The stench of Donald Trump’s presidency still lingers around the United States of America, dispersing itself on the populous with a dulling effect. It is a rotten, rancid odour that inhabits not only the United States but also the world.

Would-be right-wing dictators are increasingly taking over countries that were once stable democracies. These leaders all have one thing in common: All sought power for themselves under the pretext of improving the lives of the marginalized and the poor.

Democracy is threatened worldwide by authoritarian despots or dictators who deny their people a genuinely democratic vote.

As President Biden recently said:

“As I stand here tonight, equality and democracy are under assault,” the President declared. “We do ourselves no favour to pretend otherwise.” He went even further by saying that the Republican party under Trump was “a threat to democracy”. “I’m asking our nation to come together, unite behind the single purpose of defending our democracy regardless of your ideology.”

Even though the first two years of Biden’s presidency have seen many policy advances on climate, infrastructure, and education, the extreme right is intent on accelerating the decline in its democracy. The desire to bring down democracy is more intense now than during the Trump years.

Capitalism hides behind every right-wing leader. It invades their minds and defines them. It becomes the driving force that restricts many aspects of their policies.

Moreover, the accumulation of money has become a mantra of the right-wing leader, and the people vote for them in the mistaken belief that they might share the rewards for their labour.

Climate change denial is characteristic of these right-wing governments. Evangelical churches also have persuasive leverage on people who demand more power for themselves. The right-wing media are also a powerful influence. They don’t want anything affecting commerce and industry. Anything such as climate change is considered counterproductive to the economy and a threat to financial institutions.

The upcoming mid-term elections have become increasingly partisan and violent. People no longer trust their politicians or their institutions, and the press continues its decline in standards. The legitimacy of the courts continues its “long slide“. Decisions made by the government tend to lean towards private enterprises with whom they want close ties, often to the detriment of their citizens.

The United States is facing unprecedented pressure on its democratic norms and institutions. The threat of Trump running again hangs over America. Will he run just to gain another term to prevent an avalanche of prosecutions?

The advance in right-wing authoritarian governments around the world has been remarkable. Although the people have arrested this instability in some countries, the future cannot be assured.

After watching Trump’s rally in Ohio, there is no other way to put this: Donald Trump is a Fascist. We can no longer say this can’t happen here. And if we don’t come out in massive numbers in these midterms, it will happen.

— Rob Reiner (@robreiner) September 18, 2022

It’s not confined to the USA. The following critique is taken from an article be in the New York Times; “How Democracy Is Under Threat Across the Globe” (paywalled):

Democracy is a form of governance that has served us well, giving us freedom and a form of self-government that enables us to live peacefully with every individual assumed equal under the law. It is far from perfect, and of late, these faults have been highlighted by bad leadership.

With few exceptions, the enemies of liberal democracies worldwide have been successfully promoting their extreme right-wing ideology. They have:

“… exploited our institutions’ shortcomings, distorting national politics to promote hatred, violence, and lust for unbridled power.”

The authoritarian model “will prevail” if the world’s true democracies cannot work together to help guarantee freedom for all people.

Two weeks ago Labor withdrew the $18 million funding for the governor-general’s favoured charity. What angers me most is the secrecy behind this most unusual generosity awarded to the governor general by for prime minister, Scott Morrison. So, what now for a governor-general, battered and bruised by Morrison’s secrets?

The future of the Governor General remains under a cloud now that Labor has decided to take back the $18 million David Hurley was allocated to train new conservative leaders via his favoured charity (Australian Future Leaders Foundation Limited).

But why was the Governor General lobbying the Prime Minister for such an enormous amount of money, and why did the Government include it in their last budget?

We deserve to know the answers to these questions. Suppose the Albanese Government cannot get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding David Hurley’s request. In that case, as soon as the legislation for a National Integrity Commission has passed, both Houses, perhaps we might ask the Governor General and the former PM to explain.

So far, we know the Australian Future Leaders Foundation Limited was registered in April 2021 to run leadership programs.

It has been spearheaded by Chris Hartley, who it has been alleged suggested that the Governor General used a PowerPoint presentation for his exposition to Scott Morrison. He also had connections with the monarchy.

The Foundation has no employees and no structure. The current Government has withdrawn the funds but is yet to explain why. When asked to explain the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers said, “There have been some funds committed which will not be proceeding, and that’s an example of that.”

When asked if an inquiry would be appropriate, he said he did not see this in personal terms… I’m not into the personalities of it, I’m into the economics of it.”

The Prime Minister couldn’t offer anything better saying, “Watch the budget… We’re going through line by line, looking for areas of savings in the budget. All of the former Government’s expenditure is under review.”

Both of these answers only serve to raise yet another question: Why is the Government being so secretive about it? Do they intend to add the gift of $18 million to a foundation that existed in name only to a very long list to be presented to a new integrity commission?

Given the Government’s secrecy, we don’t know the answer to that question.

As soon as the legislation for a National Integrity Commission has passed both Houses, perhaps we might ask the Governor General and the former Prime Minister to explain.

The Government may legislate a National Anti-Corruption Commission before Christmas, but when will it be operational? Our right to know can only be demonstrated by those bodies commissioned to seek evidence. When will that be?

This case is but one of many, and the Government of the day must be able to establish alleged wrongdoing.

If Albanese is fair dinkum about restoring trust in politicians, he must first demonstrate that corruption exists. In doing so, he must put aside accusations of small-mindedness. That the task is too great because the allegations stretch back in time. And further reasons to back away from scrutinising corruption.

Who knows? What was the Governor General’s role in acquiring this funding for The Australian Future Leaders Foundation (AFLF)? It might have been well-intentioned, but they went about it the wrong way; given how Morrison operated and the lies he told, it is easy to suspect something is amiss, which is why Chalmers backed away.

What was the foundation about? Online news blog Crickey suggested, we can reasonably safely assume that it was about:

“… creating a network for young Australian achievers – but it reeked of the monarchy. There is ample evidence that the Foundation, proposed by people with links to the royal family and promoted by the queen’s representative in Australia, received special treatment from Scott Morrison, whose Government was prepared to back it with $18 million and special tax status.”

It all fits into Morrison’s persistent abuse of his powers that makes it easy to see a foundation set up with Government funds training the best and brightest in right-wing conservatism – or taking it a step further far-right conservatism. Not far-fetched when one considers Morrison’s history in trashing the rules and his friendly relationship with Hurley.

As I said earlier, these things and others have to be tested, but we must also evaluate the damage done to the office of the Prime Minister and the standing of the Governor General and his office.

According to David Hardaker from Crickey:

“The record shows there were a dozen meetings between the G-G’s office and the Foundation’s executive director, upper-crust Englishman Chris Hartley. That then translated into access to the Prime Minister’s Office as the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet took the running on backing Hartley’s regal idea with taxpayer money.”

It was a nifty idea for these upper-crust English chappies to use Australian taxpayer funds to finance a foundation to teach social elites how to lead us and that the Governor General was within a hairs width of signing into law.

