If the following words sound familiar, the reason is that l have posted them before. However, it may be best to reread them to understand my thoughts.

Again, I had better pause lest you fail to grasp where I am heading. In Australia, we have a saying, “Only in America.” It’s a phrase we use when something outrageously good or bad happens, as though such excesses can occur only in America.

It might be violent racism, another Columbine, kids being slaughtered – any preventable, tragic loss of life that repeats time and again for which no remedy is forthcoming. All of this is beyond the average Australian’s capacity to understand.

In terms of guns, we would say in our somewhat impulsive wisdom that it is time that those with the capacity to change laws that might prevent the mass murder of children and refuse to do so were made to account. After all, they are as guilty or mad, whatever the case, as the perpetrator himself.

The same is true about people responsible for prosecuting those who have allegedly committed the gravest crimes against the state.

We look upon Americans with a great deal of curiosity. We are the recipients (not necessarily the beneficiaries) of its culture. Its capitalistic financial system. Its warmongering, sport and entertainment.

President Obama once said he would like to have our universal health system, our compulsory voting and our gun laws. But that aside, we are very much like America and generally, what comes to pass in the US will do so in Australia – even its bullshit. Well, to a point.

The United States’ current political crisis couldn’t happen here. Our Constitution (Section 44) doesn’t allow people with criminal records or those on trial to stand for parliament.

Donald Trump, in my view, and I’m not sure how this reads into their constitution, should be ordered to undergo a mental examination to ascertain his fitness to govern the country. If necessary, the supreme court could order him and Biden to submit to a complete physical and psychiatric evaluation if they were not prepared to do so voluntarily.

President Biden appears to be medically fit. His mental faculties seem reasonable from down under, with some doubts about his ageing body.

On the other hand, former President Trump might adequately pass a fitness test. But his cognitive capacity is that of a ten-year-old, and on that finding alone would be disqualified from running.

He is so far ahead of any other Republican in the race to be the next POTUS that he will surely get the GOP nomination. Of course, with the latest indictments from the State of Georgia, he will be battling an election while fighting multiple accusations. How will the different jurisdictions handle all the charges, and in what time frame is a maze too complicated to walk into? And remember, Trump has also been impeached twice.

That there does not appear to be anything to impede him from running makes the American democratic system seem like people of little intelligence put it together. That he could become President and lead the country from a plush cell in a jail of his choosing is more laughable.

In an article for Time, Olivia B Waxman makes some salient points. She asks the question. What happens if Trump wins re-election and is convicted of a felony while in the White House? There is no clear answer.

Without an answer to this question, the USA has a significant constitutional crisis on its hands that might run for years. It would be even more critical than Watergate. A new Attorney General could derail Trump’s Federal cases by simply not turning up, but the Justice Department cannot cease State prosecutions.

If he were to win, he could govern from his cell – a new wing of the White House. He could have international leaders visit him in solitary confinement. It wouldn’t work, of course, and a case for impeachment (a third time) would arise for not adequately doing his job. That might remove the SOAB. In fact, it may be the only way.

There is a slim hope that the Republican Party won’t nominate him as their presidential candidate. You can read the full but complicated explanation here. However, if a new candidate were to emerge in stage three of the election system, Trump might find himself in a lot of trouble, especially in a two-horse race.

That said, a game-changing event has arisen with the indictment from the state of Georgia. If convicted, Trump wouldn’t be able to pardon himself. He and his co-conspirators have been indicted under what is known as Rico law (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) in Georgia, which requires only showing an “interrelated pattern of activity” of a criminal enterprise.

Only in America: How most Australians see the character of Donald Trump

In October 2020, I wrote the following:

From down under, we see a sick deluded man of no redeeming features, full of racial hatred, ignorance, bile and misogyny. A deluded, pathetic liar unsuitable for the highest office in the land, if not the world. He sees complex problems and impregnates them with populism and implausible black-and-white solutions.

He is a person of limited intellect and understanding, only capable of seeing the world through the prism of his wealth. The far edges of knowledge have passed him by. Matters requiring deep philosophical consideration seem beyond him.

His opinions on subjects of internal and international importance are so shallow that one would think he spent the entirety of his youth in the wading pool at the local swimming pool, or six years in grade 6, and never academically advanced.

He is a crash-through politician with a ubiquitous mouth. Trump remains an incoherent mess who bounces back after each disaster thinking he has been impressive while those around him are laughing their heads off. Entertaining in a uniquely American way, he might be to the hillbillies, but leadership requires worldly character.

