Something missing as we approached 2024 was the bubbling enthusiasm that normally greets each new year.

The feeling of “We can put that year behind us” was replaced with “Oh well, here comes another one”.

I have sensed that many people think that 2024 will be 2023 Part 2. Rinse and repeat, so to speak.

Sure, the world’s a mess. Will we fix up this mess in 2024?

Left up to world leaders I’m not sure we will. Left up to us, I’m sure that we can.

Everyone of you makes this world better for someone.

What more can be asked of you in 2024?

The answer? Nothing. Just keep doing what you’re doing, and people will follow. 2024 belongs to you. 2024 belongs to us. 2024 is safe in your hands.

I’ve been having fun… without even having to think.

Thanks to Bard (Google’s AI tool), all the thinking was done for me. All I have to do is ask a question. About anybody. About anything.

I don’t professionally support AI as a lazy alternative to journalism, but for some fun at home, what’s the harm?

Moving along, I wanted to know more about that man of deep mystery, Peter Dutton, so I asked Bard.

Please note: A number of statements were incorrect, which proves that AI should not be taken seriously as a credible form of journalism.

First question:

Tell me bad things about Peter Dutton

Peter Dutton is a controversial Australian politician who has been criticized for a variety of reasons. Some of his most common criticisms include:

• His hardline stance on immigration and asylum seekers. Dutton has been accused of dehumanizing and demonizing asylum seekers, and of making it more difficult for them to access protection in Australia. For example, he has been criticized for his use of offshore detention centers, which have been described as “torture camps” by some human rights groups.
• His handling of the Robodebt scandal. As Minister for Human Services, Dutton was responsible for the Robodebt program, which wrongly accused thousands of Australians of owing money to the government. Dutton has been criticized for his slow response to the scandal and for failing to take responsibility for the program’s failings.
• His attacks on the media and on public servants. Dutton has a history of attacking journalists and public servants who criticize him or his government. For example, he has accused journalists of being “biased” and “unpatriotic,” and he has threatened to sack public servants who leak information to the media.
• His close ties to the fossil fuel industry. Dutton has been accused of putting the interests of the fossil fuel industry ahead of the interests of the Australian people. For example, he has been criticized for his support for the Adani coal mine, which is a major environmental threat.

In addition to these specific criticisms, Dutton has also been criticized for his overall political style. He is often seen as being arrogant, divisive, and lacking in compassion. His critics argue that he is not fit to be a leader, and that he is doing damage to Australia’s democracy.

It is important to note that these are just some of the criticisms that have been leveled against Peter Dutton. Not everyone agrees with these criticisms, and Dutton has his own supporters. However, it is clear that he is a polarizing figure, and that there are many Australians who have serious concerns about him.

In the interest of balance let’s see if he has a good side …

Tell me good things about Peter Dutton

Why is Peter Dutton so nasty?

There are a number of reasons why Peter Dutton is seen as a nasty politician. His critics point to his harsh rhetoric, his divisive policies, and his record of attacking his opponents.

One of the most common criticisms of Dutton is that he is too quick to use divisive language. He has been accused of using dog-whistle politics to appeal to his base, and of demonizing his opponents. For example, in 2019, he referred to climate activists as “anarchists” and “extremists.” He has also been critical of the Black Lives Matter movement, calling it a “divisive” organization.

Dutton’s policies are also seen as being divisive. He has been a strong supporter of policies such as boat turnbacks and offshore detention, which have been widely criticized by human rights groups. He has also been a strong advocate for lower taxes and less regulation, which has led to accusations that he is out of touch with the needs of ordinary Australians.

Finally, Dutton has a history of attacking his opponents. He has been known to use personal attacks and smear tactics against his rivals. For example, in 2019, he accused Labor leader Anthony Albanese of being a “faceless man” and a “puppet of the unions.” He has also been critical of the media, accusing them of being biased against him.