Again quoting David Hardaker:

“Had he done so and none had noticed the deception, it would have explicitly passed for the benefit of the AFLF. One was to enable the payment of $18 million (with a guarantee of more), and the other was for the coveted Deductible Gift Recipient tax status.

Does this not, in theory, compromise the independence of the G-G’s office?”

Of course, it does. It may all be innocent and legal but tied to everything else; if nothing else, it is a bad look.

The foundation affair will be recorded in the history of Australian politics as an attempt by the political right to grab money from the Australian taxpayer and fund a scheme to train young conservative people in the art of leadership or propaganda. Take your pick. I will leave it to the reader to decide the purpose.

So far, it has been recorded as just another chapter in the former Government’s assaults on the integrity of our institutions.

In all the talk of becoming a republic, the people responsible for establishing it should also be mindful of the damage already done to our conventions.

In this episode with the Governor General, the Coalition has precipitously exploited the Order of Australia awards to stack the body and reward its political friends with honours, rubber-stamped by the Governor General.

Typically, Scott Morrison, on occasions, didn’t even talk to the Governor General about the awards, not even bothering to front up in person; he became so insatiable for power.

His actions were found perfectly legal, said Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue, even though they breached “the principle of responsible government.”

There are calls for the Governor General to step down or to explain himself more fully.

“At the very least the net result is that the office of the governor-general has been left tarnished from its dealings with Morrison.” It is an open question if the incumbent Government cannot repair it; it should at least confront it.

Both Hurley and Morrison have some serious questions to answer, and the Integrity Commission have some serious questions to ask.

The only explanation that the Prime Minister seems to be able to come up with to justify going ahead with the Stage Three Tax Cuts is that Labor had committed itself.

Yes, Labor promised to keep the wealthy and privileged tax cuts. Because of the circumstances at the time, they were legislated.

Since the election and the disclosure of Australia’s authentic debt, with the enormous amounts required to finance campaign commitments, repair the NDIS, and care for the elderly, the imperative for the cuts is now unwarranted.

The Stage Three Tax Cuts will overwhelmingly benefit the rich, but will they help the economy? The short answer is “no.” Those who benefit from the reductions won’t spend it and will probably invest it in accumulating more wealth. Nor would it encourage them to work any harder.

Given there are so many justifications for cancelling the cuts, Labor is afforded the opportunity to demonstrate the philosophy they talked about before and during the election campaigns.

That being equality; a fairer society.

Giving the tax cuts defies logic when stacked up against the reasons not to. They will not improve equality.

Analysis by the new parliamentary budget office projects that the wealthiest 1% of Australians will benefit as much from the stage-three tax cuts as the poorest 65% combined.

When asked at the August 29 National Press Club luncheon if the stage three tax cuts would go ahead, some journalists interpreted the Prime Minister’s answers as unequivocable, but others thought he left a little wiggle room. It’s hard to find an economic journalist who openly supports the cuts, and even MPs like Coalition backbencher Russell Broadbent find them ludicrous and called for them to be axed.

Mind you, the very same journalists cunningly and currently suggesting they abandon the legislation will be the same ones who will denounce them for their hypocrisy if they do.

Labor is certainly caught between a rock and a wrong place. Where has all that love and compassion gone? The fork in the road where economics meets equity.

The Australia Institute has made some pertinent points about the Stage Three Tax Cuts.

Key Findings:

• Stage 3 tax cuts mainly go to high income earners with those earning more than $200,000 receiving a tax cut of $9075 per year, with CEOs, all federal parliamentarians and surgeons winning big.
• Those earning less than $45,000 will get nothing from the stage 3 tax cuts, with aged workers, disability carers, bakers, hairdressers and minimum wage workers among those worst off.
• If the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset is not extended, it will end this financial year & will mean 90% of taxpayers will be paying more tax.
• Even after the stage, 3 tax cuts come in, 80% of all taxpayers will still be worse off.
• The LMITO goes to middle-income earners with a maximum rate of $1,080. If the LMITO is not extended in the budget later this month, occupations like teachers, nurses and midwives will be paying $1080 more in tax.”

“Our research reveals that under this plan, billionaires benefit while battlers get slugged,” said Chief Economist Dr Richard Denniss from independent think-tank the Australia Institute.

“How is it reasonable that a bank CEO earning $5.2m a year will be given a $9,000 tax cut, while someone working in aged care or on the minimum wage receives nothing?”

At $243 billion, it is a considerable commitment when there is so much debt and so much screaming out to be done or repaired.

When questioned, Albanese has repeatedly stated that Labor has not “changed our opinion” on the tax plan. A plan that he had initially opposed.

“Parliament made a decision to legislate those tax cuts, and we made a decision that we would stand by that legislation rather than relitigate it.”

Poverty is a political choice.

By refusing to raise JobSeeker above the poverty line, but locking in tax cuts for the rich, Labor is choosing to leave hundreds of thousands of people in poverty.

Billionaires like Clive Palmer don't need more money. People on JobSeeker do.

— Adam Bandt (@AdamBandt) August 29, 2022

To retain its present support, Labor must demonstrate that it’s indeed a party of left-forward thinkers and willingly display its ideology to one and all. These changes make the tax system far less progressive.

The Guardian reported that the cuts “would abolish the 37% tax bracket, lower the 32.5% bracket to 30%,” and increase the top tax bracket to “start at $200,000 compared with $180,000.”

At the National Press Club, the Prime Minister stood firm on the Stage Three Tax Cuts:

“Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has reaffirmed his party’s commitment to keep stage 3 tax cuts for high income earners, despite growing calls for them to be delayed or scrapped.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Canberra for the first time as Prime Minister, Mr Albanese urged voters to look at the history of the party’s position on the tax cuts package.”

Ostensibly, the public owes a debt of gratitude to Albanese for the downfall of a rotten Prime Minister and a rotten Government. Our days seem less stressful without Morrison’s verbal lying assaults on all things Labor. And whilst on the one hand, Labor has performed well, on the other they have left many things untouched.

On the plus side, Chris Bowen has performed well turning around Australia’s climate policy, but many are questioning how much more they could have done. There has been a dispiriting decision to open vast areas of Australian waters to new oil and gas exploration. It is also pushing ahead with new coal and gas, regurgitating and ignoring a clear mandate to do more.

Yet another disappointment has been Albanese’s inability or lack of desire to remove his predecessor’s “obsession with secrecy”, though Question Time has shown slight improvement.

In his book “The Political Bubble”, Mark Latham said this about the state of our democracy:

“Australians once trusted the democratic process. While we got on with our lives, we assumed our politicians had our best interests at heart.”

Whatever you think of Latham, one cannot deny that this book is a brilliant analysis of the malaise that has permeated our politics for the last decade. He asked:

“What can be done about this democratic deficit? Can our parliamentary system realign itself with community expectations, or has politics become one long race to the bottom?”

Re-establishing trust in Government is one of the essential things the Albanese Government can do.

Until Morrison came along, I considered Tony Abbott to be the most extraordinary liar ever to walk the plush green carpet of the House of Representatives. He, however, proved to be amateurish alongside Morrison. So good was his lying that he took it to heights never before witnessed in Australian politics.