Since he lost the presidency, Trump has been nothing more than a thorn in the side of American law and its democratic principles.

Is America to have a dumbhead of first world order as President for a second time? After displaying all these character flaws for many years, that there are still enough Americans of his ilk content to elect the grotesque nightmare that he is, says much about the sanity of its people and the structure of its governance. Only in America, indeed.

President Biden’s achievements are noteworthy. He has a record number of citizens in work. A 1.9tn pandemic relief bill in March. He also got the US to re-join the Paris Climate Conference. Inflation is on a downward trend. He has taken action to lower the cost of health care.

In my view, electing Trump in preference to Biden would be tantamount to electing Dracula President of the Blood Bank.

With these latest revelations, hope has arisen that the great charlatan has finally met his match and American democracy can sleep well again. Depending on how the cards fall, Trump may even be prevented from running for the prestigious office of President of the United States.

After all the conniving corruption of the Coalition’s Luddite term of office, one might have reasonably concluded that they had drained the swamp of their own making. But more alleged corruption has surfaced from the residue left behind.

And before the Coalition can defend itself against a backlog of corruption allegations, new ones have surfaced from a seemingly bottomless pit of misdemeanours.

A. As of Monday, 24 July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) received 494 referrals:

“Approximately 13% of the referrals relate to matters well publicised in the media. This figure includes, but is not limited to, referrals relating to Robodebt.”

In other words, LNP scandals like car parks, sports rorts and land acquisitions might also be included.

The NACC will always have Coalition referrals, just as doctors always have patients.

B. Take this last month, for example. First, we had the revelation that the Morrison Government spent $20.8bn outsourcing more than a third of public service operations. An enquiry found the equivalent of nearly 54,000 full-time staff were employed as consultants or service providers for the Federal Government during the 2021-2022 financial year. This equates to one-third of the public service workforce. A Government de-facto workforce was doing work that the public service should have done.

C. Then we had the PwC scandal, where the tax practitioner’s board found that:

“… the former head of international tax for PwC Australia Peter-John Collins had been deregistered by the tax practitioners board for failing to act with integrity and for sharing confidential government briefings.”

The board of PwC has since confirmed that Collins had “made unauthorised disclosures” to partners and staff at PwC of confidential information.

The information concerned new rules to stop multinationals from avoiding tax.

D. This one occurred when Peter Dutton was Home Affairs Minister. The crux of the matter is that it has been alleged that Home Affairs gave a multimillion-dollar offshore detention contract to an Australian businessman only a month after federal police informed Dutton that the man, Mozammil Bhojani, was under investigation for bribery.

Indeed, Dutton would/should have passed on information of such importance to his department. Maybe he had a reason for not doing so. And why wasn’t he involved in the contract process? If he were on top of his portfolio, he would have passed on this vital information as a matter of course. Or so one would think.

And they say our international reputation has been damaged by the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games. What about all these allegations.

That’s not all.

We have the farcical situation where a businessman linked to Stuart Robert won’t face a parliamentary committee hearing because he has severed ties with Australia. Why is that do you think?

Last April The SMH reported that:

“Senior Liberal MP Stuart Robert stood to gain financially out of a consulting company called Synergy 360, which was part-owned by his business partner and chief political fundraiser and helped multinational companies win millions of dollar’s worth of government contracts.

The former Government services minister’s friend and co-owner of the controversial firm, John Margerison, gave evidence before a parliamentary committee inquiry that Robert was a part-owner of a company that Margerison nominated to receive funds from Synergy 360.”

(A joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) is looking into how the Government awards contracts.)

There are grave allegations:

“… which include suspect payments being made to senior politicians from Nauru and Papua New Guinea, requests for bribes, and complaints to Home Affairs falling on deaf ears.”

These allegations need to be seriously looked into.

Home Affairs and Peter Dutton gave out contracts without ministerial oversight. The question is why.

E. On a lesser note, we find that parliamentary expenses are in the spotlight again.

The expenses watchdog is chasing former Liberal politician Andrew Laming for a further “$8,000 over taxpayer-funded travel to Sydney and Melbourne.”

F. To finish, there is the matter of a $33 million grant to a company in 2017 without due process:

“The former government led by Malcolm Turnbull awarded a $33m grant to a company that was developing a mental health app after months of lobbying from one of its own mental health commissioners who was also a shareholder in the months-old startup.