In conclusion, there are a number of reasons why Peter Dutton is seen as a nasty politician. His critics point to his harsh rhetoric, his divisive policies, and his record of attacking his opponents. It is important to note that these are just the views of his critics, and that Dutton also has a number of supporters who view him as a strong and decisive leader.

That’s more like it!

Well, that’s Peter Dutton done and dusted.

Time permitting, I could have more fun with Bard. Who’s next?

These words by Scott Bennett in his book White Politics and Black Australians have always resonated with me:

“The aspirations of Aboriginal Australians are expressed through a political system designed, first and foremost, for the white majority.”

In my many years employed in Indigenous affairs – and as a student of Indigenous history – it was a theme that dominated my public and academic life.

It is a theme that haunts us all:

“Australian history has left a legacy of Aboriginal inequality and disadvantage. In our self-congratulatory celebration of egalitarianism and the fair go, we conveniently overlooked that fact that our treatment of Aborigines amounted to a contradiction of the very values we claimed to espouse.”

The inability to regard Aborigines as equals has never really left the ‘white’ consciousness.

“There are a number of measures,” argues Bennett, “that can be used to establish the degree of inegalitarian treatment accorded” to Aborigines: legal equality; political equality; economic equality; equality of opportunity; and equal satisfaction of basic needs. I could broach social injustice, government ineptness and bureaucratic mis-management in emphasising these inequalities. Bennett recognises that:

“There are many disadvantages suffered by Aborigines that need remedying, but what needs to be dealt with, and in what order? Is it inadequate housing? Is it the parlous state of Aboriginal health which still results in unacceptably high infant mortality rates as well as a diminished life expectancy? Is it the rapid loss of Aboriginal culture? Or the high rate of Aboriginal unemployment? Undoubtedly the problem is complex, but where do governments start to seek remedies? What are the political solutions?”

History illustrates government inability above all else to deliver any remedies, due mainly to the makings of the Australian polity. Federalism stands out, and in particular the complex space that Aboriginal affairs occupies within our political system. In a federation like Australia it can be very difficult to achieve uniformity of power. Why cannot governments that perceive the existence of a regional or national problem, for example Aboriginal health, work constructively to eradicate the problem? Who is to be blamed, Commonwealth or State?

Aboriginal affairs involves many areas of governmental responsibility, including education, health, sanitation, land use and relations with police forces, which are all State government responsibilities. “When Commonwealth and State governments disagree in such matters, whose view should prevail?” A great deal of essential service delivery falls within the responsibility of State governments, but these governments often fall short of delivering full and satisfactory programs.

However, the argument goes much further than being based on pure politics. In Australia’s polity:

“… where the development of the land by both farmer and miner has for so long been described as basic to Australia’s prosperity, it is difficult for governments to ignore claims from such powerful interests.

The mining interest has fought particularly strongly against land rights and native title. The propaganda battle is rarely won by the central government. It is easier for a State Premier to claim that the Native Title Act threatens peoples’ backyards than it is for the Commonwealth to explain the complexities of the legislation.”

This is but one of the many shortcomings if we focus on program failure or distortion, for it is in these results that many hopes and expectations are deflected, destroyed or frustrated. An analysis of service delivery reveals that the problem is multi-faceted, not only having to do with the nature of modern bureaucracies, but also with the activities of politicians, the attitudes of white Australians, and the perceptions of Aborigines themselves.

In this arena of political and public perceptions, the now defunct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) used to come under some heavy fire; from politicians, the media, and the wider community. Perhaps there was resentment because ATSIC had given Aboriginal people a voice in the political system.