Now with an inquiry into the duplicate ministries scandal and a Royal Commission into Robodebt, the Coalition thinks it’s all a hunt to discredit Scott Morrison, and we should “move on” from all the cock ups they ever made.

John Howard advised Tony Abbott that it would be foolhardy to implement Royal Commissions into Pink Batts and the Unions because, in the future, such actions might turn around and bite you on the bum. That is precisely what has happened.

WORDS THAT MAKE YOU THINK

Why is the Coalition protesting every inquiry and RC into its governance? Restoring honesty and integrity to government requires a learned knowledge of prior sins.

— john lord. WORDS THAT MAKE YOU THINK (@saint13333) August 25, 2022

Of course, these two won’t be the only sins of the ministers that will face inquiries. There is an impressive list.

No doubt, whatever form the proposed National Corruption commission takes, it will have several issues to look at.

Angus Taylor and Barnaby Joyce were involved in a shady water buyback scheme that channelled money through the Cayman Islands.

https://twitter.com/AngrySportysa05/status/1531096468131815424

$444m awarded to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation with no tendering – straight into the pockets of directors with links to Liberal National Party.

The Coalition granted $30 million to Foxtel, ostensibly to assist with “sports coverage” (whilst simultaneously slashing ABC funding). There was no public release of any conditions or oversight regarding the financing.

Then follows the issue of When in 2018, the Federal Government paid a Liberal donor at the Leppington Pastoral Company ten times the fair value for land that will serve as the airport’s second runway after 2050.

The saga of the Sports Rorts affair has never gone away. The former sports minister Bridget McKenzie said the prime minister’s office did not approve the $100m sports grants program.

Federal parliament Car Parks affair, Government officials can’t say how many car spaces are funded by the project, which Labor describes as ‘professional rorting.’

Is the Leader of the Opposition seriously suggesting that these alleged examples of impropriety should be swept under the rug just because it might make them look bad?

The deputy opposition leader, Susan Ley, and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton both, last week, called the Royal Commission into Robodebt and the inquiry into the then Prime Minister’s ability to make two out of one, “witch-hunts” and “get-square” with Scott Morrison schemes.

According to Dutton, Albanese saw:

“… political advantage” in an inquiry targeted at Morrison. “It’s morphing into a witch-hunt rather than pointing out a problem that needed to be solved.”

The opening paragraphs of Rossleigh’s recent article for The AIMN explains the attitude of those opposed to any action against those who have worked against the nation’s best interests:

“Imagine that you go to the police to report a person is accused of misappropriation of funds from your organisation, and rather than investigate, the constable asks a few questions and asks you, “What’s the point of the investigation?”

You reply that you’d like to find out how it happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again, to which the constable tells you: “Yeah, but he doesn’t work there anymore. Aren’t you just being vindictive? I think you should get on with your life and not worry about the past!”

Susan Ley’s simplistically inane comments never seem to match the seriousness of the allegations making her at times look like a Marilyn Monroe dumb blond. They look foolish, even laughable, in doing so when one considers they lost the election mainly on Morrison’s untrustworthiness. (No misogyny intended).

But the Liberals and the Nationals have always been a party of elites and wannabes. The idea that economics and society are intertwined is abhorrent to them. Economics is the domain of the wealthy and privileged, and culture belongs to those of class and privilege.

The Liberal born-to-rule philosophy has finally been put to death by their shameful actions, as has the indulgence of “we are the best party to manage money.” During their Luddite period, they alone were responsible for the utter contempt they displayed for the Westminster system of Government.

We found that with Scott Morrison as Prime Minister, that power is a corrupt possession, especially when you are prepared to forgo your principles and your country’s wellbeing for the sake of it.

Of course, in the case of Morrison’s duplicitous Ministerial self-appointments, we must remember the conclusion of the Solicitor General:

“On the other hand, we’ve got a report from the solicitor-general. It clearly says that there was nothing illegal done, but it also clearly indicates that it is just highly unconventional, highly unorthodox and shouldn’t have happened.”

If the Coalition cannot admit to the carnage they are responsible for, then the stench of it will attach itself to their future election campaigns.

Of course, Labor has to walk a fine line between genuinely being called out for Morrison bashing and seriously trying to resurrect good governance.

As part of its restoration program, Labor must also do something about the Public Service. Change it from an anti-public service to a concerned pro-public service with a pulse that people can measure. And return it to being an apolitical institution in Australia!

Regaining trust in Government will not be attained overnight. It may even take as long as the conservatives took to wreck it. Such is the audacity of the conservative mind. But having said that, the Prime Minister has made a good start with a willingness to show openness and truth when dealing with people.

At the same time, it is prosecuting its case against the opposition. It must prove that it is making advancements in communicating its transparency agenda.

The conservative right-wing media are doing their best to advise against any form of investigation that might expose wrongdoing. They did the opposite when Abbott went after Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard.

Albanese is determined that we might have a better standard of governance. It cannot achieve it without exposing why it is necessary. That means laying bare those matters which were shady, dishonest, deceitful, or plainly corrupt for a decade.

The Solicitor-General found that former Prime Minister Scott Morrison hadn’t committed any crime in appointing himself a Minister in five separate portfolios. However, he discovered that Morrison had seriously breached conventions or, put another way, fundamentally undermined the responsibility of government.

There will be those who will say; “so what,” he hasn’t broken any law. Others will say conventions are unwritten rules and fundamentality essential to any democracy. Within a constitution, conventions go beyond regulations to establish trust and accountability.

They allow for elasticity and flexibility that strengthens a constitution and allows for a smoother government function.

A good example is the United States, where “the Speaker of the House of Representatives is always an elected member and leader of the majority party in the house” even though the US Constitution does not make any specific provisions.

There are other examples: In Australia, we don’t vote for a Prime Minister. The majority party’s leader in parliament (the House of Representatives) becomes the prime minister.

A government will resign if it loses a confidence vote in the House of Representatives.

There are many examples, like pairing members to obtain a fair vote. A convention that Tony Abbott was fond of breaking.

Conventions have, in many instances, survived for hundreds of years as an accepted practice, without the authority of the law relying on shared values that have evolved over time.

After receiving advice from the Solicitor-General that Scott Morrison hadn’t broken any laws, attention will now fall on an inquiry to find out who knew what and why didn’t anyone confront him with the news that he was flouting convention.

In four short tweets, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull summarises just why an inquiry is needed.

The inquiry into the #SecretMinistries scandal must go beyond Morrison. Understanding, as I do, how PMO, PMC and the GG office are meant to work I remain astonished that there was apparently no pushback to Morrison when he embarked on his bizarre secret accumulation of power.

— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) August 23, 2022

Morrison’s CoS, John Kunkel, had worked for John Howard. He must have known this was a bad move. Equally PMC officials including Stephanie Foster must have known this was utterly without precedent and wrong. What did they do and say. If they did nothing – the system failed.

— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) August 23, 2022

At Government House – David Hurley has been CDF, Governor of NSW and Governor General. He knows how government works. He knows the GG is not a rubber stamp and can ask questions, give advice and warn. His Official Secretary Paul Singer has been at Govt House for many years.

— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) August 23, 2022

How did all these experienced people allow Morrison to do this. If any of them had dug their heels in, pushed back, and done so in writing it is hard to believe even the self described bulldozer would have persisted. If they did not push back then they, and the system, failed.

— Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm) August 23, 2022

It was his petulance for secrecy that angered his colleagues.

Conventions, wrote The Conversation a few years ago:

“… are accepted practices that don’t have the authority of law but depend instead on the force of shared values and expectations. They are more fluid and contestable than legal rules and tend to evolve over time.

All political systems extensively use conventions as part of their political culture. But such conventions are essential in systems based on the United Kingdom’s Westminster model.”

In an excellent piece on this subject on Pearls and Irritations (and reproduced on for The AIMN) – a must-read, in my view – John Waterford points out that:

“The novelty and dodginess of Morrison’s request should have tipped the GG to the need for caution and openness. The misjudgement stains his record, indeed is his lasting record.”

He also questions:

“The very novelty of what Morrison was asking, and the knowledge that Morrison regularly showed no regard for process, law or convention, should have suggested to Hurley a need for caution and personal conviction of a strong constitutional footing.”

And concludes that:

“Morrison is not yet telling the full story. We have no reason to believe anything he says. There is clear evidence of trying to get around the requirements of the constitution and breaking any number of conventions and understanding about how responsible democratic government operates. There’s been a long pattern of this. Morrison may now be dead meat, but the smell, the feel and the taste of his lawless regime will persist until there is a searching investigation.”

In the fullness of time, many questions will be asked, and convention will demand that the truth be told.

WORDS THAT MAKE YOU THINK
We have never been told who gave the order for Covid infected passengers to disembark from the Ruby Princess on 19 March 2020. Our PM became Health Minister on 14 March.

There is a story about to hit on Scott Morrison's illegal multi-jobs saga.

— john lord. WORDS THAT MAKE YOU THINK (@saint13333) August 22, 2022

Questions:

Who told the book’s authors (the book that revealed about Morrison’s appointment to multiple portfolios: Plagued, by Simon Benson and Geoff Chambers, journalists with The Australian)?

Why were they not recorded in the Governor-General David Hurley’s diary?

Who were the compliant MPs?

Did Morrison defer a lockdown to allow the Hillsong conference to go ahead?

Was Barnaby Joyce putting the loss of a cabinet minister ahead of a convention that told him what he should do?

So when Scott Morrison attacked Christine Holgate, he was secretly one of the shareholder Ministers for Aust Post.
There was already questions over his political interference with the board. Now there are serious questions about whether he misled parliament and misused his power

— 💚🌏 Sarah Hanson-Young (@sarahinthesen8) August 22, 2022

There will be an inquiry into this affair and a Royal Commission into Robodebt and one into the Coalition government’s handling and response of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the centre of each will be Scott Morrison.

They will be followed by other accusations before the new national integrity commission; Sports Rorts etc.

Probably Morrison’s worst act of disregarding caretaker convention was in the dying hours of his tenure as Prime Minister, when called then-home affairs minister Karen Andrews to demand the unorthodox disclosure of a suspected asylum seeker boat arrival. That was disgraceful.

And in November, Niki Savva will release her latest book on this sordid time in our political history.

In a lengthy piece on his Facebook page, Morrison stood by his self-righteousness but failed to mention the central point of the need for secrecy.

I just have to ask… is he guilty of lying to us, or just omitting to tell the truth?

As a young teenager, on lazy Sunday afternoons in Melbourne, I spent much of my time listening to the various debates that took place under the elm trees where the Rod Laver tennis centre now stands.

There were people of reasoned disposition and many, not the full quid’s worth. They debated with various abilities subjects ranging from communism to the existence of God. Because of my youth and inexperience, I was probably not capable of an informed opinion about anything. Most were good for a laugh, and you never took them seriously.

I was more drawn to the political speakers of the Labor and Communist parties, whom I found less confusing than those of the right. They seemed to be able to put things in a perspective that I understood.

Why am I telling you this? Well, you see, oddly enough, I was drawn to the confusion of my youth whilst watching Barnaby Joyce being interviewed by David Speers on Insiders last Sunday. How good, I thought, that his mindset would have fitted in with some of those weirdos of my Sunday afternoon meanderings.

Even as I write, I am inwardly laughing at his incapacity to explain his involvement in this disagreeable attempt by Scott Morrison to subvert the Westminster system of government.

So confusing was this interview that I would describe it thus (to partly borrow the words of the late Dr George Venturini):

“You see, now he is saying that what I thought he said is only a figment of my imagination. That what I think I thought he meant is not what he meant at all.

That when he says something, and I take it to mean one thing, he has the option of saying that what I thought I heard was not what I heard at all.

That it was only my interpretation of what he meant. I mean, did he say what he meant, or did he mean to say what he meant and became confused or was what he meant really what he meant.”

Upon the interviews conclusion, the Insider’s panel tried to put the pieces of a remarkable interview together. I was left knowing that Barnaby had lied about when he knew there were duplicate ministries but just where I wasn’t sure.

His assertion that he sort of knew of Morrison’s ministries grab but didn’t say anything in case Scott might have got upset and taken away a ministry that they shouldn’t have anyway didn’t wash with me at all. It wouldn’t pass the pub test at the local I frequented from time to time.

It wasn’t until three-quarter time during the football that the most perplexing contradictions of his chronology of the Morrison ministry scandal came together thanks to Amy Remeikis in The Guardian.

Amy starts her piece by explaining how confusing Barnaby Joyce was, and I must say I was often left trying to work out what he meant halfway into the question from Speers about Morrison’s ministries grabs. He said he kinda knew but couldn’t explain what “kind of” meant but a little later, he said he didn’t know. I was left wondering what attracts nut jobs like Joyce to the Coalition.

Amy went on to say there were so many inconsistencies and slanted references. She figured that Joyce had arrived there obliquely.

David Speers cleverly asked Joyce when he became aware Morrison had appointed himself resources minister (while Nationals MP Keith Pitt was in the role).

“Obviously I wasn’t aware of it at the start because it happened prior to me coming back as leader, and then over a period of time and discussions to the Pep-11 it became more apparent that the prime minister had greater powers than I initially assumed.”

But then he said that Morrison told him he was sworn in.

Joyce: It worked over a period of time where the prime minister, Scott Morrison, got to a position and said, “I can overrule him.”

Q: Did you say, how can you overrule the minister?

Joyce: Well, he had said he was sworn in, but you just take the decision back to cabinet.

Q: So, he did say he was sworn in as the minister?

Joyce: Look, and I’m not being evasive, I just can’t quite remember exactly where that final statement went.

Q: Hang on, you can’t remember the prime minister saying to you, your National party minister is being overruled here.”

Joyce: I believe he did, right, but if you said, “Tell me exactly the time and place”… I believe he did.