The one-off grant was awarded in 2017 without a competitive tender to Innowell for a series of collaborative research trials into a digital mental health platform. Its shareholders include PwC, the University of Sydney and former mental health commissioner Prof Ian Hickie.”

There was no suggestion of wrongdoing by Hickie, who, together with PwC, were shareholders in the company Innowell.

All above board except for the non-competitive tender process.

Where does all this leave the average voter? The person who fronts up at every election thinking that the Government has been acting in their best interests only to find that they have been serving their own.

The answer to that question is like looking at a piece of art and finding that their opinion differs significantly from others.

However, their seriousness cannot be dismissed arbitrarily. That is due to the weight of the material; it must be that we investigate. To find the truth in all these accusations or alleged criminal activity. In all this, there is an unspoken suggestion that all is not right.

The Prime Minister has asked the Leader of the Opposition to explain why he didn’t tell his department that Brojani was under investigation (see D above). In doing so, Peter Dutton invoked the politician’s favourite defence of lousy memory on this week’s resumption of parliament.

Why did Home Affairs give out contracts without ministerial oversight? Is that normal?

In response:

“Labor has announced an independent review of the management of regional processing procurement by the Department of Home Affairs after revelations it granted contracts to a company linked to the subject of a bribery investigation.”

If deemed necessary, the inquiry can refer matters to the NACC. Undoubtedly, the Leader of the opposition’s memory will have declined even further by then.

A worry for the reader is whether the newly formed NACC can investigate all the referrals with any degree of urgency. And further, do the AFP and others have the capacity to prosecute? In other words, will law enforcement agencies be able to investigate the avalanche of suspected criminality?

If either of these assumptions is negative, nothing will have been gained. If the NACC decides not to investigate, the public will be none the wiser. In the words contained in the following sentences, there needs to be more for the general public. There needs to be more transparency of accountability. Who and what are the referrals about? What is the test for public hearings?

The only one l see making it to public hearings is Robodebt.

For me, you could drive a truck through the outs for politicians.

Note that the:

“NACC does not have to consider or respond to every referral it receives. The Commissioner can also decide not to take any action concerning a referral.”

And also that:

“A hearing must be held in private, unless the Commissioner decides to hold the hearing, or part of the hearing, in public. In deciding whether to hold a hearing in public, the Commissioner may consider:

• the extent to which the corruption issue could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic
• whether certain evidence is confidential, or relates to the commission (or alleged or suspected Commission) of an offence
• any unfair prejudice to a person’s reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that may be caused
• whether a person giving evidence has a particular vulnerability, such as working directly to someone in a position of power, and
• the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public.”

What we will eventually know about the crimes committed by those in power during the Abbott-Morrison years may be forever shrouded in mystery.

After the election of May 21 2022, I published a piece titled “Why the Conservatives cannot win the next election and why Labor will go early,” in which I wrote:

“Another reason the conservatives will be up against it in the next election is that many mature-aged voters dropped from the rolls and were replaced with a cohort of young folk seeking change. This is guaranteed to transpire again. Both parties knew it would happen sometime, but the LNP, with its born-to-rule attitude, did nothing about it.

A note of caution, though. The young are desperate for change. By that, I mean significant, meaningful transformation that excites and promotes new ways of doing things.”

Mainstream media has now also woken to this most obvious point. Historically when the polls are published, they show which age groups support whichever party; invariably, they demonstrated that older folk supported the Coalition and younger folk backed Labor and the Greens.

It meant that as older folk passed on, they would be replaced by a younger cohort more likely to support the left:

“A new analysis of voting trends by the Liberal-leaning Centre for Independent Studies has found that by the time people reached their early 50s, Baby Boomers (people born between 1946 and 1964) and Generation X (1965-1980) were more likely to vote for a conservative party than a progressive party.”

The paper’s research suggests my thinking on this subject has been validated. The reader should think of me as something other than a political genius. It was simple. If you looked at the polls for many years, as I have, you would conclude that the young voted left and the old voted right. And that, at some time, the old would progressively die off, and the young left voters would replace them.

An analysis of the report by James Massola and Paul Sakkal for the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that:

“The Coalition could lose the next six elections because Millennials and Generation Z voters aren’t shifting towards conservatives as they age.

“The report further states that that trend is not being repeated among voters who are Millennials (1981-1995) or Generation Z (1996-2009). The percentage of Millennials shifting their vote to the Coalition is only increasing by 0.6 per cent at each election – half the speed at which Boomers and Gen Xers are shifting – which means Millennials will be in their 80s rather than their 50s before they are more likely to vote for the Coalition.