The argument on this was compelling. Many Australians watched distrustfully as, under Whitlam’s grandiosity in 1972, large amounts of money were directed to Aboriginal affairs. As a result, there was a great deal of importance placed on the need for ATSIC, in particular, to be accountable for its operations, reflecting no doubt the uncertainties of mainstream Australians concerning the standards of operations of Indigenous institutions. Following accusations of the misuse of money, audits were made of various bodies, again nominally ATSIC, and government funds for many Aboriginal services were reduced, and eventually, ATSIC was wiped from the political and social landscape. Yet claims about ATSIC’s waste of public money usually ignored the difficulties that that body had in delivering any worthwhile services to the Indigenous community. ATSIC had an unbelievable array of demands on its finite budget and was simply not in a position to meet every demand.

Also, political parties are demonstrably divided on Aboriginal issues. The Howard Government, for example, was less sympathetic to Aboriginal issues – or “too cautious in the invocation of Commonwealth power for the benefit of Aborigines” – than were the previous Labor Governments of Hawke and Keating and Labor Governments since. (It was forcefully argued that Howard was indeed influenced by the claims of the more powerful interest groups). Political parties’ views:

“… are extremely important in helping explain the place of Aboriginal people in the Australian political system.”

Some of the differences between Labor and the Coalition have been imposing. Consider them as a backdrop to discussions on issues such as Mabo, Wik, Native Title, the Stolen Generation, the Northern Territory Intervention, Closing the Gap, the Uluru Statement from the Heart, and now the Indigenous Voice to Parliament.

I could attack the media with as much veracity as I do the political interests. Press coverage should help ensure that the area of public policy is kept well and truly on the political agenda, for without it would be very difficult for Aboriginal interests to achieve anything of importance. Perhaps the best example has been the manner in which the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody disappeared from sight once the report became public. Such a lack of sustained coverage makes it easier for governments to ignore many matters of short-term notoriety. The desire for a story often overrides considerations of accuracy or fairness. Who could argue with this? Drunkenness, rioting and poor living conditions are given more attention than the stories that could show Aborigines playing a positive role in the general community.

For well over 200 years we have failed the First Nations people. Let’s not fail them again.

May I suggest the Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be a good start.

Reference

White Politics and Black Australians, Scott Bennett, 1999.

The AIMN received an email yesterday from the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. Though address to the site owners, it’s fair to guess it was sent to all at The AIMN, including our readers.

Here is the email:

Inquiry into the Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill 2023

On 11 May 2023, the Senate referred the Murdoch Media Inquiry Bill 2023, upon introduction, to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 December 2023. The bill was introduced on 13 June 2023.

Information regarding the bill can be found at the committee’s website under ‘Current Inquiries’. The committee invites your organisation to make a submission to this inquiry. Submissions are due by 31 August 2023.

The committee encourages the lodgement of submissions in electronic form and it is possible to lodge a submission through the committee’s website. Alternatively submissions can be lodged via email to ec.sen@aph.gov.au. All submissions should include the author’s full name, phone number and postal address on a separate covering letter.

Please note that a submission becomes a committee document, and must not be disclosed to any other person until it has been accepted by the committee. Unless you have requested that your submission remain confidential, it will be published on the committee’s website after the committee has examined and accepted it, and authorised its publication. Once a committee has authorised the release of a submission, subsequent publication is protected by parliamentary privilege.

I reckon we all have something we’d like to add.

Due to confidentiality – as noted in the email – please do not leave your suggestions in our comments section or they cannot be included in the submission. Please email them to us at theaimn@internode.on.net.

Put those thinking caps on!

I was a few years old when my family moved to Kangaroo Island as soldiers settlers, first to the Parndana “Camp” for two years before moving to our farm. By memory up to 50 families lived in the camp at any one time, and by the mid 1960s most of the farmers on the island were returned WW2 servicemen.

We buried one of the old diggers last Saturday. Only two remain alive.

None of the diggers would talk much about the war, but I am sure there were thousands of unwritten stories, now forever lost. So when a digger talks, I am the first to listen. Their words aren’t lost on me.

And so it is with Brigadier George Mansford (retired), who gave the ANZAC address in Cairns this year. I have kindly been given permission to republish his talk, as well as present two poems by Mr Mansfield.

