either through his own channels or at Senate estimates next week, as is proper.”

Was he just being a smart arse?

He must have known that at some point in time that he would have to reconcile the contradictions between what he was saying in the house and what Gaetjens was telling the Senate Estimates.

The wash-up now is that he has made himself look guilty and his party seem amateurish. Whether he likes it or not, Prime Ministers are elected to lead, not tell lies or avoid answering questions. If I were him, trying to swim my way out of the shit he has created for himself, I would want to appear as clean as a surgeon’s hands.

Did he mislead the house? Well, it certainly looks that way.

My thought for the day

Do you shape the truth for the sake of a good impression? On the other hand, do you tell the truth even if it may tear down the view people may have of you? Alternatively, do you simply use the contrivance of omission and create another lie. I can only conclude that there is always a pain in truth, but there is no harm in it.

In breaking news, Brittany Higgins has formally lodged a complaint with the Prime Minister’s Department regarding backgrounding on her partner David Shiraz and family members.

The Prime Minister said he couldn’t comment because nobody had made an official complaint.

Now he has one.

A final word

I may be guilty of oversimplification here, but why on earth should there be a need for legislation that outlines rules and regulations pertaining to men’s behaviour when all that is required of them is that they demonstrate some excellent old-fashioned manliness.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

All we have in the government is a shambolic gaggle of incompetent, unedifying politicians

1 This Government is devoid of wit, humour, words of intelligence and those with the eloquence and debating skills to give them meaning. Mainly it embraces a maleness that believes in conflict as a means of political supremacy over and above the pursuit of excellence in Government.

That is my view of this obnoxious Government.

2 Without so much as a whimper, the Government has caved in on its proposed Industrial Relations Reforms. Labor’s Tony Burke called it pure spite.

The Federal Government will not commit to keeping its industrial relations changes even though it had the numbers to pass the legislation.

The (on sick leave) Attorney-General Christian Porter, after countless hours of consultations with employers and unions, had proposed five major reforms but ended with only a fragment of what he wanted.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Centre Alliance senators stepped in to help the Government get through a measure providing a more straightforward pathway for casual employees to convert to permanent jobs.

In a fit of anger, measures to crack down on wage theft by employers that had the support of all the Parliament were also dropped.

In my view, it is no tenable for an alleged rapist to remain in the job of Attorney General.

3 A few years back, Christopher Pyne said:

“Our reforms will make Parliamentary Question Time more concise and ensure Ministers are held to account and remain relevant to questions asked.

We will look to strengthen the definition of ‘relevance’ in the standing orders so Ministers must stay directly relevant to questions and ensure Matter of Public Importance debates follow Question Time.”

There is no requirement for relevance at all. And without it, Ministers cannot be held to account.

Without civility, a reasoned debate cannot take place.

All we have at the moment is a shambolic gaggle of incompetent, unedifying politicians not in the least interested in enhancing our democracy.

It has degenerated to the point of being obsolete. It needs to be given the flick and rethought.

What a ludicrous load of nonsense, Mr Speaker.

4Australia reports quarterly population decline for first time since 1980s,” read the headline. Not since quarterly population data was first collected in 1981 has Australia’s total population fallen until now.

Ross Greenwood (Editor of Sky News business) said:

“… while the current low population growth rates should be “bad news”, he expects the Government will allow the populations to grow “quite rapidly” once international borders reopen.”

The Government needs to give this urgent attention.

5 Sports Rorts scandal returned to the headlines this week with the Senate reporting that the Labor-controlled Upper House Committee, chaired by Anthony Chilsom concluded that:

“The evidence available to the committee indicates clearly the prime minister’s office, and likely the prime minister were aware of the use of electorate information to identify projects in marginal and targeted electorates well before the first grant recipient was announced.”

It also concluded that there was ample evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister was involved in the selection, although Coalition Senators disagreed.

Bridget McKenzie, in evidence, said that an unnamed staffer had made the $100m late changes during the caretaker period before the 2019 election.

Just one of many stains on the Coalition’s governance.

6 What do you think when thirty-four of Australia’s largest companies claimed JobKeeper wage subsidies in 2020 despite having improved their earnings on pre-pandemic levels, pocketing a total of $284m?

Here is one example from Kaye Lee. It is about Gerry Harvey, who I have said before only sees the world through the prism of his cash registers.

“In February, Harvey Norman reported that first-half sales climbed 25% and contributed to a net profit after tax of $462.03m for the last six months of 2020 – up 116% on the same time period in the previous year.

The retailer said it would pay dividends totalling $249m, of which Gerry Harvey is set to receive $78m due to his 31.4% shareholding in the company.

Despite this, they declined to pay back the estimated $22 million they somehow collected for JobKeeper, a payment they should never have qualified to receive.”

I have some questions: 1) Should they keep your money? 2) Should they be made to give your money back to you?

Scandalous, I should think, but our PM seems to think its perfectly okay.

7 An article in Central News also caught my eye during the week: “Leigh Sales asks why the powerful who abuse our trust keep getting away with it.”

She was being interviewed at a writer’s festival when she decided to let it rip on those who would destroy our democracy. Anyway, rather than quote a powerful read from start to finish, I urge you to read it on this link.

I suppose it’s the same as what I do every time my fingers hit the keys. In my 8th year now writing for The AIMN and I wonder at times just what effect my attempts at exposing these influential people has. It, at times, can be very dispiriting.

A Labor of love.

8 Is it just semantics (the meaning of a word)? It now seems powerful conservatives have convinced ASIO to delete “right-wing” from its description of rising right-wing terrorism.

We wouldn’t want to give it a bad name, now would we?

9 The Prime Minister, when confronted with a crisis, seems to harden himself. Australia’s most powerful man is waiting and calculating. There is no empathy shown. He is ruthless when he deems it necessary. His Christian teaching is forgotten.

What he wants to find out is this: is the Australian “Me too” movement just a flash in the pan, or does it have lasting credibility?

If it does, then both Linda Reynolds and Christian Porter will have to go. If it is just a passing thing, as the polls seem to suggest, then one or both might survive.

The Australian character’s malaise often seems to resolve these matters; however, to help the Government navigate the most significant political crisis they’ve faced, Morrison needs all the information he can gather. Then he will decide if the bar is too high to jump.

To think that we need to tell men how to behave decently when it is something their parents should have taught them as children.

10 The Government continued to play “Self-congratulations” with last week’s unemployment figures; however, the demise of JobKeeper will shoot unemployment through the roof. The Government is about job creation.

If it doesn’t happen, then don’t blame us. Blame Labor.

My thought for the day

Perhaps a greater understanding of what I am saying might be obtained by exercising a greater willingness to think more deeply.

PS The next National Press Club debate will take place tomorrow.

Big swinging chicks Vs Big swinging dicks

“An App as a solution for rape.”

Ladies are asked to bring a plate.

And please obey the rules.