And for Generation Z, who were first eligible to vote in a federal election from 2014, support for the Coalition is falling, rather than increasing. This group is the least likely of any post-war generation to support the Coalition.”

All this analysis indicates that the Coalition could lose another 35 seats. The paper reveals that by 2040 – 70 per cent of voters will be from post-1980 generations.

The Australian Election Study proclaim to be the leading study of political attitudes and voting behaviour in Australia. Their paper examined the average primary vote for the Coalition in elections held in 1966, 1969, 1980 and from 1987 to 2022.

According to the paper’s author Matthew Taylor support for the Coalition among Millennials was increasing at a glacial rate compared to Baby Boomers and Gen X.

“If Gen Z support for the Coalition stays where it is and the generation that comes after has similarly low support, then even if Boomers, Gen X and Millennials keep shifting towards the Coalition at the rates we have seen in the past, that still isn’t enough for the Coalition to return to government in the next six elections,” he said.

After studying the report, I concluded that the Coalition has a rough sea to navigate before having any success in future elections.

Liberal Frontbencher Dan Tehan has called for a significant review of his party’s policies, saying the party needed to find better ways to prove that Liberal values were core Australian values.

They would have to do more than that, like getting rid of the blatant corruption that insinuates itself like rust throughout the party.

The Liberal Party has survived on policies aimed directly at the cohort that is now on its way to the long sleep, and those replacing them want other things from their government, like a revival of the fair go.

Added to their already substantial problems, I find it impossible to imagine that the Australian people would be so gullible as to elect a government that performed so miserably for a decade.

Along the road to a new election, events will emerge to focus on the former Government’s corruption. A steady stream of bad news will be revealed before the next election. I speak of Robodebt and the long list of severe misdemeanours that will be placed before the National Anti-Corruption Commission in June. The Robodebt Royal Commission report which was handed to the Governor General yesterday is expected to be explosive (if it hasn’t been already). This can’t be good for the opposition, no matter what they say.

Of course, the best thing Labor has going for it is Peter Dutton himself. As I previously wrote, and still maintain:

“On all accounts, he thinks there is nothing wrong with the party he leads: Its philosophy, its morality, its trust, its economic credentials and its equality.

Peter Dutton is so disliked by all and Sundry that he couldn’t win an election if he started now.”

I have read and watched the evidence of those involved in this sordid tale of political skulduggery, and I dread to think about what lay ahead for the chief protagonists.

In my email inbox sits the latest newsletter from the Robodebt Royal Commission. It reads as follows.

23 June 2023

“The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme has updated a Do Not Publish order.

DNP-0022 has been updated further to include an additional exception on point (c) and (d) of page one.

Report Information

https://twitter.com/robodebtRC/status/1671706483497783296

The truth shall set you free, or will it?

That is a week from now, but those like me who want justice done must wait until the Parliament sits again on Monday, 3 July. It will receive the report then and release it soon afterwards. Well, that’s what I expect to happen. A statement as inflammable as this will require the Government’s immediate attention.

The report promises to be highly explosive, with former Prime Minister Morrison, Attorney General Porter, Minister Tudge, Minister Robert, and Minister Payne facing an uncertain future. It is plain to all and sundry that some or possibly all of those mentioned will face further investigation by the Federal Police. And you can add to that a culpable public service.

Finally, the truth will emerge from an exhaustive Royal Commission by the Commissioner Catherine Holmes AC SC.

The Royal Commission was established to:

“… enquire into the establishment, design and implementation of the Robodebt scheme; the use of third-party debt collectors under the Robodebt scheme; concerns raised following the performance of the Robodebt scheme; and the intended or actual outcomes of the Robodebt scheme.”

The cruelty of the scheme, as has been widely reported:

“More than 2030 people died after receiving a Centrelink debt notice, also known as robo-debt, according to data released by the Department of Human Services.”

The Royal Commission spent over nine weeks in a Brisbane hotel ballroom cross-examining one hundred witnesses, including three former Prime Ministers. They were all sworn to tell the truth. Sometimes a little blood fell onto the dance floor.

Hours passed, and sometimes hours bled into days as public servants waited to give evidence. Politicians were forensically asked questions by a King’s Council and a former Queensland chief justice about one of the country’s most egregious failures of public administration. Arguably the worst failure in public policy in Australian political history.

The witnesses in this sordid affair were taken as far back as 2014 and questioned about emails, conversations, and even scribbled notes. In doing so, it found the origin of a government program that would unleash misery on the country’s most vulnerable.