They are indeed, a digger’s words.

ANZAC address 2023: Saint Mary’s College, Cairns

Australia, in the 50s was alarmed at the spread of communism in our region.

North Korea had invaded South Korea. Malaya, as it was in 1948, a British Colony, was under threat by increasing insurgent attacks from established bases in its vast jungles. Alarms bells were still ringing when Communist Forces defeated the French Army in Indo China and as a result, Vietnam was split into North and South with an already growing infrastructure of communist insurgency in an infant democratic South Vietnam.

In Australia, its small military contingency to Korea had no sooner commenced its return to Australia when we were committed to assist in troubled Malaya and soon after, South Vietnam as well. Then arrived a further commitment to counter Indonesian confrontation in Borneo. Thus with such threats in our region, and an over committed small Armed Forces, conscription by ballot for two years’ service including overseas service was introduced in 1965.

I was there in Enoggera Barracks, Brisbane, when the first Conscripts became the nucleus of a new infantry battalion, It was certainly not an easy Unit task to be ready to fight in such a short time frame, however our young soldiers, both regular and conscripts were magnificent and clearly a clear reflection of those ANZACs’ who had trained in the same barracks before joining the entire force sailing for Gallipoli.

History also records that our young soldiers were at war before the battalion’s first birthday and fought many a bloody battle which included battles such as Long Tan and Bribie Island.

They were not alone, many thousands of young and not so young men and women served in Vietnam and there were so many unwanted knocks on the door by sad faced messengers with terrible news that a loved one was badly wounded or worse still, had been killed in action.

A classic example of sacrifice was demonstrated by a young married couple, two battlers with an infant son recently born, had a sad record of family sacrifice. The soldier’s father serving in England during WW2 was posted missing while on air operations over Germany. His wife’s father, a soldier, was reported missing in action in the Pacific 1942. Then another war (Vietnam) and the wife with the arrival of an unwanted knock on the door became a widow with the news her husband, a Regular Army Warrant Officer soldier, had been killed in action in Vietnam.

The characteristics of our soldiers in the Vietnam era were no different to wars before them and those that followed Always pride in who they were, what they were, and where they came from. Always was their humour, no matter how grim or demanding the circumstances. They were always as one, defiant, determined and resolute. Forever yearning to be home, in their beloved land down under.

Much of their time was spent in the seemingly endless green dense jungles, swamps, rubber plantations and rice fields.

No matter where, danger was so often just around the corner, be it fleeting clashes with small groups of enemy or outnumbered and under heavy fire at close range from a well camouflaged bunker system, not forgetting the heavy use of mines and booby traps where the weight or tug of a foot would trigger terrible injuries and so often death.

Not too far away, after evacuation by helicopters, were the dedicated and devoted beloved young Florence Nightingales, ready to receive and treat such terrible bloody wounds and comfort very troubled minds.

Not surprising, our troops quickly became much disciplined and battle-hardened veterans. They demonstrated personal and collective courage and, in my view, unquestionably their most powerful armour was their trust, caring, sharing and strong faith in each other, and immense regimental and national pride. There is much our politicians could readily learn from such soldiers’ selfless deeds and constant demonstration of unity from all walks of life, regardless of race, colour, or religion and always the belief; we are as one.

You, our students of today are our leaders of tomorrow in all levels of society. You can best honour all of our fallen by your conduct and example to those generations who will follow and mark it well, it will be an obligation of trust and honour, no matter your disappointments, trials and ordeals yet to be confronted.

Like my two young comrades in uniform with me today, hopefully your time will be forever in peace. And yet, no matter the challenges of life confronted, always you will be standing tall, forever your love of nation, sharing, caring, and always the battle cry as it was with the ANZACS, and forever more here in the land Down Under in all walks of life; “We are as one.”