Debate is not of necessity about winning or taking down ones opponent. It is an exchange of facts, ideas and principles. Or in its purist form it is simply the art of persuasion.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

What is it like being interviewed by David Speers? Ask the Deputy Prime Minister.

On Friday of last week, I informed my wife that Michael McCormack would be the guest on ABC Insiders the coming Sunday. “Speers will have him for breakfast,” she answered with a touch of humour. And so it was.

A giggling Laura Tingle confirmed my wife’s answer after the interview while the two other panel members just managed to contain themselves. On the one hand, it was hilarious. On the other, it was a strategy that a man so unqualified for leadership was the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia.

Speers managed to quickly bring things back to order, but I have to say that the interview reminded me of a boy who had an appointment with the headmaster late one Friday afternoon and had prepared for it all week. Then when the time came, he forgot everything he was going to say.

When the head asked him questions, instead of appearing calm and confident, he seemed to give answers that belonged to other questions. Instead of appearing sure of himself, he looked like an overconfident bad actor – “gotcha then, Speersy.”

When asked questions that required an authoritative answer, he looked puzzled, even self-congratulatory at his own brilliance. I thought he could do with a manager because he had been handling himself too long.

At a time in world history when the quality of our leadership might determine our part in it, this interview would sadly tell you just how out of touch our leadership is.

He was to say:

“I’ve already got commitments that I will meet, and I believe if you make commitments, then you should stick to those.”

That this moronic individual would say in answer to a question about the protest of women outside Parliament House (Monday 15 March) and how they are treated is beyond belief.

“I appreciate that this is an important issue and I understand, part of democracy, that people have their right to march and protest and of course any submission or thing that they want to take forward. I know that Marise Payne who is the minister for the status of women has said she will take the submissions.”

That the Deputy Prime Minister would place his daily appointments above female constituents’ interests with grave concerns about their treatment generally and in Parliament House particularly showed incredible arrogance.

His dedication to his appointments was met in the Parliament’s passageways by an unexpected one with Janine Hendry, organiser of the March for Justice Australia.

She played him around her little finger until he looked like a puppy in search of a scratch behind the ears, then he drifted away without a whimper. “I might be able to spare 10 minutes,” he softly told her.

Just because clowns govern us, it doesn’t mean we have to laugh.

Had the Prime Minister followed by his ministry joined the throng of women outside the House, he would have made a symbolic gesture toward their cause and shown that the government at least had their ear. Instead, it was another “Know your place” moment with a directive to come to the office if you want to talk.

He is never one to display any emotion. Even his chat to his wife about rape came over as insincere. The point being that during this crisis and others never does he display any humanity. He is always the iron-fisted leader in damage control with no words of that convey a feeling that he actually cares.

Meanwhile, MPs were assembling for Question Time, and what followed was insulting to the women of our nation who were trying to gain some equality with the opposite sex.

Question time in the Australian Parliament is just an excuse for mediocre minds who are unable to debate with intellect, charm or wit, to act deplorably toward each other. And in doing so debase the Parliament and themselves as moronic imbecilic individuals.

Dorothy Dixers flowed from the government designed to show that they were working enthusiastically to improve their lot in society, and defend a Prime Minister who was making a fool of himself.

That they wanted an inquiry into Christian Porter’s suitability to be the highest law officer of the land was indisputable.

Morrison, intent on playing a strong hand, has so far refused to entertain holding an independent inquiry into Porter’s fitness to remain in the cabinet.

With his usual male stridency, he declared it would severely impact “the rule of law”, a claim rejected by senior lawyers. Then with his typical tough veneer, he refused a chat with the solicitor general for any advice on the matter.

Mr Morrison, we are still waiting for that Christian compassion and loving kindness you promised in your maiden speech to Parliament.

The women of Australia are sick to death (pardon my phrase) of meetings, inquiries, reports and typical conservative reluctance to change. They need no more. If the government cannot cope with their needs, it should get out and give Labor ago.

While the Bible sees them as unequal to men, you should put that aside and govern for all community members.

Goodness, if we can have a Royal Commission into the Kitchen Reno of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s house, we can indeed inquire into Christian Porter’s trustworthiness.

But back to Mr Morrison, who showed poor form in Question Time yesterday:

“Mr Morrison said it was “right and good” that people were able to congregate in peaceful protests as tens of thousands gathered to demand action against gendered violence in Australia… “Not far from here, such marches, even now, are being met with bullets, but not here in this country, Mr Speaker,” he said.”

What a truly disgusting thing to say.

That Labor is also represented in these injustices against women who work in Parliament House comes as no surprise, nor would it in general society.

That we have Michael McCormack, Deputy Prime Minister – who was quoted in an article in his local newspaper expressing his hatred of gays – in a position of power where he can help shape the nation’s cultural discourse is a disgrace.

My thought for the day

Moving forward in the dark, with only the soft glow of an idea, takes courage. Do you have it?

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Both must go, or Morrison will pay the price for eight years of scandals

It is true that in law Christian Porter has no case to answer. To be brutally honest, it is now non-existent.

The criminal case against Porter is not weak. It is now non-existent. The complainant has not made a police statement, cannot be interviewed as she has died, the alleged offender has denied the allegation; there is no forensic evidence, no witnesses, no crime scene and no CCTV.

Having no case to answer, and as a consequence, is what Scott Morrison will use as his defence of the man.

He will say that there is nothing of substance to put to him. All of this is correct and irrefutable, but even in Scott Morrison’s saying there was no need for an inquiry, public opinion for one remains full of anger.

Morrison was well supported by The Australian, who in last Saturday’s online edition led Porter’s defence with no less than five headline articles on its front page.

“Rape stalemate threat to PM’s agenda”

“Unreconcilable teenage memories”

” ‘Get Porter’ a media disgrace”

“Grotesque political saga ignores principles of justice”

“The pile-on over Christian Porter will prove to be the defining test of Scott Morrison”

(All of these articles are paywalled).

In contrast, a first-blush view suggests the following media outlets support an enquiry into Christian Porter’s fitness to remain as Attorney General:

Porter is another example of the government’s method of scandal management, Crikey

AWL HAS WRITTEN TO THE PRIME MINISTER TO REGISTER ITS CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALLEGED CONDUCT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Australian Women Lawyers

Has Christian Porter been subjected to a ‘trial by media’? No, the media did its job of being a watchdog, Pearls and Irritations

The week that will never go away, The AIMN

If he did it
‘Just imagine for a second…’, The Monthly

Morrison’s response to the allegation against Christian Porter raises uncomfortable questions, ABC News

Government has ‘demonstrably failed’ on rape allegations: Natasha Stott Despoja, The New Daily

As do The Greens, Labor and the Crossbench.

This obtuse statement can adequately sum up public opinion:

I don’t judge people, but I do form my own opinions, of course.