A woman with extraordinary deftness led the Royal Commission and did what a court probably couldn’t. She wrenched open the iron gates of legal professional privilege and cabinet confidentiality to expose the passageways of power.

Why did the Government proceed with the scheme after finding it illegal? That is the big question. Who was responsible? Let’s hope Catherine Ena Holmes, AC SC, will provide the answers.

One of the promises made by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was that he would clean up the Parliament and make it more trustworthy. Events of the past fortnight suggest that he has so far failed abysmally. Is it his fault? No, it is not.

Well, whose then?

Firstly, it is the fault of the system and its rules. The failure to obey them is mainly the failure of men to grow up. Some of us have no control over what are, to some, men’s daily predilections: that of womanising. But some seem to have no control over that either. Sex is like a drug to some men who have trouble keeping their zippers done up.

Some seem to think flirting or an affair when away from home is a substitute, but some men become more lustful than others, forgetting that it isn’t on if it isn’t consensual. Some beautiful women are in the Houses of Parliament, but that is their luck, not the MPs.

Is it an excuse? No, it’s not. Whoever wrote the rules had better take another look and consider the examples of other organisations. Thank goodness Parliament only meets periodically, or you can imagine the problems.

I’m not trying to be flippant here because this problem has become an unbearable and often heartbreaking problem. Especially when politics are intertwined.

Such was the case when the Liberals thought they could take the head of Finance Minister Katy Gallagher over the suggestion she had known weeks before about the Brittany Higgins allegations and had encouraged the complaint.

The ugly side of politics was about to rear its head again.

The mud-slinging began on the weekend of June 10, and debate in the House of Representatives and Senate question times over three days, amounting to nothing.

The Liberal Party had set out to prove that Gallagher had misled the Senate. They failed to prove their case, and all the old anti-women accusations came back to haunt them. The further it went, the deeper the mud became, and for the dignity of the House, Peter Dutton should have backed off. Foolishly he didn’t; Lidia Thorpe fearlessly spoke her mind in the Senate, and all hell broke loose.

Then on Wednesday, Senator Thorpe used parliamentary privilege to constantly interrupt Victorian Senator (while speaking about the Higgins accusations of all things) David Van to allege that he had sexually assaulted her in a stairwell at Parliament House. He, of course, denied the charge. She later withdrew under Senate rules but returned later to hone in on her indictment, giving Senator Van a decent tongue-lashing.

Not long after, former Senator Amanda Stoker calls Dutton to tell him that the same Senator Van had “inappropriately touched” her at a social function in 2020. It was then he made the decision to expel Van from the federal Liberal party room.

Dutton said another person had complained about the Senator, but he couldn’t disclose any details. Sounds rather convenient, but let’s move on.

Then Senator Van decides that he will sit as an independent now that he, as a consequence of those events mentioned earlier, had been dismissed from the party.

On the Sunday following all this Liberal Party head-hunting and shame, National Party Deputy Leader Bridget McKenzie appears on ABC Insiders to tell David Speers what a wonderful thing it is to have such a strong and concerned leader.

“We know that both the Labor party, One Nation, the Greens, the Liberal party, all political parties have faced these type of internal challenges over the recent past and for a leader to be so decisive, I think was a testament to his strength of feeling around these matters, though.”

I think there was a lot of cheers silently across parliamentary offices with such decisive action being taken by a leader.”

Memories of how decisively brutish Mr Dutton had been in his former portfolios and his capriciousness in never displaying empathy toward others came to mind.

That wasn’t all. Bridget also indicated during the interview that people in her electorate had come forward and highlighted instances of sexual harassment or abuse, but she always kept them confidential.

Now, isn’t that what they were accusing Gallagher of?

On Tuesday, June 20, the Prime Minister suggested that the newspapers that published the original text messages in the Brittany Higgins case may have broken the law.

The Opposition Leader, his party and the gutter media had set out to take Gallagher’s head, but instead, they lost one of their own. In doing so, they had once again displayed that when it comes to women, the Liberal Party is nothing but a bunch of conservative middle-aged males who have an incubus attitude toward women.

I’m sure all parties would have found it restorative when the Prime Minister announced his intention to cleanse the Parliament of its Abbott/Morrison disregard for rules and conventions.

I even naively thought that the Liberal and National parties would take to heart their May 21, 2022, defeat and reform. After all, the Opposition leader had indicated his desire to become softer and more gentle.