Q: So, you believe Scott Morrison did [tell you].

Joyce: I believe he did, but it happened over a sort of period of time and it came into place before my time. It was not my decision.

‘There is nothing confusing about it, David, listen to me. Keith Pitt was the minister,’ Barnaby Joyce has told the ABC’s Insiders.

But then Joyce didn’t know.

“The discussion that I had with the prime minister was purely around Pep-11. He never went into that he had powers on everything that Keith Pitt could do … He never said to me, ‘I was the minister for resources.’ He never said that to me.”

And there was no conversation, despite Joyce previously saying Morrison had told him he was sworn in:

“How many times do you want to ask me this, David [Speers]? This is like the seventh time,” he said.

“I told you I didn’t know when I came in because the decision was made before me. There was no distinct conversation that happened, [it was] obliquely over a period of time. It only revolved around the Pep-11 decision. The Pep-11 decision was made by the prime minister. It is on file, you can watch it yourself. There is a press conference. What else do you want.”

Q: Who was the responsible minister for resources?

Joyce: Well, it ultimately, it really remained with Keith. It was the Pep-11 decision.

Q: Who was the responsible minister on that decision?

Joyce: Mate, I’ve just gave you the answer. It is ultimately Keith Pitt on everything. It was the Pep-11 decision. Don’t ask me a third time.

Q: Well, I’m still confused, was it Scott Morrison or Keith Pitt?

Joyce: There is nothing confusing about it, David, listen to me. Keith Pitt was the minister, and I’m telling you, there is no trick, hockery pickery trick to this.

But Joyce later says Morrison was the decision maker.

“He actually gave the announcement, David. Do you want anything clearer than that? What else are you looking for, [that] archangel Gabriel was holding his hand? What more do you want?”

Joyce repeatedly tried to change the subject by showing all the intellect of a lying politician. Anything to deflect from what is, to most people, a sombre subject. People shopping at their local IGA store aren’t interested in this stuff. The fact is, when one examines the interview, one might come to the conclusion that Barnaby Joyce was lying.

Joyce seemed very interested in the subject, whatever he knew, didn’t know, or who told him what or didn’t. He desperately wanted to protect the deal he had made with Morrison. He admits to not wanting to put his negotiations in jeopardy.

We now know that Scott Morrison was “relentlessly eroding Australians’ faith in democracy – and laughing about it.” Joyce, by his actions, was complicit in it.

He went on to outline the deal he had made with Morrison, another Ministry, and another person on ERC [Expenditure Review Committee]. One of the biggest deals for regional Australia ever.

Q: So, you thought this was a fair deal, a fair trade?

Joyce: “I’m repeating the answer, David, I gave to you before. The prime minister’s solution to me, if I had pursued this was quite simple. He just took away the portfolio that we weren’t entitled to and took us back to the number we were entitled to. He would have the portfolio back and we would lose all power. Logically, think of it yourself. And I didn’t do this decision. These were the cards I had been dealt with.”

The public doesn’t care, Joyce says, even though his own colleagues are quite upset

“Now we are hyperventilating – I’ve listened to your panel – you’re going off the dial. It is not the issue that you think it is out there, there are other things that are permeating much deeper. The nuclear debate has gone off the table. We should be manufacturing small modular reactors. Manufacture them here, they will be ubiquitous, all across the world.”

Q: Your colleagues are angry finding out about this, this week. They want to know why they weren’t told?

Joyce: Well, most of it I didn’t know about.

And that, dear readers, for those who missed out on witnessing the debacle, is the summary of the bungling Barnaby interview.

Those who watched the Chinese Ambassador, Xiao Qian deliver his speech to the National Press Club a week ago would have done so with mixed feelings. As a diplomat, he displayed all the characteristics of a very experienced spokesperson, quick to acknowledge that:

“… the relationship between the two countries has been ‘difficult’ in recent times, but adds a change of government has provided an ‘opportunity to reset’ relations.”

However, the day was not lacking in tension:

The Press Club address

He was, at times, chillingly authoritarian at others, a pleasurable conversationalist. He delivered his speech in excellent English from notes that said, if you want to rescue trade with us, then don’t fuck around with all this undiplomatic talk.

Use your words carefully to convey your thoughts honestly while simultaneously recognising our point of view. Don’t just be puppets of the United States.

Remember that China has always viewed Taiwan as a Province of China and is part of the one nation as acknowledged by the U.S. in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972, which remains U.S. (and Australian) policy:

These are the words that make it so:

“The United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position.”

And further:

“On August 17, 1982, U.S.-China Communique, the United States went one step further, stating that it had no intention of pursuing a policy of “two Chinas” or “one China, one Taiwan.”

The press

Prefaced questions from some of our better-known journalists contained so much opinion that the Ambassador often had to pause and work out (or even ask) the question from the cascade of thought that seemed to me at least to lack any historical familiarity.

About trade

The Ambassador made it patently clear that, in his view, the problems started when Australia banned Huawei and ZTC from our electronics and communications networks. They took retaliatory action, which is now before the WTO.

Who can lay claim to the Island of Taiwan?

Journalists devoted much time during the Q&A session to the question of Taiwan’s independence, so whilst other factors are equally important, I will generally stick with this subject.

Looking for a simple explanation as to who could claim historical rights to the Island, I came across a BBC article by David Brown.

The Island is placed 100 miles from the coast of South East China. It is the first in a chain of territories that are friendly and crucial to U.S. foreign policy:

“Historical sources suggest that the Island first came under full Chinese control in the 17th Century when the Qing dynasty began administering it. Then, in 1895, they gave up the Island to Japan after losing the first Sino-Japanese war.

China retook the Island in 1945 after Japan lost World War Two.

But a civil war erupted in mainland China between nationalist government forces led by Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong’s Communist Party.

The communists won in 1949 and took control of Beijing.

Chiang Kai-shek and what was left of the nationalist party – known as the Kuomintang – fled to Taiwan, where they ruled for the next several decades.

China points to this history to say that Taiwan was originally a Chinese province. But the Taiwanese point to the same history to argue that they were never part of the modern Chinese state that was first formed after the revolution in 1911 – or the People’s Republic of China that was established under Mao in 1949.”

Whilst I’m not an international jurist, I think both sides have a claim to the Island, with China having the more acceptable argument. Particularly as the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972 has (to my knowledge) never been rescinded.

Re-education of the Taiwan population

The other contentious part of his speech to which our journalists took exception was the re-education of Taiwan’s population. Most of it came from Murdoch papers, which spend most of their time trying to educate us about their way of thinking.

Nancy Pelosi

While the Democrat leader was delivering her speech to the Taiwan Parliament – which was condemned by the Ambassador – Chinese warships were moving into position to commence the most extensive war exercise Beijing has ever undertaken. It went on for several days, trespassing into Taiwan’s territorial waters.

Pelosi, who should, as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, be able to travel freely, would be well advised to take some sage advice before she does so next time.

Her visit prompted an unprecedented navel exercise of the coast of Taiwan involving jets and warships firing missiles over and near Taiwan. Beijing has now eased off the large-scale military exercises.