Anyone who cares to watch “Inside the Canberra Bubble” might also conclude that Porter’s long history of predatory behaviours, adultery, lying, manipulation and political treachery makes it reasonably straightforward that an inquiry is necessary.

 

 

Those like me who argue for an inquiry are not seeking to have Porter institutionalised. We just seek greater clarity of what happened when Porter was 17, what has happened since, and is he suitable to serve as Attorney General.

Are we to believe, as he repeatedly said at his press conference, that “it just didn’t happen” or are we to imagine that it did.

Writing for The Monthly, Rachael Withers puts it this way:

“But just imagine for a second that it is true. Just imagine that for a second. The flip side of Porter’s statement applies also to the people who believe him wholeheartedly, because this is what so many in the Coalition and the media seem unwilling to do. Imagine if a teenage Porter once forced a drunk 16-year-old into oral sex, kicked and choked her, and then anally raped her when she passed out, leaving her bleeding and ashamed. What would it mean if such a man was allowed to remain attorney-general of this country, without so much as an inquiry?”

Life is about perception. Not what is but what we perceive it to be.

How do we find the truth when Rossleigh makes this point and many others in this article for The AIMN:

“So let’s deal entirely in hypotheticals here, but let’s keep them non-party specific so that we can establish the general rule and then look at whether or not there should ever be an exception. Let’s give Christian Porter his time off and accept his statements at face value and believe him when he says that he has never been made aware of any of the allegations at any time and he strenuously denies them even if he has never been made aware of what they were except by Scott Morrison who hadn’t read them either but somehow knew that Christian Porter was the person to ask about the allegations of which neither of them had the specifics.”

Canberra is where the Australian government should be working with its total concentration on what is best for the country.

Instead, it seems we have a cesspit of politicians whose focus is entirely on themselves and their egregious conduct, who with little attention paid to governing the country, are presently squirming like maggots desperately trying to disclaim responsibility.

The dishonesty and the muddiness of the political mind is commonplace, and we’ve become used to it, but the abuse and the molestation of women is not normal.

But it seems the males who swagger the corridors of our parliament house think it is normal, with a nod and a wink, and now how frantically they are trying to make the fact of it go away.

The circumstances around Porter’s behaviour towards women more generally is questionable.

And these are the bastards we’ve elected to run our country. Their posturing is sickening!

Unfortunately for Porter, his reputation precedes his declaration of innocence, and Morrison is reaping what he has been sowing for years. He shows no inclination to reprimand anyone, be it Kelly, Christiansen, Reynolds or Porter.

Incidentally, Reynolds has announced she will take another month of leave.

Mr Morrison, if you want leadership perhaps you can heed the words of Joe Biden:

“I’m not joking when I say this: if you ever work with me and I hear you treat another colleague with disrespect, talk down to someone, I will fire you on the spot. No ifs, and, or buts.”

That is leadership.

What about the women of the future, those desirous of a career in politics no matter what rung of the ladder?

Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins will lead an investigation into the workplace culture at Parliament House and responses to sexual harassment and assault. As opposed to her last, this one will take in broader aspects of the sexual goings-on in Australia’s parliament.

Fifty recommendations arose from her last report delivered only last November, a few of which have been implemented.

Back to the Porter scandal, the Prime Minister said he would also “welcome” a coronial inquiry in South Australia if the coroner opted for one.

But sexual conduct is only a part of the cultural behaviour of those who frequent the halls of parliament. Will this inquiry include the culture of suppressing freedom of information, telling the truth, transparency, business ethics, open corruption and religious interference?

Culture is a complicated, fluid thing, a learned and shared behaviour. Sex is only part of it.

“Ditch the Witch,” “JuLiar… Bob Brown’s Bitch” Were thrown at Julia Gillard by Abbott supporters and never reprimanded for them.

Respect for women is also a moral, cultural act.

Reminiscent of his “I don’t hold the hose, mate” response to the bushfire catastrophe Scott Morrison gives us,, and “I am not the police a force,” when a 16-year-old is raped.

As reported by Laura Tingle on The ABC live blog.

“Porter argued on Wednesday that “if I stand down from my position as Attorney-General because of an allegation about something that simply did not happen, then any person in Australia can lose their career, their job, their life’s work based nothing more than an accusation that appears in print”.

“I am not standing down or aside.”

Yet people’s lives are destroyed by allegations all the time, often about something that “simply did not happen”, like the RoboDebt scheme over which Porter and a number of other ministers, including the Prime Minister, presided over for several years, including a period in which they had received advice that it was unlawful but said nothing.”

When the NSW Police announced this week that they would not be proceeding with any investigation, they also may have caused a tragedy for those like me who would have liked the allegation against Porter investigated.

But also, for the man himself who will always remain labelled an “alleged rapist.”

Both Porter and Reynolds should resign to save the government more wind that they usually do on matters that require significant amounts of spin.

My thought for the day

Some men epitomise white male privilege, which would suggest that the Australian people need to take more care when electing their leaders.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

The week that will never go away

Note: The bulk of this piece was written before the announcement that the Cabinet Minister accused of the rape of a young girl would out himself.

1 The problem with Insiders is that it is so dammed inconclusive. What do I mean? Well, in its allotted hour, it discusses a lot but concludes little.

Take last Sunday for example. If the word “concludes” means to “bring to an end” or “reach a conclusion”, the show fails miserably. A lot was discussed, principally in general terms, but little of it had a “So where do you think that leaves the government now, Phil?” question to it.

It looked as though they had dragged three people off the street to discuss things they had little opinion about, and it showed through.

Despite the seriousness of the points in question, I was staggered by the casualness with which the journalists answered/discussed the issues at hand.

It went like this, if you take my point: “It was only my interpretation of what he meant. I mean, did he say what he meant, or did he really mean to say what he meant or was what he meant really what he meant?”

Yes, it was all mumble jumble, a waffle of repetitive stuff that was already on the table and required some conclusion.

And whilst David Speers is a good interviewer, his greater need to entrap his guest on some mundane point every week I find stomach-churning.

In this case, the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, wouldn’t be moved on whether the cabinet minister alleged to have raped a young girl should have his name revealed. It’s the Prime Ministers decision, he repeated ad nauseam until Speers accepted his answer.

It was apparent that Scott Morrison could: a) leave it with the police, b) allow the person to come out of his own accord, c) allow it to be leaked or revealed under Parliamentary Privilege, or d) release it himself.

As it turned out, he elected to go with the first choice, which of course, should leave every cabinet minister hopping mad while the eyes of the world are upon any 16 of them.

It was a display of illogical leadership by Morrison based on his passionate belief that his Minister was telling the truth. In this case, it required more than just a bit of blind passion – some even-handedness.

The voting public and the government must now satisfy themselves that it is perfectly alright to have an alleged rapist within government ranks.

Notwithstanding all of that, the accused must also be afforded a presumption of innocence.

Of course, if you lived inside the Canberra bubble – as most political journalists do – then you would probably, as would the politicians, know who this person is.