However, I recall Dutton saying nothing was wrong with Liberal philosophy, manners and culture. And so, life goes on in the Liberal Party room. Nothing has changed. Nothing will. If he isn’t some “extreme right-wing person,” what is he, and who does he represent?

Here is an example of a promise too hard to keep:

Question Time continues to be the bear pit it has always been. It is devoid of wit, humour, words of intelligence and those with the eloquence and debating skills to give them meaning. Mainly it embraces maleness that believes in conflict as a means of political supremacy over and above the pursuit of excellence in an argument.

It certainly is one of the ugly sides of politics.

Continued from Part 1

Peter Dutton’s motives for supporting the No vote are questionable. I devoted most of part one to the character of the man who will lead the No vote. I did so because it is essential to question the motives of those who lead Conservative parties. I have concluded that (as part one shows) Peter Dutton has no moral ethics and that, in their absence, he is saying No for purely political reasons.

He and his Coalition partner, the Nationals, stand between justice for our First Nations people and continuing the status quo. As is usual in these circumstances, they offer no alternatives to what they oppose.

It is fair to say that in my lifetime, governments of both shades spent many billions of dollars seeking to improve the lives of Aboriginal folk. However, the programmes were devised by whites and implemented by them. It is also fair to say that many programmes failed for that reason.

Our First Nations people are asking first that they are recognised for what they are; the descendants of those who inhabited the lands for thousands of years. They would expect this be noted in our Constitution. Most of us, those who believe in a fair go, would agree.

Those who don’t are throwing spurious objections that are false or fake and intended to confuse the listener or reader.

Secondly, they ask that they be given a ‘voice’: One that will go directly to Parliament and be heard by those who make decisions. Parliament would not tolerate frivolous propositions and ambient claims. Thought-through proposals would be considered on merit, accepted or rejected.

It is a simple request for the First Nations people. There is nothing sinister to read into it. After long and thoughtful consideration, they have requested that they have a say in their future and be recognised in our Constitution.

Adding logic to the debate, Mark Kenny recently wrote that:

“It was not right-wing cowardice that defeated apartheid but moral clarity and fierce purpose. It came from Nelson Mandella, Steve and Ntsiki Biko, and countless others.”

Let us take a little time to examine what is meant by “moral clarity and fierce purpose” Kenny wrote (above) concerning the Voice.

We’ll start at the explanation of the referendum question and constitutional amendment:

On referendum day, voters will be asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on a single question. Subject to the Parliament’s approval, the question on the ballot paper will be:

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

Constitutional amendment

The proposed law that Australians are being asked to approve at the referendum would insert the following lines into the Constitution:

“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

Constitution Alteration Bill

The Government has introduced the Constitution Alteration Bill into Parliament. The Bill sets the question that will be put to the Australian people later this year and includes the proposed alteration to the Constitution.

A Joint Parliamentary Committee will consider the Bill and report by 15 May 2023. Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s website.

You can follow the progress on the Constitution Alteration Bill on the Parliament of Australia website.

Referendum 2023

• Referendum question and constitutional amendment
• How a referendum works

Conclusion

There it is. It’s so clear-cut and easy to follow that blind Freddy could understand it. So why is Peter Dutton so intent on wrecking something that should have been done and dusted twenty years ago?

In his unwarranted attacks on the Voice, the Opposition Leader suggested it would re-racialise Australia. I must admit I hadn’t come across the phrase before. However, it may confirm thoughts he may have had when he so shamefully turned his back and walked out on the National Apology in 2008.

The concept of a Voice is but a step away from a treaty, so Dutton would also take down any hope of an accord or a republic.

Many in his party agree with Dutton’s sentiments, but they are from the Trumpish, brutal right flank of conservatives. Others ostensibly can see that the Voice is an opportunity to heal the divisions of the past.

It is also about truth-telling, recognising, listening and talking. If Dutton cannot identify those virtues, he has no place in Parliament, now or in the future.

It worries me; no, it disturbs me that now a little over a year since Labor won the election, no word of regret for their many failures (those who committed suicide or others hurt by their lack of empathy) has been uttered by anyone in the Opposition. Instead, its leader has indicated that he intends to take his party further right.

Admitting that you are wrong is an absolute prerequisite to starting anew, redefining who you are and what you and your party stand for. Dutton has yet to do this. Instead, he has opted to sabotage an idea put forward in good faith. One that would resolve generations of angst. After scaring the life out of decent people, will he drive them six miles out of town and let them find their way back.