On the one hand, China is flexing its muscle by communicating to the world how far it has progressed in the last 30 years and wants to be recognised as a nation of significance.

On the other hand, America cannot afford another trillion-dollar war (Iraq), which would guarantee a loss to either party in the subsequent U.S. Presidential election.

One advantage for China if it did take Taiwan suggests it could be freer to project power in the western Pacific region and possibly even threaten U.S. military bases as far away as Guam and Hawaii.

However, at the same time, China threatens and badgers its opponents and always insists that its intentions are purely peaceful. Pursuing a diplomatic course of action would demonstrate its maturity if that is the case. Conversely, Joe Biden should refrain from his aggressive tone and also follow a prudent path.

When all the tension subsides and shifts to the diplomatic arena, some sanity may prevail.

Writing for Nikkei Asia, Ryo Nakamura suggested that:

“The greatest danger to the future of the United States continues to be an erosion of conventional deterrence,” the document said. “y to resolve the issue might be Without a valid and convincing conventional deterrent, China is emboldened to take action in the region and globally to supplant U.S. interests. As the Indo-Pacific’s military balance becomes more unfavourable, the U.S. accumulates additional risk that may embolden adversaries to unilaterally attempt to change the status quo.”

Should America oppose reunification…

Taiwan’s independence – of course – is the best outcome. However, China seems intent on reunification sooner rather than later. The status quo would probably suit the US.

It would be in its best interests to attempt to bring about “reunification” by diplomatic non-military means, such as propping up economic ties between both countries.

Should America decide to defend Taiwan against China, it must consider the financial cost, its forlorn entry into past conflicts and its own research, which tells them they would cop a thumping.

Favouring Taiwan to claim independence is one thing. Declaring or even pursuing it with hundreds of Chinese missiles pointed at you is entirely different.

By Max Ogden and John Lord

One of Australia’s most vexing questions is a more equitable taxation system.

At the 2019 election, the ALP presented a couple of mild tax reforms, which unfortunately contributed to its defeat.

Later, when reflecting on his defeat, Bill Shorten admitted that perhaps he should have taken a different approach with personal tax cuts for millions of workers.

He conceded that his proposed tax reforms on franking credits and negative gearing went over like a lead balloon:

“Mr Shorten also acknowledged he should have campaigned with “fewer messages” and taken a different approach on franking credits, the tax reform that infuriated older Australians who stood to lose thousands of dollars.”

Most Australian economists and taxation experts think tax reform should be high on the agenda of any Australian Government. Many have tried, but none have succeeded.

Why? Because they have all tried an “all at once reform” which the electorate refuses to accept in any shape or form.

Remember, the beneficial Henry Tax Review commissioned by PM Rudd that never got off the ground. It now gathers dust in the bottom drawer of some bureaucrat’s desk.

Economists thought it was groundbreaking, whereas politicians knew that they couldn’t sell it in its totality.

These and other experiences show that achieving equitable tax reform is complex compared with the ease with which a government can cut taxes.

It requires sizeable public support, which can only be achieved by profound and long-term discussion by the electorate.

The Albanese government should establish a Tax Commission, or maybe a National Tax Cabinet, which will be charged with generating an extensive and deep public discussion about the whole system, with the objective of achieving three principles.

1. A more equitable system
2. Generating a stable economy.
3. Contributing/supporting climate change action.

The ALP government will not legislate significant tax changes during its first term, except for what it is already committed to.

The Tax Commission/National Tax Cabinet will organise discussions in local communities, workplaces, with state and local governments, employers, employer organisations, small businesses, unions, and ethnic groups, and facilitate any groups which want to be part of the nationwide discussion.

The ABC and SBS could replicate its recent Compass project as a Tax Compass on Australian policy preferences.

The Tax Commission/National Tax Cabinet will conduct surveys, polling, and research, including examining the best international tax systems which achieve the three principles.

An urgent consideration for the Tax Commission/National Tax Cabinet should be to enquire into the various tax advantages open to the rich and privileged in society and the enormous handouts to mining companies.

Towards the end of its first term, the government should convene one or several prominent summits to discuss a new tax system based on the three principles.

Arising from the summit, it should formulate policies to take to the next election, seeking a mandate to implement legislation when elected for a second term, as it currently looks likely.

This is similar to what John Howard did when he legislated for the GST but did not enact it until after the election, so there is a precedent, except this discussion would include the whole community.

The suggested process is similar to the Uluru Statement From The Heart, where there was extensive discussion among indigenous communities, leading to the unanimous agreement at the Uluru Summit.

Polling over many years consistently shows that most electorate is prepared to pay more tax, provided they are assured it will be used for public assets such as health and education.

This does not manifest at an election because there is never a widely discussed detailed proposal, such as suggested here. Such polling provides a reasonable basis on which to develop the process outlined.

The book “Nordic Edge” by Andrew Scott and Rod Cambell indicates that Nordic countries like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and Iceland have the highest tax rates in the world but also have the most robust economies.

Known as The Nordic Model, these countries have the highest living standards with low-income disparity. The Nordic model merges free-market capitalism with a generous welfare system.

Rather than appoint an economist or tax expert to head the Tax Commission/National Tax Cabinet, it should be someone with expertise in adult and community learning, as they will know the best processes for getting broad involvement, polling, and knowledge. Tax experts and economists should be employed to undertake the research that will be required to assist the Australia-wide discussion.

Contributing authors: Phil Drew, Luke Whitington, Neil Watson, Brian Aarons.

1 The first Question Time of the 47th Parliament this time last week was revealing for several reasons. Firstly, it demonstrated the enormous gap in experience between the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader. Secondly, it showed the considerable gulf in intellect between the two.

Because the Opposition carries so much baggage, they have to defend themselves one way or another making it nearly impossible to ask a question that somehow doesn’t reflect poorly on them.

Nowhere to be seen were the refreshingly new standards l was expecting. Well, except to say that the new Speaker, Milton Dick (Member for Oxley, impressed with his authoritative manner and dulcet tone that kept the bear pit under control.

I must admit it was more combative than I thought it might be, but that may have been because my idealism was on high alert. More time might be needed before making a judgement.

Paul Fletcher – considered a “Liberal moderate” – “is now Manager of Opposition Business.” His entry into the pit was both surprising and confusing. Was he angry at losing questions to the Teals? Was he flustered on his first day, or just incompetent? Fletcher’s anger at his party’s reduced number of questions brought forward this remarkable statement:

“Indeed, [with] this standing order, Mr Speaker, we will be right up there with the Russian Duma as a toothless legislative body.”

Really? On a day that Australia recorded the fastest annual rate of growth in consumer prices for more than 20 years. This occurred during the Coalition’s Luddite period, so Dutton didn’t want to go near it. It was a dark, dank day for the Opposition. Note: Luddite period is a term I use to describe the last period of Coalition governance.

However, the usual full of himself Angus Tayler went where angels fear to tread and asked the Prime Minister if he stood by claims in his pre-election modelling that power prices would come down as a consequence of the Government’s climate and energy policies. He conveniently left out two words, “longer term”.