George Mansford April 2023

* * * * *

We’re Going Home

A terrible feeling it was with no mail for many a day

Combat rations and a bent spoon became the dining way

Itchy burning rashes, tinea, blisters and ill-fitting boots

Hungry, weary and wearing muddy military suits

Yet I am so happy as this new day has begun

Silent and sulking are the once barking guns

I won’t have to climb another bloody hill

Nor stop at a creek and like a camel drink my fill

Forget about weapon pits, patrols or sentry duty for me

A soft mattress and crisp clean sheets shortly to be

Such bliss to soon ignore a sergeant‘s bellow to stand fast

Oh gawd, to think I will soon be free at long, long last

It is true I have actually survived?

Can it be that I am going home alive?

Pinch me to make sure it is not a dream

Now at last the signal to embark being given to our team

No more doubts of tomorrow or the terror of the unknown

Our time is surely up and at last we’re going home

George Mansford © December 2013

* * * * *

For the young leaders of tomorrow…

The ANZACS are Watching

Amid constant gloom and distant frowns

Increasing debt, and heads drooping down

Comes a time when a youngster will ask

“Am I ready for life’s tasks?”

The answer of course is so very clear

Think of the ANZACS who showed no fear

Cos they were Aussies, no different to you

Young, eager, larrikins and ever true blue

You too will have doubts but hardly a frown

Despite dangers, heads high and never looked down

Always a school’s battle cry, “do the best we can”

If all goes wrong in studies, stay cool; revise the plan

No matter the task, doubts, risks or cruel weather

You still go forward; all young Australians together

Even if cursed evil darkens the day

With love of country as your torch, you’ll find the way

Look out for each other; you are all part of the team

Your sword is faith and unity, forever sharp and keen

Seek tomorrow’s laughter and comforting sunlight

Go forward with love, not hate and for what is right

Take your kit bag of knowledge and reasoning with you

Both given free over years by parents and teachers too

Tell all of your respect for our precious way of life

Created with sweat, blood and pain in times of strife.

George Mansford © April 2022

Bayerischer Wald can be just as hard to get to than it is to pronounce.

For we folk who are only fluent in English there is a translation just for us: the Bavarian Forest. But it any language, it is still hard to get to.

Nonetheless, we were determined to get there.

Departing from Munich, reaching our destination required three trains to Grafenau before taking a taxi to the nearby and stunningly beautiful little village called Neuschönau, nestled near the forest and not too far from the border with Czechia.

Catching connecting trains in Germany presents a challenge we Australians are not too familiar with: the trains run on time.

Our first connecting train gave us a whole two minutes to scamper from one platform to the one over the other side. The second connecting train was far more generous, giving us a whole four minutes.

We discovered two things about trains in Germany: 1) If the timetable says the train is due in at, say, 10:26am then it arrives at 10:26am and not a minute earlier or a minute later, and 2) If the timetable says the train is due to depart at 10:28am, then it departs at 10:28am on the dot.

I could add a third: travel lightly. It’s rather awkward running as fast as you can to opposing platforms with a suitcase that weighs roughly the same as a small motor car, and then to find that the connecting train has nowhere for you to place it.

But all the running, huffing and puffing is worth it when you finally arrive at your hotel, which in our case was a drop-dead gorgeous old villa with million-dollar views from our room.

Mine host, Manuel, was a friendly enough sort of chap, though he gave me another reason to travel lightly; mumbling at me over the weight of our suitcases which he’d volunteered – with regrets – to carry up the stairs for me.

But we were in Neuschönau, and it was time to explore.

Liz (Photo from Facebook)

We didn’t get far. Liz’s Restaurant and Café, about a ten-minute walk from our hotel, beckoned us. Liz – a lovely English lady originally from the Channel Islands – married a German and returned with him to Neuschönau, in her words; “a lifetime ago”.

For Carol and I, who know only a handful of German words Liz was soon our go-to person while staying in the village. (Which was handy, as her little restaurant had food to die for. Her square chips alone are worth travelling to Germany for.)