Journo stumps Peter Dutton by asking why he hasn’t bothered to meet with the CEO of the Alice Springs Traditional Owners’ organisation Lhere Artepe, while he is there in Alice Springs.
Peter Dutton says he’d rather speak to “shoppers in shopping centres” 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/RiuROo9mfI

— stranger (@strangerous10) April 12, 2023

You are probably thinking, referring to the headline, that it is a stupid thing to say, and on the one hand, you might be right given the Government still has two years to serve. On the other, going early when your chances of winning are second to none is a good idea.

The Constitution provides that:

“… terms for the House of Representatives continue for a maximum of three years from the first meeting of the House after an election. This means that a Federal Election for the House of Representatives may be called at any time in the three years following the first sitting of the House. The Governor-General may also dissolve the House sooner than the three-year term.

The latest possible date of the next election is within 68 days from the expiry of the House. As the 47th Parliament first met on Tuesday, July 26 2022, it is due to expire on Friday, July 25 2025. The election for the House of Representatives must therefore be held by September 27 2025, the last Saturday within these 68 days. However, elections are generally called well before constitutionally or legally necessary.”

To make it clear, I support fixed election dates with 3-year terms, but in this instance, my support for an extended period of punishment for the conservative side of politics is as important to me as it is rising every day. And at my age, that is important.

Now, allow me to put this into perspective. After almost ten years of the worst kind of grossly offensive governance, the Liberal and National parties lost the 2022 election on May 21.

In the time that has elapsed since that date, not once have I heard from the lips of a conservative politician any form of regret or apology, even remorse or shame. On the contrary, we have been served a recipe of poached platitudes, banalities and lies.

To listen to them is like listening to those who cannot express themselves adequately and repetitively mumble, “but we were still born to rule.”

People will, over time, forget their crimes of corruption, the scandals and their men of mad, destructive political beliefs and decisions. Of inequality toward women and lacking equality of opportunity. All of which have been identified in various media over the years and will now be investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

We must do as I am now, reminding everyone of how foolish and rotten they were. Then repeating it repeatedly because another ten years would be unbearable and disastrous for our nation.

And this is why we must remind the electorate right up to the next election and beyond. Now you ask what would prevent another Luddite period of (mostly) men.

Going early is not uncommon. It allows you to govern for five straight years in circumstances primarily to your benefit. It will enable you to fulfil promises in an unfulfilled, more orderly manner.

An early election campaign creates the opportunity to remind the punters of just how deplorable the conservatives governed.

Another reason the conservatives will be up against it in the next election is that many mature-aged voters dropped from the rolls and were replaced with a cohort of young folk seeking change. This is guaranteed to transpire again. Both parties knew this would happen sometime, but the LNP did nothing about it. A note of caution is that the young are desperate for change. By that, I mean significant, meaningful change that excites and promotes new ways of doing things.

Women still feel ostracised by a party that showed them an indifference that harks from an Elizabethan period when women weren’t allowed to vote or inherit. Labor needs to remind women of the LNP’s misogyny and unrefined manners.

On the road to a new election, events will emerge to focus on the former Government’s corruption. A steady stream of bad news will be revealed on the road to the latest election. I speak of Robodebt and the long list of severe misdemeanours that will be placed before the NACC in June. The Robodebt Royal Commission report will be handed to the Governor General in mid-July. The report is expected to be explosive.

Of course, the best thing Labor has going for it, is Peter Dutton himself. On all accounts, he thinks there is nothing wrong with the party he leads. Its philosophy, its morality, its trust, its economic credentials and its equality. Peter Dutton is so disliked by all and sundry that he couldn’t win an election if he started now.

Having said all this, it must be noted that there is much to do. Labor’s first year has also seen many challenges.

Inflation is still high, as are interest rates, the cost of living is higher than it should be, and housing and rents are also high. Most of this mess the Government has inherited from the LNP. Much of it has come from events beyond Labor’s control, eg the war in Ukraine and the pandemic.

Then there is The Voice referendum. If it were to pass despite Peter Dutton’s hatchet job, it would give our First Nations people a voice in their future and allow Labor a free hand to complete its agenda. Dutton, in dismissing any form of bipartisanship, has played to form.

Labor has fulfilled 18 of its significant commitments, whilst others, like The Voice are a work in progress, and some are on hold pending the release of reports.

While writing, I also had Question Time playing on my iPad. The deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Susan Ley, asked the Prime Minister a question that she couldn’t seem to make coherent. The House burst into laughter at its stupidity. The Prime Minister admirably addressed it by calling it a salad, which I thought; “That the word salad sums up this Opposition.” It’s a combination of many ingredients. I’ll leave the dressing with you.