It wouldn’t surprise if many people had already determined that they couldn’t vote for a rapist in their party, alleged or not.

Inevitably, it will go public. It could be published in some corner of the internet where Australia’s defamation laws don’t reach. Or a member of a State or Federal Parliament will name him under Parliamentary Privilege.

However, when his name is revealed, it might become apparent just why Morrison had not made the person known in the first place.

It came as no surprise when Christian Porter fronted the media.

And it is here that to give this piece some relevance; I need to say that it was announced late on Tuesday that the Minister involved would give his side of the story on Wednesday.

Before I begin, please compare these two statements by the Prime Minister.

“I had a discussion with the individual, who as I said absolutely rejects these allegations – and so after having spoken to the commissioner and the deputy secretary of my department, there are no matters that require my immediate attention.”

“I have listened to Brittany. Jenny and I spoke last night, and she said to me, ‘You have to think about this as a father first. What would you want to happen if it were our girls?’

So, the Prime Minister has admitted that he hasn’t read the statement of the young woman who later committed suicide but completely accepts what his Minister has told him. In doing so, he rejects out of hand whatever the girl said. That is a very dismissive way to treat her.

Australian of the Year Grace Tame in an address to the National Press Club on Tuesday, gave an unforgettable speech on sexual harassment. I will be eternally grateful.

 

 

At question time, when asked about the performance of the Prime Minister, she was less than enthusiastic. Who can blame her when he makes such contradictory statements? Particularly, as in 2019, he said that victims of rape should come forward with the view that they would be believed.

Her putting down of Scott Morrison’s remark about his consultation with his wife Jenny was classical.

“You shouldn’t need to have children to have a conscience.”

It was a speech that will be long remembered by those fortunate enough to remember it.

The Gold Coast Bulletin reported that:

“Mr Albanese warned the PM the scandal “won’t go away”, and directly attacked him by pointing out the “stark contrast” between Mr Morrison’s insistence the Minister in question is entitled to be presumed innocent, and a 2019 clip of him saying all rape victims should be believed.”

It came as no surprise when a teary Christian Porter fronted the cameras in Western Australia.

He remembered nothing. It was a Morrison defence. He repeatedly said, “It just didn’t happen,” as if he was trying to convince himself.

He was in complete denial, and one had to wonder if it was on this basis that the Prime Minister accepted he was telling the truth. Personally, I would need more than he presented.

He was unaware of any of the allegations until very recently. He followed all the accepted ruled of denial. He couldn’t talk about the allegations because nothing happened.

He will take a short break for the sake of his mental health. No, he will not resign. His character has been tested beyond belief. I know nothing. Nothing sexual happened.

I found it astonishing that neither the Prime Minister nor the Attorney General had read the dossier. I struggled to believe Porter that he remembered specific points but not others.

All it did for me, and I suppose for many others, was to reassert that Scott Morrison needs to have an independent and open inquiry. It is the only valid path to take. Sure, it wouldn’t/couldn’t resolve all the issues, but at least it might fix some loose ends (like the behaviour of men in our parliament).

The events of this week will never go away. To quote Kaye Lee:

“We make haste slowly.

But we cannot give up.”

Now back to Insiders.

The panel included Rosie Lewis, Lanai Scarr and Phil Corey. Whilst I agree with having every possible representation in journalism, they should limit it to those who can make a point without any waffle. (Apologies to Phil). And, of course, those who have a forceful television personality. These days all they seem to do is agree with each other.

This government, of course, stuffs up so much that it makes it nigh on impossible to cover it all in an hour, and in this instance, the allegation of rape against an unknown cabinet minister was allowed so much time that other important subjects barely got a mention.

But they did Craig Kelly (will the Nationals pursue him?) and his sidekick Frank Sumbo, procedures against sexual harassment, the presumption of innocence, the government’s newfound working majority, Peter Dutton’s entry into the rape issues to darken the waters, Nicolle Flint to leave politics after confronting attacks, why the Liberals don’t support women, will Lynda Reynolds retain her job, the new dole payment and the poverty line and JobSeeker (or was it dob a seeker?), or Penny Wong, Linda Reynolds, and the Press Club.

Around 15 issues were canvassed, all of which had a negative slant towards the government, but nobody thought to sum up the government’s standing.

Maybe I have been a little harsh in my assessment of the Insiders program. Perhaps it’s the Liberal and National parties who are at fault for the avalanche of material that needs to be discussed.

If they didn’t stuff up as much as they do, then the show might be able to vent its spleen at a slower pace.

The left of politics is concerned with people who cannot help themselves. The right is concerned with those who can.

2 As the female journal journalist said to the Prime Minister; “You release a report, [Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety final report] and then 30 minutes later you call a news conference. Fact is you do it all the time.” Well, don’t hold me to those words, but they are reasonably accurate.

And so began what turned out to be a somewhat ridiculous news conference on one of the most severe topics of recent times. With an ageing population, both sides of parliament had known for many years that a crisis in aged care would come sooner or later.

One side knew that it had overlooked 20 reports that had come before the Royal Commissions. It now has to make decisions that will shirt front its philosophy that individuals should pay for their aged care and health costs, for that matter, instead of depending on the state.

However, what they need to decide here and now is what sort of society they want, then Morrison and Frydenberg will have to stare in the face of these questions.

When drafting a budget for the common good, what should your priorities be?

Do you want to do what’s best for Australia’s citizens who have little, or are you more inclined towards increasing the riches of our wealthiest?

My thought for the day

The true test of any nation surely must be how it treats its most vulnerable.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Whatever the Liberal Party is, it is not a place for women

Who would have thought that of all the blunders the Liberal and National Parties have made over their period of incumbency that it might be women who would bring them undone?

Not by any definition of incompetency or stupidity, but by being used by men for their sexual gratification.

That man and the sin of sexual abuse by members of their political party might be responsible for its demise is unfitting, I know.

That women should have to suffer in seeing the end of its governance is a tragedy.

What l am suggesting is that the magnitude of their suffering might be enough to turn people away from these two parties where the saying “know your place” speaks proudly.

The LNP is steeped in a philosophy of greed and desire where even the most private of a woman’s possessions can be taken against her will by men who know nothing but lust in all its vagaries, be it sex, money or power over her.

We now know that another bright young lady of the Liberal Party, Nicolle Flint dipped her toe into the Parliament’s cold waters at the last election and found it so toxic that she will not contest the next election.

Adding to the already deplorable revelations of the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins, raped by a colleague in a ministerial office in March 2019, we have another allegation by a woman – now deceased – of rape against a government minister before he entered Parliament.

Other women subsequently have come forward to support Brittany Higgins with their own stories of sexual harassment by the same man.

The now-deceased woman’s allegations can no longer be tested in court, so we have to take the women at her word. Men that fit her account will be sitting at the cabinet table staring with accusing eyes, wondering just who it might be. So will the people of Australia.

You might ask if his name should be revealed when he cannot defend himself. Conversely, you might ask if it is appropriate for an accused rapist to sit in Australia’s Parliament or even stand at the next election.

But her words should be read, judged and acted upon if they warrant it.

Two weeks into this calamitous scandal, the Prime Minister is trying to hold back the forces that suggest he is lying (that he was told of the incident that took place on the Minister for Defence’s sofa).

That so many people knew about the rape of Brittany Higgins, and he didn’t make his answers seem implausible.

The excuse that he wasn’t told until two years later is as stupid as your wife saying she forgot to tell you she was pregnant when you are blowing out the candles on its second birthday. One can only suggest that he has the most incompetent staff working in the prime minister’s office ever.

Even the Press Gallery is befuddled. According to the prime minister, the Minister for Defence suddenly became ill on the eve of a National Press Gallery address and was able to assume her duties a day or two later also remains a mystery.

That she was being set up to blame for it, all was a full-hand win until Morrison spoke to her cardiologist.

Now he is covering up. In Parliament last week, his story kept changing as new information emerged.

He refused to answer whether the Gaetjens Review into the conduct of his office would be made public. By the end of the week, it became apparent that the report would be a Cabinet document that couldn’t be released for 30 years.

Until the latest revelation on Friday, February 26 (which happens to be my 80th birthday), I would have tipped that Reynolds would have copped the blame then be sacked as Defence Minister, and Morrison would have walked away scot free. However, I’m now of the view that Morrison will have to convince many women that he isn’t lying. Something he used to be comfortable with but of late has found much harder.

My thought for the day

At some time in the human narrative… in our history, the man declared himself superior to women. It must have been an accident, or at least an act of gross stupidity. But that’s men for you.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

Finding the truth and reporting it is more important than creating a narrative where controversy matters more

1 The journalist who broke the story about the rape in the Minister’s office, Samantha Maiden said on ABC Insiders last Sunday that she first approached the government to comment on the allegations at 2.30pm on Friday 12 February.

Every programme I have seen her on, I have gleaned a sense of professionalism where the truth mattered more than the controversy.

She has shown sensitivity and warning toward the young women involved and was let known the trials and tribulations that would follow.

She added with a hint of ridicule that they “spent the entire weekend, for which we’re very grateful, seeking facts and information” for the article.

“And yet nobody told the prime minister, and his evidence is that he didn’t know about this story until we published it at 8am last Monday.”

During one of the seemingly endless door stops on Sunday, the Prime Minister was asked whether people should believe that his office did not inform him for more than 48 hours. “Correct – that’s what happened,” as quick as his tongue could shape the words they leapt from lips practised in the art of the lie.

He was asked again why his staff had not informed him, he answered:

“I expressed my view to my staff about that very candidly on Monday.”

Another reporter more forcibly asked Morrison whether his staff were reprimanded for not bringing such a serious allegation to the Prime Minister’s attention.

“You can be assured they know exactly my views about that matter.”

Then he changed his tone. And this is important.

“But you know, it’s not about how I feel. It is always about the person who is at the centre of this.”

This quick change of emphasis where he dismisses himself from the matter at hand (I wasn’t told, and I’m upset) is a familiar ploy, and it is one that the general public overlooks, even forgives him for.

He is not only untrustworthy, but cunning in the Howard mould.

Our society’s true Christians must be dismayed at the damage he is doing to their faith.

After a disastrous week for the Government Mondays, Newspoll result did Morrison and his government little harm. They remain on 50/50. How this happens is beyond most commentators.

Anthony Albanese is even further behind as preferred Prime Minister. Is it time for him to stand down? No. Not on 50-50. At this stage of the cycle, with COVID-19 thrown in, that is a good result.

On Tuesday, The Guardian reported that a second staffer in the governments employ knew about the incident. Another headline in the same news outlet suggested that Brittany Higgins partner David Sharaz would leave his job. It was correct; Sharaz has resigned from his position dealing with federal government clients, saying he could no longer continue the role.

Finally, Clare O’Neil, the Labor member for Hotham, says this about the men in parliament in an excellent article again for The Guardian:

“The problem is simply and coldly this: in the Australian parliament, a man allegedly believed he could rape a woman metres from the Prime Minister’s office and face no consequences. His belief was entirely reasonable because, as we know, he was almost right.”

However, with 4000 people working at Parliament House, they are not all going to be bastions of moral virtue. That’s the reality.

The ability of thinking human beings to blindly embrace what they are being told without referring to evaluation and the consideration of reason never ceases to amaze me. It is tantamount to the rejection of rational explanation.

2 Two things stood out last weekend that further confirmed to me the success that Rupert Murdoch has had in the indoctrination of Australians. The first was the crowd’s reaction to the mention of vaccines at the men’s final of the tennis, and second, the same vile response at the words “Victorian government”.

When we booed Hawke at the G years ago, it was a term of endearment; now we boo Goodes, and it is sarcastic racism.

It is a travesty that one man’s lifetime could have caused so much societal upheaval.

3 After having used Facebook for only a short period, I wrote the two paragraphs at the foot of section 3 in 2013. I’m not sure that I would do so now. There are many rights and wrongs to this story, but under it, all one word stands proud and tall, and that word is greed.

Perhaps the mainstream media barons should be paying for free exposure and advertising Facebook gives them.

Perhaps Facebook is entitled to charge for the news that finds its way onto Facebook.

4 As a midfield contributor to the political news cycle, opinion and discussion, The AIMN should not be dragged into this argument that Facebook and the Government are having.

Anyway, in greed is good argument; I thought my voice for The AIMN would be “no longer heard.” Still, I never anticipated the technological brilliance of The AIMN’s back room, who quickly rescued me.

My voice and those of others will still be able to be read as you have been used to.

However, you may have missed one or two pieces titled “When will Conservatives ever treat women with a modicum of decency, even dignity?” and “A tale of two wrongs: A rape and the Prime Minister’s response.”

Facebook makes you dive into humanity, hear things you do not want to hear, and defend what you have to say. It is for those with opinions or those without the courage to share them. And Fence-sitters, of course.

It attracts the reasoned, the unreasoned, the civil and the uncivil. The biased and the unbiased. It is for people with ideas and, sadly, those without any. It whispers or shouts dissent. But mostly, it’s a society of our own creation.

At the moment, it borders on a being hotchpotch of nothingness.

5 A gold-plated National Broadband Network may have cost $10 billion less than previously estimated by the Coalition government, with hidden figures from a review showing considerable savings expected from technological advancements for a full-fibre rollout.

Then-Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in 2013 that continuing with Labor’s full-fibre approach would mean “wasting well over $50 billion,” helping justify moving to the multi-technology mix.

6 Well, to finish on a good note my computer has just advised me that Craig Kelly has resigned from the Liberal Party. A joy to behold.

My thought for the day

On this occasion I have chosen to step aside for the Prime Minister.

“We think through the consequences of our policies. The Labor Party don’t.” (Scott Morrison, Prime Minister of Australia).

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

A tale of two wrongs: A rape and the Prime Minister’s response

As if this government’s 8-year run of corruption, ongoing stuff-ups and persistently bad governance weren’t enough, now we have women being raped in the Defence Minister’s office. On her sofa, no less.

I find myself pausing as I write. I feel ashamed of my country. Well, not so much my country but on those who run it.

Our country’s prime minister asks us to believe that he knew nothing for two years about a rape that took place 50 meters from his office, no less. He turns to his wife for her sage advice. She tells him; Ask yourself, “what if it were our girls.” After consideration, he finds he has empathy for the victim.

He might have asked himself the same question. What if it were him? I imagine the pain would be similar. Do you want me to be more graphic?

That he even needed to confide in his wife is sad in itself that he required some explanation of a women’s fear of a man’s physical power over a woman is pitiful. The fragility of his character has been exposed to the world.

But still, he knows nothing. I see the emptiness of truth in the words that flow guiltily from his mouth.

He knew nothing is considered nigh on impossible by many of those experienced in government machinations. Misleading the parliament is a grave offence – even former Prime Ministers have expressed a view of disbelief at the Prime Minister’s response.

Former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd had a word to say.

“It doesn’t ring true that when you have a case of such gravity involving this young woman who is alleging rape in a ministerial office, that this wouldn’t have immediately been informed or provided as a report to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff.”

And Julia Gillard said she was “horrified both by the incident and the aftermath.”

Another former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull was adamant that it would be “inconceivable” that Mr Morrison knew nothing of the alleged incident.

Even Peta Credlin, former Chief of Staff to Tony Abbott was on the attack, telling 2GB this week that Mr Morrison’s timeline “doesn’t stack up”.

Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese said that a series of text messages contradicted Mr Morrison’s claim that his office knew nothing of Brittany Higgins’ claims until it was contacted by a journalist last Friday.

But back to the story and what we know so far. It seems to me that there are two stories in this remarkable event. Both are independent of the other and require the attention each independently deserves.

One is about political trust, accountability, transparency, compassion and fairness.

The first concerns the rape of a young woman, and the second is about why the government and the Prime Minister covered it up.

Morrison said that he and his staff knew nothing about the Higgins allegations of rape throughout the week. Well, until Friday 12 February.

This is patently untrue, unless Fiona Brown, Reynolds’ chief of staff, who now works for Morrison and was the first person Brittany Higgins told of her ordeal.

As is the case in matters of scandal, the evidence tends to linger before it lands. Such is the case with the revelation late last week that:

“… explosive text messages have cast serious doubt over the Prime Minister’s account of when he first learned of the alleged rape of a former Liberal staffer at Parliament House.”

An example of this is the story in Saturday’s Australian.

A second woman has come ­forward to allege she was sexually assaulted late last year by the same former Morrison government adviser ­accused of raping his female colleague in Parliament House.

Since the scandal broke, the Prime Minister has invoked the “I know nothing” defence.” At a doorstop press conference on Friday, Morrison repeatedly claimed he knew nothing of this heinous crime and repeatedly tried to shift attention onto the victim’s welfare for the purpose of moving it from himself.

Over and over, he has claimed that his office was unaware of any claims that his office knew about Brittany Higgins’s insistence that a colleague had raped her until a week ago.

He dismisses claims that he had any personal knowledge of the event until he was told last Monday. Yet all of these attempts at denialism fly in the face of a text message that suggests his office was told within a fortnight of the alleged incident. “If there was anything different here, I would like to know,” he said.

Yet again, he denied misleading the public and said his version of events was based on advice from his office. “I have asked the secretary of my department to actually test that advice,” came his response.

The facts suggest that its harder to find people in the parliament who didn’t know than those who did.

The texts are of an exchange between Ms Higgins and a fellow Liberal staffer and came to life on Friday.

The Liberal staffer in the message said they had spoken directly with a member of Mr Morrison’s staff:

“Spoke to the PMO. He was mortified to hear about it and how things have been handled,” he said.

“He’s going to discuss with COS – no one else. I flagged the need for councillor (sic) and desire to be closer to home during the election.”

(PMO refers to Mr Morrison’s office, and COS is shorthand for Chief of Staff).

Last Friday, the Prime Minister edged his way toward the truth, saying that the texts would be “within the scope” of a review of the response to Ms Higgins’ allegations by Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary Philip Gaetjens.

And guess who will conduct the review? None other than Mr Gaetjens himself. Yes, the same man who ran the internal enquiry into the Sports Rorts Affair and found that the Prime Minister had nothing to answer for.

So nothing will come of it.

There is much water to flow under the bridge of this scandal.

In my previous post on this scandal, I wasn’t backwards calling the Prime Minister a liar. I don’t detract from that; in fact, events since would seem to confirm my statement to be correct.

My thought for the day

A man who has mastered the art of manliness embodies many, if not all, of these manly characteristics:

  • He looks out for and is loyal to his friends and family. Does the right thing, even when it’s not convenient. He is proficient in the manly arts. Treats women with respect and honour.
  • Serves and gives back to his community. Sacrifices for the good of others. Works hard and seldom complains.
  • Exhibits both great courage and tender compassion. He has a confident demeanour but isn’t a pompous twit. Is witty without succumbing to sarcasm. Embraces instead of shirking responsibility.

Is that a man you know?

(Paraphrased from The Art of Manliness)

Another thought

At some time in the human narrative… in our history, man declared himself superior to women. It must have been an accident, or at least an act of gross stupidity. But that’s men for you.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

When will Conservatives ever treat women with a modicum of decency, even dignity?

And to think that Morrison knew all about it. Well, to be more precise, both the Liberal and National parties knew of this rape before the 2019 election. In fact, right in the middle of the campaign.

Had it been disclosed at the time, it might have made the difference between winning and losing for Labor.

Shades of John Howard and children overboard again, but more important, however, this time is just who decided to do a hush job. You might recall his very Christian reaction when he became Prime Minister, but when a young woman was allegedly raped, he decided to cover up.

According to the victim, staffer Brittany Higgins, her rape took place in Defence Minister Lynda Reynolds’s office on 19 April after a Friday night drinking session.

The election was held on 18 May.

The damage that such an act would have done to the conservatives – both Liberal and National – during an election campaign would be immeasurable. So what did they decide to do?

Well, on the surface, at least it looks as though they decided to double up on her pain.

The poor girl involved says she didn’t make a formal complaint because she wanted to hang onto her job and not do any harm to the reputation of the Liberal Party. What reputation one might ask?

A follow-up meeting was held inside the same office; the offence is alleged to have taken place a decision the Government concedes is “regretted.”

What moronic individual made such an inhumane decision knowing that it would almost certainly do further harm. Was it intended to?

The issue of the toxic treatment of women inside Parliament House and men’s behaviour within the Liberal and National parties yet again raises its ugly head. Remember Barnaby Joyce and the affair that led to his marriage’s breakup. Remember the Attorney-General Christian Porter kissing in a Canberra pub.

Back to Brittany Higgins, it was reported that:

“… a man working for then-defence industry minister Linda Reynolds took a 24-year-old female media staffer into Parliament House after a Friday night drinking session in March 2019 and allegedly raped her inside the defence industry minister’s office.”

On the Ministers, couch to be exact.

She should hang a sign on her door. “No defence here.”

Her story follows many other women known and unknown who have experienced similar situations.

The junior staffer was very new to her job – just four weeks, in fact – before this horrendous experience occurred. She then had to endure the decision between making a formal complaint or keeping her career.

After it was made perfectly clear that she might lose her job, she was shunted into Employment Minister Michaelia Cash’s office before Ms Higgins resigned.

A statement from a member of the Prime Minister’s Office said the reports about the incident were “deeply distressing.”

“At all times, guidance was sought from Ms Higgins as to how she wished to proceed, and to support and respect her decisions.

Throughout the entire process the overriding concern for Government was to support Ms Higgins’ welfare in whatever way possible.”

It sounds like they were falling over backwards to help her make the right moves to their advantage.

 

Brittany Higgins and Scott Morrison (Image from huffingtonpost.com.au – Photos from Channel 10 and Getty Images)

 

But after all this time, even after being denied access to video footage of the two’s movements, Ms Higgins has decided to ask the AFP to investigate. The why of that is another question. Given their record of investigating this Government, I wouldn’t say I like her chances.

Come Tuesday morning, the Prime Minister in a solemn mood to fit the occasion, fronts the media with apologises for everything under the sun. He had discussed the matter with his wife overnight and now looks at it from the point of view of what if it were his children.

 

https://twitter.com/GandWalter/status/1361552282471464960

 

His first defence was that he never knew, no one had told him anything. I found this to be wholly implausible, and secondly, that it was all a disgrace and he would move Heaven and earth to right everything. But as I said initially, I contend that the Prime Minister knew about it and wanted it covered up.

Of course, “not knowing anything” gave him the excuse to repair matters. Had he known, would not he have the obvious question; “Why didn’t you do something then?”

Samantha Maiden gets its right when she reports that:

“If history is any guide, he the Scott Morrison’s response to Brittany Higgins’ shocking account of sexual assault at Parliament House in Canberra will be open and shut.

He will urge her to take the matter to the police – which she did at the time – and perhaps suggest that is the beginning and the end of the matter?

But is it?

Or, do political parties owe the people that work for them – in this case a 24-year-old young woman – a more significant duty of care if they are sexually assaulted at work?”

If I might add to that, I think that Morrison gets away with his teary act too often and the “I wasn’t told” defence is just a poor excuse.

But time never diminishes the crime. What is needed is for men to grow up and be the men they are supposed to be. These events are just another addition to the many incidents of mistreating women.

My thought for the day

History is just an ongoing commentary on the incompetence of men.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

The revolving door of Conservative wrongdoings

The revolving door of corruption continues to tarnish Conservative politicians’ ranks and their party. Following the tradition of deceit that began in 2013 under Tony Abbott’s (or during Howard’s rein) victory, the Government continues with an openness that most leaders would be embarrassed by. Goodness knows what will happen if they win a fourth term.

1 Who else but Peter Dutton – the Minister for Everything Not Tied Down – could slash “millions in grant funding from organisations that were strongly recommended by his Department, and used the funds to support his own handpicked list”?

Documents obtained under FOI reveal from his own department that:

“The Home Affairs Department recommended funding a list of 70 community safety projects using a merit-based assessment.

Peter Dutton reduced the funding for 19 of the highest-scoring applications and redirected the funding to projects of his choice.

The funding guidelines state the minister can override the department’s merit-based assessments.”

Not only that, but the Minister also used the funds to help out a couple of councils in a marginal seat. It must be like having one’s own personal slush-fund fit for purpose. And to think that his department recommended they shouldn’t be funded at all.

This little morsel of corruption wouldn’t even pass a shandy test in the lady’s lounge.

On top of all this, an investigation by the ABCs 7.30 programme tells all and sundry that Dutton has:

“extraordinary influence that Mr Dutton wields over a multi-million dollar fund, drawn from the seized proceeds of criminal enterprises, for the Safer Communities program.”

As a former copper, you would think he would know better.

The guidelines for the grants for round three of the Safer Communities program stipulate that the Home Affairs Minister must consider each project’s assessment. Still, he has the power to overrule his department’s merit-based reviews.

It was also revealed that:

“… Mr Dutton was warned by the department, in a previously confidential ministerial briefing, that overruling the merit system could draw scrutiny from the Australian National Audit Office or other news organisations.”

Well, they sure did, and sadly they will probably get away with yet another one of these political crimes.

The documents, released under freedom of information laws, can only increase the mistrust we already have in our politicians. How we award, grants generally must be reviewed in light of the avalanche of evidence before us.

As is his usual ploy, Dutton tells us everything is above board and squeaky clean and you should believe him because he is a former policeman.

And meanwhile where is the chairman of this ring of skulduggery? Hawaii? No, he just allows it all to happen.

However, The ABC tells us that:

“The ministerial submission Legal experts have told 7.30 that Mr Dutton’s consideration of the grant funding after the association donated to the Queensland LNP may give rise to a perceived conflict of interest, which could be considered a breach of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s ministerial standards.”

In breaking news Friday 12 February 2021, The Labor Party has asked the Auditor General to investigate the Safer Communities Fund after departmental documents exposed Mr Dutton diverted almost half the total pool of funding away from recommended projects to his own handpicked ones

2 So the National Party, the party that receives about half the Greens’ votes yet has nine seats to one in the House of Representatives wants to determine Australia’s climate policy. They don’t even have the support of the National Farmers Federation. To say they represent country people is in itself a lie. Just look at the NBN.

They must be the most unqualified group of people to have ever served the nation in this. Whoops, I forgot the redhead.

3 In politics, do you shape the truth for the sake of a good impression? On the other hand, do you tell the truth even if it may tear down the view people may have of you? Alternatively, do you use the contrivance of omission and create another lie. I can only conclude that there is always a pain in truth, but there is no harm in it.

4 From Facebook (author unknown):

“It was refreshing to see David Speers meeting his match on insiders this morning. Sunday 7 February. Try as he might, he could not disrupt or contradict Labor official Marles this morning, who reflected the quiet, competent professionalism awaiting Australia after this tired, lazy crooked Government is removed in favour of a new capable Labor’s government. Do we want more Craig Kelly’s or Marles, the difference is a bit too obvious? Of course, I haven’t even mentioned Tanya Plibersek or Kristina Keneally or penny Wong. Labor has a wealth of reformist talent ready to lead.”