Albanese gave a “come in, spinner” answer by listing all of Taylor’s mistakes as the former energy minister, including delaying a vital electricity pricing update until after the election, which left Australian voters blacked out about possible increases in their power bills.

He then congratulated Taylor “on his courage for asking the question”. And then proceeded to pound Taylor for keeping secret the fact that he knew prices would rise in July.

Dutton’s contribution to Question Time on the first day was to make vague accusations about a construction union he said would now run rampant because Labor had gutted the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

Albanese answered his questions, smiling calmly at the opposition leader across the dispatch box and giving the Liberal leader some advice about his vocation:

“I wish him well,” the prime minister said, pausing for a beat, “and I hope he stays there for a very long time.”

Fortunately, Question Time isn’t high on the list of peoples viewing choices. Dutton looks like a loathsome character from a horror movie and speaks in a quiet, almost sinister tone. None of us can help the way we appear, but I find it impossible to see how he could ever gain any public popularity.

Every question asked by the Opposition had a hypothetical tag attached saying, “it was our fault.” And every answer contained all the force of a sucker punch.

Dutton looked visibly shaken when Albo hit him with the Ruby Princess debacle in #qt today. The Libs need to be aware that for every "gotcha" question they put to Labor there are scores of coalition f*ck ups on the same issue over the last 9 years to be thrown back at them…

— Gary Fallon (@GaryFallon2) July 28, 2022

On Thursday, rebuttals of onerous questions ensured that the Opposition received a battering from the Government, highlighting their inaction over the past decade.

It will take years, maybe a decade, for the Liberal and National parties to throw off a well-earned reputation for dreadful governance. Read on to find that we are still discovering more of their political shenanigans.

2 As if time has stood still, many things have converged to remind us just how bad the conservative Luddite period has been. Since May 21, we have learnt that Morrison deliberately brushed aside a long-standing convention to leak information about the arrival of a suspected asylum-seeker boat.

Every time one thought Morrison couldn’t sink any lower, he did.

The Guardian reported the incident with these words:

“The former government ‘sabotaged’ protocols for political gain and was ‘without precedent’ in Australian history.”

3 On top of that, yet another corrupt activity has surfaced:

“An audit of a controversial $1.15bn Coalition grants program for regional development found Liberal-held seats received twice as many grants as Labor electorates.”

Michael McCormack and Barnaby Joyce decided on the allocations. It seems they learnt nothing from the unethical activities of “Sports Rorts.”

4 Trent Zimmerman was one of those in the Coalition that you couldn’t help but like. Quietly spoken and centre-right with a pragmatic view, he always seemed to be on top of his subject. Indeed, it was sad to see him go at the last election. So, when I read his piece for The Guardian (Friday, July 29), I was impressed with the clarity of his thinking:

“When your party is on the losing side of an election, why double down on policies that helped facilitate that defeat?”

Zimmerman may have lost his seat but not his wits.

5 From what I read, many in the Liberal Party were unhappy with Dutton’s captain’s call to continue with a climate policy bereft of any creditability, let alone common sense.

6 On Saturday, July 30, the Prime Minister at the 2022 Garma Cultural Festival in Arnhem Land released a draft of the proposed words that would enshrine a voice in our constitution for our First Nations People:

“Do you support an alteration to the constitution that establishes an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice?”

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 parliament and the executive government 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 the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

I believe Peter Dutton will play the spoiler in the proposed referendum. The same as he has on climate change. He will risk a backlash in doing so, but the man’s character dictates his actions.

7 Only a man of great charisma could deliver a despondent economic speech to the House of Reps with the charm of Jim Chalmers. He is also a much-appreciated truth-teller.

In his interview with David Speers last week, the leader of the Greens in the Australian Parliament, Adam Bandt, came over as a contemptuous young man of little diplomacy.

He would do well to read the now old book by Dale Carnegie, How to Win Friends and Influence People. One would have thought his party had won the election; such was his obnoxious manner.

They indeed increased their position in the House of Representatives and have a healthy presence in the Senate, but they are not the Government.

Whilst not for one moment do I doubt his sincerity for the beliefs he holds; he needs to tone down how he demands his right to them.

In the interview with Speers, he outlined these demands and the conditions under which he would negotiate climate and energy policy.

Speers: “Will the Greens support a 43% target?”

Bandt: “It’s too early to tell yet.”

On the draft legislation:

“It doesn’t compel the Government to do anything.”

“We have seen the Legislation, and there are a number of problems with it, but we are willing to talk about it.”

“The 43% becomes stuck in law, and the parliament would have to come back to change it.”

Referring to new Gas and coal power stations:

“You don’t put the fire out while you’re pouring petrol on it.”

“You can’t even have this discussion if the Government is saying. It’s my way or the highway.”

Speers: “If they can fix the wording or amend the wording to give you some sort of assurance about coal and Gas in the future. Would that be enough?”

Bandt: There are four issues: 1) There can’t be a ceiling, 2) There must be a genuine floor so that we can’t go back to it, 3) Is it just symbolic, and 4) What about Coal and Gas?

“We will put them on the table in a good faith way, but there has to be an end to the “It’s my way or the highway” or else it’s going to be a very long three years.”

This sounds at worst like a man demanding he gets his way, or at best demanding he gets it even when he isn’t in Government. A man with an attitude that grates.

Note: I have taken these quotes from a video of the interview. For complete accuracy, I’d recommend viewing it.

Also critical was David Wu from Sky News:

“Greens leader Adam Bandt hopes he can sit down with the government to improve the wording on the climate legislation – but only once Prime Minister Anthony Albanese drops the ‘take it or leave it’ approach.”

After more than 10 years of debate, Anthony Albanese wins Government for the Labor Party. After being thwarted by the Liberals, the National and the Greens from implementing their policy, it now has the Greens telling it in no uncertain way what it can and cannot do by a disagreeable leader who needs to learn some political manners. You can explain your grievances without demanding their implementation.

By precisely submitting the policy, they took to the election. Labor intends to introduce its legislation when Parliament resumes on 26 July. It will lock in the emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen met with independents and representatives from the Greens on Thursday, 21 July, to introduce Labor’s draft of the bill.

If Adam Bandt wants to change it, he won’t be doing so in the Lower House and in the Senate. Newly elected ACT former Rugby star David Pocock has indicated he will support the legislation.

Staying too far from what the government desires would invoke memories of 2009 when the Greens voted against a bill that would have promoted action but voted against it because it couldn’t get its way. The Greens wouldn’t want to do it again. Labor has never forgiven them.

Labor legitimately claimed that if the Greens hadn’t voted against its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), Australia’s carbon emissions would have been more than 200 million tonnes lower, and electricity would have cost less.

The Prime Minister has said that:

“If the Greens Party haven’t learned from what they did in 2009 – that was something that led to a decade of inaction and delay and denial – then that will be a matter for them.”

Having said that, Labor doesn’t have to do anything it doesn’t want to. It can proceed with its policy without any legislation.

The Prime Minister promised a new politic. It would be better, however, if it did agree with the Greens where it can. Here is an opportunity to rise above their natural dislike of them and demonstrate it.

But if Labor isn’t willing:

“… to negotiate on even this minor tweak from the Greens, who now seem resigned to accepting the 43 per cent target, what kind of sensible, good faith amendments will it listen to? Surely not the minor party’s demands for a moratorium on new coal and gas projects, an essential part of the Greens platform that doesn’t particularly gel with Labor’s position.

And so we have a conundrum. The Greens want to flex a bit of muscle, and Labor wants to exercise its authority.

Labor should be flexible enough to concede a little to the Greens by finding a way to prove that its 43 per cent target is just a minimum commitment. And the Greens should take whatever they can get in “sensible’ good faith” (their words) or be “crucified” as a spoiler.

Who knows, the Independents might have some viable suggestions.

As reported in The Guardian, they have had briefings with the climate and energy minister, Chris Bowen, late last week and have outlined some things they want to be included in the legislation.

They also want to include what they describe as a “Dutton insurance” policy. A clause that would make it difficult for future governments to ease up on action for climate change.

I have often written that the world won’t act on climate change until something really catastrophic happens. On that, we are edging closer.

1 The right of politics has, for some time now, imposed its thuggish propaganda and intimidatory behaviour on democracies worldwide. As far back as Reagan and Thatcher, the right has had its way. Other than a few exceptions, they have chalked up many more years in power than governments of the left. In Australia the extreme right-wing has primarily been in power. Since 1910, non-Labor governments have governed for two-thirds of the time and Labor for one-third.

In their governance, the right has attracted a proliferation of odd xenophobic people who have sought to plaster their thoughts on every parliament wall, from religious extremism to coal is good.

The true Liberalism of Menzies is now dead and buried and has been replaced by a brand of Conservatism unique to American politics. The Liberal party exists in name only.

In an article for The Conversation, Frank Bongiorno points out that:

“Labor’s two-party-preferred vote in 2022 is only slightly behind Gough Whitlam’s in 1972… an argument can be made that the 2022 election discloses an electoral shift to the left. It is perhaps the most significant since the combined momentum of the elections of 1969 and 1972 that brought the Whitlam government to office.

Changes of government in federal politics don’t happen often. There have been eight since the second world war, and three of those were in a turbulent decade between late 1972 and early 1983.”

Australian voters are a laconic bunch who have wrongly interpreted the quote “she’ll be right.”

It was never meant to have a lazy terse meaning but an optimistic one. So, we have, for the most part, clung tightly to antagonistic non-Labor governments.

Because Australian voters regularly return governments, tending not to discard the incumbent, we can reasonably assume that the last election signals a broader shift in voter attitudes and leanings.

This Government I speak of was a false democracy. It looked harmless to the voting population, but as time progressed, all the interaction with everyday people, the pretending to be a hairdresser or whatever, was only a perception of Morrison’s creation. In the beginning, people were fooled by his acting, but when you see it every day for years, you eventually must wake up from your vacation.

It was peculiar to all governments that the conservatives held power over, from Howard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison.

Although Albanese started his leadership in times unsuited to massive change, it may be that he was chosen for just that reason. Therefore, we can reasonably be assured that an Albanese Government will receive two terms of Government if they fulfil their commitments. All going well, perhaps another three.

The start of his tenure demonstrates that he comfortably fills the shoes of the office. He looks the part, listens with dignity, and speaks with understanding.

No one would dare suggest that Albo has the charisma of John Curtin, Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke or Kevin Rudd. Still, he does display sincerity, warmth, integrity and authenticity.

In comparison, the newly elected Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, decided to go on holiday not long after being elected. I would have thought he would immediately start mending the many things that needed fixing, but he has continued as though nothing happened.

On Albanese’s travel, the Opposition has proven that they have taken nothing from their loss. The cynicism coming from it about Albanese being out of the country is nothing more than what the Prime Minister himself described as nothing more than “beyond contempt.”

We seem to learn more about governments and their leadership when they have died (much the same as ordinary people) than when they are in Government.

Climate change, anti-corruption, gender equality and competent Government – are now the domain of the progressive left and hopefully will remain so for some time.

Whom should the Coalition blame? Well, Howard and Abbott are front and centre. Scott Morrison, his lying, and the Coalition support for fossil fuels and, of course, the rogue irrational MPs for their climate denial.

The Murdoch media defended their stupidity but couldn’t recognise its own. And let’s not forget their attitude toward women and the party infighting. And, of course, their questionable values and governance.

And yet they still seem to be at peace with their party’s relationship with the fossil fuel industry.

But the Coalition stars will always be John Howard, who took the party to the right. Tony Abbott may have been a better liar than Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull, who traded the leadership for well-worn beliefs and Barnaby Joyce, who proved himself to be the Leader of the many nut cases that formed the National Party.

Morrison believed that success, for whatever reason, depended on being seen doing everyone’s job but their own. Albanese is allowing his ministers to do their jobs.

How many guises did you see Scott Morrison in, ambo, hairdresser, test pilot or poultry boner and many more?

He put on hard hats, high-vis vests and gauze caps and propelled himself into the lives of the average working citizens who have been identified as politically advantageous. All these images were implanted in us, on TV, in hotels and in gymnasiums.

Do you know why? Well I don’t, either. I guess that about sums it up. Now let’s move on.

2 Together with the Prime Minister’s promise of a new politic comes a commitment to implement an influential Integrity Commission. The Greens and the independents will reject loose ends that allow for an escape route for corrupt politicians.

Furthermore, if this promise is to have some bite, it must also have adequate freedom of information process.

The independent auditor-general must be “independent” with a reasonable budget. The same goes for the Ombudsman.

The Government must create an impartial, professional and effective public service resembling that of yesteryear.

3 Something we can all agree on:

“Former Attorney-General Gareth Evans has called for Witness K’s conviction to be reversed following the decision to abandon the prosecution of the whistle-blower’s lawyer Bernard Collaery.

And Evans states that:

“Decency would also demand that the Witness K conviction be effectively reversed, but that’s probably a bridge too far.”

4 The Monthly reported that:

“The gap between male and female Coalition voters: only 28 per cent of women now say they would vote for the Coalition, compared to 38 per cent of male voters. The gap has widened since the federal election, with women continuing to drift from the Coalition under Peter Dutton.”

Who could blame them?

5 They are not mucking about, this Albanese Government. They have announced details on:

“… its promised jobs summit, to be held in Parliament House in early September. Treasurer Jim Chalmers says workplace reforms agreed to as part of the summit may be introduced as early as this year.”

6 In yet another example of Labor’s intention to make change a priority:

“Politicians will have to declare political donations over $1000 in real-time as part of a sweeping package of integrity measures.”

7 Special Minister of State Don Farrell wants to introduce the changes by mid-2023. “Truth in political advertising” laws will also accompany this legislation.

8 Another change will “potentially double the number of senators allocated to the Northern Territory and the ACT, from two to four.” The joint standing committee will examine the proposals on electoral matters.