Later this year, Labor must announce significant changes leading into a fresh election. One that will cement the middle ground and a further three years.

Some people can easily remember what they were doing at the time of significant events. The shooting of John F Kennedy or John Lennon. Or The moon landing. Or what they were doing when the twin towers were attacked or the unlawful invasion of Iraq? There are others, of course.

The exactness of where l was and what l was doing at the time of any of the events mentioned above escapes me, but their importance doesn’t. In particular, l can vividly recollect 911 and its aftermath. On the Sunday morning following the horrific event, l was astonished when we attended our local church, and the youthful Pastor made scant mention of the shocking occurrence and the resulting lives lost.

When it became evident that the subject would be secondary to the Pastor’s prepared sermon, we left in disgust and went to another nearby church where we were confident the issue would get a fair airing.

We didn’t require an injection of American political propaganda or exceptionalism. We were more interested in the human aspects. Words that might provide some comfort together with our compassion for the lives lost and the families overwhelmed with shock and grief – words compelling us to think about the present and future consequences.

Take the following, for example:

“The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783), also known as the Revolutionary War or American War of Independence, was the military conflict of the American Revolution.

American Patriot forces under George Washington’s command defeated the British, establishing and securing the independence of the United States.”

History further tells us that since 1776 the U.S.A. has been at war for 93% of the time it has existed.

And that:

“Incomplete statistics show that from the end of World War II to 2001, among the 248 armed conflicts that occurred in 153 regions of the world, 201 were initiated by the United States.”

These include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Kosovo War, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, and the Syrian War.

“According to a report released in March 2021 by Code Pink, a U.S. anti-war group, the United States and its allies have consistently bombed other countries over the past 20 years, dropping an average of more than 40 bombs daily.

Statistics also show over the past two decades, the so-called anti-terror wars waged by the United States have cost more than 929,000 lives.”

It would be unfair to blame all these incursions on the U.S. alone. After World War 2, when the world was divided into East versus West, America became the cop on the beat or the policeman of the world, intervening in other country’s affairs when a threat of Communism loomed. Cuba is but one example, namely the Cuban missile crisis.

Often America has borne the cost in lives and money of these conflicts. However, with the demise of the USSR and the rise of China as a superpower to match the United States, we have a competition of philosophy.

American capitalistic democracy Vs Chinese capitalistic dictated Communism

In trying to determine right and wrong, two factors must be considered.

On the one hand, the erosion of western democracy has been deplorable since the end of the second world war. On the other, China’s rise (despite becoming a dictatorship) over the past 40 years has been extraordinarily impressive.

China has achieved this without significant conflict. So, China is planning to re-shape the international order resembling itself.

“China has broken new ground in its diplomatic endeavours amid profound global changes and turned crises into opportunities amid complex situations on the international stage. These efforts have resulted in a marked increase in China’s international influence, appeal, and power to shape.”

The decline in real American Democracy began with the emergence of the neo-cons and Ronald Reagan, which saw a rise in the influence of fundamentalist Christian religion. Reagan gave them a licence to become involved in politics, and a slow path toward Trumpism began.

The likes of Carle Rove influenced the born-again Christian George W Bush, who had a distorted view of American exceptionalism.

In Australia, the LNP under John Howard began to rip our Democracy asunder. When they got the chance after a short break with Labor, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison completed the job. Howard’s action in joining America in Iraq relied entirely on their evidence that it had weapons of mass destruction. It did not, and Howard never asked the question; “Please double-check your information.”

So when debating the rights and wrongs of purchasing submarines and being aligned with the United States and England, the average Australian has much to chew over.

Are we safer with the involvement of America and England and with ANSUS but without guaranteeing they would support us in times of trouble, remembering they have an America First philosophy? Or would it have been better to develop our relationship with China while maintaining those with the U.S.?

In doing so, nobody should ignore the thoughts of Paul Keating. He at least has the guts to put forward views that, whilst they may irritate, are worthy of consideration.

For Australia to blindly align itself with the United States when the possibility that Donald Trump’s madness might again return to lead the conservative party is coloured red with danger.

America is a precarious democracy, hardly able to manage its affairs, let alone anyone else’s.

If we had been trying to enrich our thinking and diplomacy with China instead of pandering to the United States, we might have been in a better strategic position.

Moreover, we wouldn’t be facing the conundrum we now are.