5 This email from Mark Dreyfus I received in my Roy Morgan daily newsletter summary is worth repeating:

“We’ve all seen the ever-growing list of scandals surrounding the Morrison Government.

Sports Rorts. Robodebt. The Western Sydney Airport Land rip off.

The list goes on and on.

Australians deserve to have confidence in their Government. Still, Scott Morrison and his Liberal and National Party mates are doing everything they can to prevent the establishment of a powerful and independent national anti-corruption commission.

The Liberals are even proposing what has been called ‘the weakest watchdog in the country’ which will ensure they are never held accountable for their multiple scandals.”

6 Also from Roy Morgan:

“Professor Andrew Stewart from the University of Adelaide is among 23 labour law experts who have criticised key elements of the Federal Government’s omnibus industrial relations bill. Professor Stewart says a particular concern is the proposal to exempt some enterprise agreements from the ‘better-off-overall test’ for two years. The senior academics have also questioned the proposed definition of a casual worker. Professor Stewart stresses that the academics support some parts of the bill, such as increased penalties for wage theft.” (Original article by David Marin-Guzman, The Australian Financial Review, 09/02/2021).

7 From Peter van Onselen (Peter referred to Minister Greg Hunts astonishing attack on ABC journalist and morning host Michael Roland last Tuesday):

 

https://twitter.com/vanOnselenP/status/1359255799051157504

 

Anyway, truth won in the end.

My thought for the day

We exercise our involvement in our democracy every three years by voting. After that, the vast majority takes very little interest. Why is it so?

PS: Many thanks to Marilyn Richards, who found the time to write the following:

“Thank you I have enjoyed your writing and your thoughts on this crazy life for some time. I have particularly enjoyed the self-control you seem to have when I have needed to gather my thoughts and courage to stop myself from exploding. Wishing you many more enlightening contributions. To keep some of us sane.”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

Religion and politics can agree, but rarely do (part 1)

When did the Christian religion first influence American and Australian politics? Let’s start in the present. Faith got its back up when the now-disgraced Christian President Trump signed an executive order separating children from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Religious organisations of varying denominations spoke out against what they considered a barbaric practice. The Trump administration pursued a “zero-tolerance” immigration policy as a deterrent for immigrants by prosecuting adults who illegally crossed into the country, resulting in systematic family separation. Five hundred and forty-five children’s parents still cannot be found, and it is estimated that about two-thirds had been deported without their kids. So religion does speak its mind when it is confronted with things it considers evil or against God’s laws.

It is easy to prove the historical involvement of religion in politics concerning particular issues. But which presidents or prime ministers have defended the separation of church and state most ardently? Both in Australia and the U.S., our constitutions both explicitly outline the separation of church and state.

John F Kennedy was in danger of being overlooked for the 1960 Presidency because he was a Catholic:

“Protestants questioned whether Kennedy’s Roman Catholic faith would allow him to make important national decisions as President independent of the Church. Kennedy addressed those concerns before a sceptical audience of Protestant clergy.”

He made his now-famous speech about the separation of church and state. But there are also many examples of religion seeking a place in government. They all form part of the Christian or religious right that has its origins in Christian political factions that are strongly socially conservative. Mostly they are United States Christian conservatives who seek to influence politics and public policy with their own particular interpretation of the teachings of Christ. (Note: An opposing view might be that Jesus was the world’s first socialist.)

These Evangelical Christians are an informal coalition with a core of conservative evangelical Protestants and some Roman Catholics.

The notion that a few privileged individuals can own the vast majority of a countries wealth and the remainder own little is on any level unsustainable, politically, economically or morally.

In Australia, the Christian right was unheard of until recent times when conservative Evangelical Christians took control of both church doctrine (the gospel of wealth) and political Liberal ideology moved to the far right (a reluctance for change). With an Evangelical Prime Minister who has similar religious and political philosophies as former U.S. president Donald Trump, Australia began to shift in both language and style under the Prime Ministership of Tony Abbott.

The Christian right has influenced politics since the 1940s but has been particularly powerful since the 1970s.

Do you shape the truth for the sake of a good impression? On the other hand, do you tell the truth even if it may tear down the view people may have of you? Alternatively, do you use the contrivance of omission and create another lie. I can only conclude that there is always a pain in truth, but there is no harm in it.

Although Christian rights are most commonly associated with politics in the United States, similar Christian conservative groups can be found in other Christian-majority nations’ political cultures. It promotes its teachings on social issues such as:

school prayer, intelligent design, embryonic stem cell research, homosexuality, temperance, euthanasia, contraception, Christian nationalism, Sunday Sabbatarianism, sex education, abortion, and pornography.”

The right-wing Evangelical churches promote these issues in and outside the church. Most members adhere to these teachings, but those raised in a modern pluralist society feel conflicted between church and state.

The problem for the Australian Christian is this question: Is it a good thing to be associated with a political party who only has the interest of those who ‘have’ at the centre of its ideology or should it re-examine Biblical teaching in light of a rapidly changing society and technological change and reach out to the ‘have nots’?

Scott Morrison started his church life in the Uniting Church and was greatly influenced by the Reverend Ray Green. Brian Houston of the evangelical mega-church Hillsong (Assembly of God) and Leigh Coleman left a lasting impression on him. All three got a mention in Morrison’s inaugural speech to the Australian parliament.

Houston was criticised by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse for failing to report sexual abuse by his father. In other words, he broke a law of the state. Mind you; he wasn’t alone in his sin.

Morrison’s flippantly opportunistic approach to programs run by the Government like Robodebt, Sports Rorts, and Aged Care homes suggest corruption on a grand level.

His “dear friend” and fundraiser Leigh Coleman somehow raised $43 million from the Morrison government for programs to help Indigenous folk, but somehow most of it seemed to go in salaries.

Leigh Coleman, formerly of Hillsong, has allegations of fraud and bribery against him. (Note: Allegations, not charges.)

The $43 million in contracts from the Defence Department to a company he is linked to (in so much as he founded and managed it) “while being a registered charity was set up to address Indigenous unemployment and disadvantage.”

That’s $43 million of our money, and it reeks of suspicion. And this man is a friend of the Prime Minister, and just as importantly, a friend of Pastor Houston.

A bit sus, cynical, or wouldn’t pass the pub test are few expressions Australians would use to describe these transactions. So much so that it has the whiff of corruption about it. These are the sorts of things that can happen when religion gets to close to government.

Even more suss when one looks closer at this recent piece from The Guardian, and you see that the org upon which such legion of government largesse is bestowed, ServeGate Australia, has all the hallmarks of a front, a tax dodge, a money-laundering operation

 

In part 2: How the merger progressed to make a threesome with the industrialists and their wealth.

My thought for the day

Science has made in my lifetime, the most staggering achievements and they are embraced, recognised and enjoyed by all sections of society. The only areas that I can think of where Science is questioned are in the religious fever of climate change, conservative politics and unconventional religious belief.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button