As an aside, Liz mentioned that Carol and I were only the second lot of Australians to visit her little restaurant. A young couple from Melbourne were there six months earlier. It gave us the hint that Neuschönau was well off the beaten track when it came to tourists. (Away from the bustling crowds is worthy of a koala stamp.)

But we were only there for one reason: to visit Bayerischer Wald.

Manuel, bless him, gave us two return trip bus passes to the forest, so after a 15-minute walk to the bust stop our adventure was soon to begin. After a very short trip the bus driver gave us a nod that said; “We’re here”. (Little had we realised that the forest was within walking distance from the village.)

Alighting our bus, to our left was a tree-top walk, on the right, the forest itself. We went left, enticed by a massive tower that rose above the forest.

We needed a good hour to complete the tree-top and tower walk.

When you see something like this… you just want to check it out.

Part of the tree-top walk that heads towards the tower.

To give you an idea of the size of the tower, that small dot in the middle of the photo is Carol. The photo was taken from level 3.

Inside looking up.

With the tree-top walk done a dusted, we headed to the forest, unaware that we were about to embark on one of the most exhilarating days imaginable. Amazing wildlife, breathtaking scenery – the forest had it all.

It didn’t take long to meet one of its inhabitants: a startled red squirrel, who upon seeing me, sprinted off at roughly 750ks an hour. I kid you not.

Our first encounter on our forest walk: a European bison. The last thing we expected to see was a bison, which until that moment we had no idea that the creature even existed.

The forest is painted with vibrant colours.

If the sight of a bison was a surprise, then so too were the moose.

What looked like a small tiger is actually a lynx.

An “uhu” (German for “European eagle owl”) camouflaged in the rocks. The talons on this magnificent bird were as large as my hands.

It’s a bear! In the woods!

A welcome sign for weary legs. Forest walk done, the ‘red carpet’ is rolled out for the last few hundred metres.

The forest walk took us roughly six hours. If we could have pressed on for an extra hour we would have been rewarded with encounters with elk and boars, but the legs said “no”.

Apart from the wildlife we’d captured on film, we also encountered a wolf, some martens and beavers (who were making their home in readiness for Winter). The animals, unfortunately, were too quick for our cameras. The wolf, however, was just plain stubborn: refusing to come out from behind the bush were first spotted.

Finishing the day at Liz’s – and stories of our adventure – we vowed that we’d return if ever the opportunity would present itself.

”If ever you do,” said Liz, “promise me you’ll catch a train to Passau just north of here. It’s too beautiful not to see, and then you can catch a taxi to Neuschönau. Or you could have just taken a bus from Munich to here.”

What! There’s an easy way to get to Neuschönau! Now you tell us!

Yeah, but nah. The hard way was fun.

Carol and I visited Bayerischer Wald in September 2018. To this day, we haven’t forgotten a second of it.

(More photos here of the magical forest).

As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 17 mission – the last time humans walked on the Moon – I am reminded of a short piece I wrote almost a decade ago about the immediate plans if the first mission, Apollo 11 went horribly wrong. For this piece I’ve kept the original title.

…….

Some of us will be old enough to remember being glued to the television set when Neil Armstrong left the lunar module and ‘finally’ stepped on to the surface of the moon. We remember too, the image of President Nixon phoning the famous adventurers.

The first moon landing went without a hitch, culminating in that call from Nixon. Nixon would not have made that call, obviously, in the event of a disaster.

What would have he done instead?

For those wanting a break from the turbulent affairs of Australian politics, you may wish to read on. I’ve been shown this interesting document that tells us what Nixon would have done, or said, as an alternative to his famous call.

There was always the strong chance that the mission would fail. There was always the possibility that those men never returned home, being stranded on the lunar surface. In that event, a speech was drawn up which Nixon would have delivered to a shocked world. Titled “In event of moon disaster” it reads: