It’s only as we come closer to a pending election that polls take on meaning. Otherwise, they are just a guide to how people are thinking at the time. Yesterday I received a comment on my Monday post that said:

“It’s always troubling when consistently people will vote against their own interests!  No wonder Mal has never been happier. The Murdoch propaganda machine is working better than truth!” – Justin Van Kampen

The first sentence, in particular, remained with me for the residue of what was left of the day. Its true, I thought to myself, pensioners will vote for conservatives in the blind assumption that they are the masters of money and will look after them. The truth, however, is that only Labor has ever done anything for them.

For many of us who critique the performance of government, it is beyond our comprehension as to how people would continue to vote for a party which has been so demonstrably poor, continue to vote for them, even when they institute policies that work against them.

So what is it that brings about this allegiance to a particular party. In the first instance, the best place to look is within oneself. For myself, it is a deeply ingrained sense of social justice or a fierce desire for equality – for helping those who cannot help themselves – that government is there to guide society and see that there is an equitable distribution of the country’s wealth.

In all that, or what influences it mostly, is a poor upbringing, deprived of formal education but an awareness of the possibilities of just what life offered. And I suppose a mind that was ripe for it.

As for my opposites, I really cannot say other than I have to think that for the same philosophical reasons they are the reverse of me. In our allegiance, reasoning by family influence also has its place. Just what percentage vote a certain way because Mum and Dad did is unknown but it must be substantial.

Why is it that, as Justin Van Kampen asks, do  “people consistently vote against their own interests!” Again we have to explore ourselves and ask questions. For example could I, if the party I supported were as incompetent as the current Coalition government, vote for another party. 

My allegiance to Labor is so ideologically attached that I couldn’t imagine doing so and I think for the same reason it’s why we see conservatives ready to support the Coalition regardless. That they would do so is beyond us, but in reality, we are the same, although as a rule, Labor is not out to hurt those who support it whereas Coalition policies do hurt country people and the elderly who vote for them.

If this is so, it raises yet another question. Are the Australian people so dumb as to reward an obvious extreme right-wing government with a hypocrite as its leader with another term in office after wasting almost 6 years of the country’s potential?

They would have to hate Bill Shorten a lot to do that or believe that Turnbull with another term under his belt would have enough courage to lead.

I have always found that people on the extreme right of politics have no problem explaining their hatred of the left. Sometimes with a raised voice of vile disgust and sometimes, but not often, with a logic that surprises. But when it comes to explaining what conservatism stands for they can barely raise their voice.

In America, people can and do swap parties but in Australia, we seem to be attached like glue, either left or right, with a growing percentage of swinging voters and it is these folk who win or lose elections. Of course the dissatisfied Conservative can always adhere themselves to Pauline Hanson or the upset Laborite can cross to the Greens.

There is no doubt that with the demise of institutional politics that more and more people are turning away from the major parties.

Having said that, recent results around the world would indicate a shift to the left and if you were to put away the Newspoll results in Australia that would seem to be the case.

When discussing polling in Australia it has to be remembered that any movement of a point of two means that hundreds of thousands of people changed their minds from the last poll and one has to ask whether that is reasonable or just within the margin of error.

What do we make of those 10 or 20% in the middle who we think decide the winner? Are they self-indulgent who vote for their own best interest or are they thinkers that have the country’s best interests at heart.

I think the latter and I think they will vote Labor. There are three factors in play here. Firstly more young people will come onto the roll this time around and this will be complemented by the rush of young folk who enrolled for the marriage equality survey. A substantial amount I believe.

Secondly, the AEC intends resetting some boundaries which will see the Coalition starting from behind. Winning this election will be tough enough for them without a handicap.

Thirdly Labor will have a truckload of dollars to throw at them in addition to their woeful governance.

As far as Justin’s comment that goes:

“No wonder Mal has never been happier. The Murdoch propaganda machine is working better than truth!”

The fact is when you measure the cross-platform influence of media his domination has been greatly diminished. Recent research by Andrew Catsaras has crunched the data and ranked the “influence index” of Australia’s major newspapers and their online duplicates. 

It tells us that The Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) has the highest cross-platform audience at 3,521,000 over a seven-day period, and also the highest percentage of readers who have “a lot of trust” in what they read in that publication.

It is followed by The Age on 20.5, The Australian 12, Herald Sun 9, Courier Mail 9 and The Daily Telegraph 6.  Therefore we can conclude that his influence is in decline.

Research and chart are here. 

Trying to predict who will win the next election is but an opinion. Some opinions are better than others. Mine is based on 60 years of following politics reading and writing about it every day and by no small measure of analysing. By putting down my bias and concluding in opinion who might win.

Based on all the available measures before me, in my opinion, Labor will win by 15 to 20 seats.

Saturday July 2 2016

At this time last year Newspoll showed Labor clearly ahead of the Coalition 53% to 47%, nearly a direct reversal of the 46.5% to 53.5% result at the September 2013 federal election.

Of course at the time Tony Abbott was Prime Minister and things were going downhill rapidly.

On the eve of this election the mainstream media has come out strongly in support of the conservatives, as have the bookies. The reason the newspapers back Turnbull is simply that they are more qualified to manage the economy. How they can say that when the government has doubled the debt is beyond me.

A few days ago Newspoll released its last poll showing the LNP 51/49. The next day Essential had the reverse followed by Fairfax Ipos 50/50 and Galaxy 51/49 to the Coalition.

With so many polls saying the same thing any fair-minded person would assume it’s going to be close. But then we know in recent times the polls have a miserable record. The English general election, Brexit, Queensland and Victoria all produced shock results.

In Australia our very democracy is under threat from a government that is extremist in its views. A self-serving government that has a hypocrite as a leader. A government that places capitalism before environmentalism.

In 2014 it proved beyond doubt that it wanted the poor to contribute more to the wealth of the rich and privileged. Its budget of that year was universally condemned as the most unfair ever.

Turnbull’s predecessor, of course, did more to damage the institutions of our democracy than any other. People are angry at anything and everything.

The people have experienced three years of wasted governance, and some have already expressed their attitude by walking away from the system altogether.

If Turnbull does win it will be with a reduced majority and, therefore, a reduced authority. Turnbull won’t last 6 months before Abbott starts to chip away. It’s also possible that even the joint sitting might not be enough to pass the ABCC legislation. How embarrassing would that be? In case you had forgotten, the ABCC is the reason we are having this election. Others are fed up with all the sanitised political gratuitous rhetoric that does nothing more than insult our intelligence. It’s been going on for far too long and people are up for a protest. We in Australia are often slow to see these things but when we do . . . look out.

What we are seeing worldwide is people ‘protesting’. Protesting at their treatment. More often than not they are ignorant of the facts and are just protesting against anything. They just want their voice to be heard.

For years now we have been living with Labor’s self-indulgent leadership wrangles and the Coalition’s far right ‘born to rule’ mentality.

Every time you read a newspaper you see how corrupt Australian society has become.

I believe that scandal after political scandal has at last woken us from our apathy. We are angry and we want to take it out on some one. How dare they treat us like this? Screw the polls. We don’t give a shit about the rights and wrongs, we just want to be treated with some respect.

People are disgusted with Turnbull’s caving into the ratbags on the right of his party. He has turned out to be as bigger liar as was Abbott. As hard as that might be.

For me Turnbull’s hypocritical leadership on gay marriage, the NBN and the environment must play on the minds of the voters as must the appalling performance of the government.

Ongoing banking scandals, political donations and ministerial deceit, and growing inequality surely will not escape the public’s attention. So too his repetitive cave-ins on tax reform. The fact that they are split on so many issues must also come into play.

Bill Shorten out campaigned Malcolm Turnbull, presented by far the better policies and leads a united team.

The voters are primed to take to someone with weapons of mass destruction. It might as well be the government. Don’t be surprised.

My thought for the day.

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

PS: Of course I might be completely wrong. The public might be happy with the unconstructiveness and in-fighting of their governance.

Federal Member for Bass Bridget Archer and ACT Senator David Pocock have been announced as winners of the McKinnon Prize, Australia’s independent, non-partisan award for outstanding political leadership.

The McKinnon Prize is a collaboration between the Susan McKinnon Foundation and the University of Melbourne and has been awarded annually since 2017. The Prize was established to recognise political leaders from all levels of government who have driven positive impact through their vision, collaboration, courage and ethical behaviour.

Ms Archer was selected as the McKinnon Federal Political Leader of the Year 2023, which recognises MPs with more than five years in elected office. The section panel noted Ms Archer’s long-standing courage in standing up for her principles and her collaborative approach to policy discussions.

Senator Pocock was selected as the McKinnon Emerging Political Leader of the Year 2023, which recognises recently-elected representatives with less than five years in federal, state/territory or local office.

The selection panel recognised Senator Pocock’s values-driven approach to handling his balance of power position in the Senate and his commitment to genuinely listening to and appraising competing perspectives.

A new category, McKinnon State/Territory Political Leader of the Year will be announced later this week.

The McKinnon Prize was selected by a panel of eminent Australians, including Martin Parkinson, Alan Finkel, and Patrica Karvelas (full panel list below).

Bridget Archer on being recognised with the McKinnon Prize:

“Representing the community of Bass in Federal Parliament is truly an honour and privilege. From the day I was elected I committed to being a genuine and authentic representative for the people of Bass. Being a recipient of the McKinnon Prize is a reminder it is the community I ultimately serve.

“As members of Federal Parliament, we are in the unique position to lead the conversation and ensure all voices are heard. I will continue to speak out against gendered violence and call for the elimination of violence against women and children. I look forward to continuing my advocacy to ensure adequate

The McKinnon Prize in Political Leadership is a collaboration between the Susan McKinnon Foundation and the University of Melbourne. mental health services are provided not just in Northern Tasmania but across Australia, ensuring the most vulnerable in our society are protected.

“I thank the Susan McKinnon Foundation, the University of Melbourne and the selection panel for the commendation. It is a prestigious group I am joining the ranks of and I am very honoured.”

Selection panel chair Dr Martin Parkinson on Bridget Archer:

“Bridget Archer’s leadership has impressed successive McKinnon Prize selection panels. It’s appropriate she takes the top honour this year.

“Ms Archer has consistently demonstrated rare courage by standing up for her principles and the interests of her constituents, even when this has put her at odds with her party and threatened her career. Through all this, her dedication and commitment to her party is clear and the panel noted how she has worked tirelessly to drive reforms from within.”

Selection panel member Dr Alan Finkel on Bridget Archer:

“Along with her political courage, Bridget Archer is also well known for her collaborative approach, community work and inclusion of young people in policy discussions.

“Australian political parties traditionally value discipline and it takes real bravery to pursue an alternate path of principled leadership.”

David Pocock on being recognised with the McKinnon Prize:

“It’s a huge privilege representing a community I love and an honour to have my work for them recognised in this way.

“People in the ACT have shown political leadership for decades, from their support for renewable energy and strong action on climate change, to marriage equality and more recently in the Voice referendum.

“What I have been able to achieve so far in the Senate reflects their energy and determination to work towards a better future for all.

“I believe we have so much more in common than the sum of our differences and this is the approach I’ve tried to bring to my role on the crossbench. We are facing huge challenges as communities, as a nation and globally it’s more important than ever to find ways to work together to solve them.

“Being accessible, accountable and putting people first, above politics, is what I committed to doing. I think they’re values Australians want to see and values that many winners of this Prize share and it’s a privilege to be recognised alongside them.”

Selection panel chair Dr Martin Parkinson on David Pocock:

“David Pocock has made a serious impact on Australian politics in an impressively short period of time. The panel was impressed by his articulation of a new kind of collaborative politics, and his dedication to these principles in practice.

“Historically, Australia has seen Senators who hold the balance of power use that to pursue a relative narrow set of goals, designed to satisfy a small constituency, often at the expense of the broader community. Senator Pocock is a great example of how that position of power can be used to pursue a broader vision for the community as a whole.”

Selection panel member Dr Alan Finkel on David Pocock:

“David Pocock’s leadership is a fine example of the values the McKinnon Prize was established to recognise. He genuinely listens to stakeholders and attempts to balance competing interests in good faith. We hope awarding this year’s prize to Senator Pocock helps promote the excellent example he sets at a time when so many populist ‘strongman’ leaders command headlines on the global stage.

“The panel also regarded Pocock’s community and charity work very highly, and his history of principled stances on political issues, such as his refusal to marry until gay marriage was legalised in 2017.”

McKinnon Prize Selection Panel:

Dr Martin Parkinson AC, Chancellor, Macquarie University (Chair) 
Dr Alan Finkel AC, former Chief Scientist of Australia 
Georgie Harman, CEO of Beyond Blue 
Tanya Hosch, Executive General Manager Inclusion & Social Policy AFL 
Patricia Karvelas, Host, RN Breakfast on ABC Radio 
Professor Renee Leon PSM, Vice Chancellor and President, Charles Sturt University 
Susan Lloyd-Hurwitz, President of Chief Executive Women, Chair of the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council 
Cathy McGowan AO, Chair, AgriFutures Arthur Sinodinos AO, Partner & Chair of Australia Practice, The Asia Group 
Ashleigh Streeter-Jones, Founder & CEO of Raise Our Voice Australia (ROVA) and Victorian Young Australian of the Year Finalist 
David Thodey AO, Chairman, Tyro and Xero and incoming University of Sydney Chancellor 
Jay Weatherill AO, Director of Public Affairs with the Minderoo Foundation

Within my social media circle and in the news reporting I read, there is growing support for the view that Dutton and the LNP are ripe to win the next election.

This assumption is based on views that Labor has done nothing about the cost of living or that Prime Minister Albanese travels too much and interest rates are too high. Of course, our debt needs to be lowered; asylum seekers should never have been released, and we need to spend more on infrastructure. You can add to that the cost of renting, and more houses need to be built.

Andrew Bolt is certainly confident of a Labor loss (isn’t he always?): 

“The Coalition under Peter Dutton could actually win the next election.”

He then advised they needed a reshuffle and suggested they bring back former prime minister Scott Morrison. Yes, he did. Check it out. It really is difficult to take Andrew Bolt seriously.

Or Shadow Attorney General Michaelia Cash, who says that:

“… the Government’s handling of the High Court overturning indefinite detention proves they are ‘hopelessly’ out of their depth.”

Right-wing columnist Gerard Henderson, writing for The Australian (paywalled) was quick to blow Dutton’s trumpet:

“Despite all the naysayers decrying his decision for the Liberals to campaign against the voice, Peter Dutton has been vindicated and is looking strong in the lead up to the next election.”

These astonishing predictions came after The Voice Referendum and Labor’s decision to let some refugees with bad records into the community following a high court decision and before the Court gave its reasons. 

Is it possible that at this time in the election cycle, the Coalition is indeed in a position to win in 2025? My first reaction is to say, “no chance”. After all, it was only a short time ago that Morrison lost on May 21 2022, after almost a decade of corruption, immorality, disgrace, continuous scandals, poor leadership, and lying. Keeping up with all the controversy and poor decisions was a daily grind: Lack of action on climate change, a poor response to the pandemic and the tragedy behind Robo debt are just a few. 

Is the electorate ready to forgive them and return the same people to office within one term? In normal circumstances, you would say no; they wouldn’t, but I confess, we live in strange times. 

Let’s look at where people say Labor is vulnerable, remembering we are some ways out from the next election.

1. The subs deal (a Morrison leftover) has been unpopular. Only time will tell by how much, and there is lots of it. I also disagree with this decision. However, I don’t think it is a front-of-mind issue.

2. Regarding the next tax breaks (another Morrison leftover), people think the money could be better spent other than handing money back to the wealthy. But to break a promise of such enormity. A broken promise for the greater good takes guts. Do it, Albo.

It really is starting to become glaringly obvious that Stage 3 is not just an unfair tax cut that gives massive cuts to the richest, it is also very, very dumb economics. https://t.co/DLqYOXck3L

— Greg Jericho (@GrogsGamut) November 21, 2023

Make some big decisions. Negative gearing is nothing more than a tax rort for wealthy investors that reduces housing affordability. Get rid of it.

3. The cost of living. Coles, Woolworths and others control the cost of living more than any government. Fuel is controlled by external forces. Allow more competition.

4. High interest rates. No government controls interest rates. It is as accurate as that.

5. Albo travels too much. It is in our own interest that he does. It has also been shown that he travels roughly the same – or less- as other recent PMs. Most of it has been restoring the damage done by the previous Government. China, in particular. Labor has restored our trade, which was almost destroyed by Morrison. Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen will attend the COP 28 Meeting in December.

6. Release of asylum seekers. The Government obeyed the High Court of Australia. The Court has yet to release its reasons for the decision. The legislation passed thus far could be more explicit but can only be so once their reasons are known.

Further news on this story was exposed in The Guardian on November 21. Five of the 93 people affected by this month’s high court decision on indefinite detention had already been released into community detention by the Coalition.

7. Cost of renting. A carryover problem from the Morrison Government. A decade of doing nothing.

8. Build more housing. But both are being addressed, if not to everyone’s satisfaction.

9. Spend more on infrastructure. Yes, but now is not the time. It would make inflation much worse.

10. The Voice referendum. It was a bad loss and poorly sold, but it isn’t an election breaker. The conservatives not only destroyed “The Voice” but also any chance of us ever becoming a republic.

11. The economy. In answer to a question during Question Time, the Prime Minister said:

“Let’s compare our economy, I’m asked about international comparisons of our economy and how it’s going,” “Our unemployment rate is 3.6 – lower than what we inherited; our participation rate is 66.7 – higher than what we inherited; our gender pay gap is 13 – lower than what we inherited.”

Mr Albanese said manufacturing jobs and women employed full-time were higher than what was “inherited”. His time expired.

And let’s remember the enormous debt Morrison left behind.

Labor’s record in office so far might appear bland, but a glimpse at their website tells a different story.

For example, on November 23, Albanese announced his government would “rapidly expand investment schemes for clean energy projects.”

i. Robodebt. People will be reminded that somebody must be responsible. Who might it be? Scott Morrison, Marise Payne, Malcolm Turnbull, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and/or Stuart Robert?

How damaging would it be during an election campaign?

Would you again put the same people in charge of policies similar to Robodebt?

ii. Many other Cases are before the NACC:

“146 referrals are pending triage. 53 referrals are currently in active triage, and 181 referrals that have been triaged are currently under assessment.”

Some, like Robodebt, will be open to the public. So, a constant stream of bad news stories will emerge from the NACC.

iii. Despite current events, Peter Dutton is still the best thing Labor has going for it. Outside of being tough on immigration, he has little going for him. A personality transplant might be a good idea. He carries a load of baggage.

iv. The Guardian Essential Survey of November 14 showed Australia at its pessimistic best, but I suspect this pessimism will have a brighter smile by the time of the election. Most people felt Australia should stay out of trouble between the superpowers and the war in the Middle East.

Most folks surveyed thought interest rates would go up again and rent would continue to rise. The price of petrol is decided overseas and not by our government.

The new social cohesion report released around the same time was also “sobering“. Katherine Murphy reports that:

“After the polarising voice referendum campaign, amid rising community tensions over the Middle East war and sustained anxiety about the economy, shows little appetite for frivolity. 

v. This same apathetic view of the world, like rust, is spreading throughout the community. From its governing position, Labor is well-placed to combat the conservatives’ attacks on institutions and the future of life as we know it.

Importantly, continues Murphy, this:

“… new research suggests many Liberal and National voters are in a severe funk now Labor is in power. 

“The number of people in this cohort who say they are pessimistic or very pessimistic about Australia’s future also increased by 27 points.”

If that’s what their supporters think about the future, I wonder what they think of Dutton as a leader. Is he just another Abbott, good at spewing out negative thought bubbles but never able to transition to Prime Minister?

The LNP is a coalition of political parties that took an extraordinary toll, over almost a decade, on our institutions and democracy. They are nothing more than a coalition of capitalistic shysters more interested in the top than those in need and have never apologised for the most deplorable period of governance in Australian political history. For example, see this list of lies that Scott Morrison told during his tenure as Prime Minister. Then there is this list of Peter Dutton’s lies about The Voice.

Am I to believe that the LNP under Dutton, without even a climate change or energy policy, will right all their wrongs when they didn’t even confess to Robodebt (or all the other falsehoods and acts of corruption)? Are they really a serious contender to become our next government after only 18 months?

Many conservatives believe that they have the power to shape society in a way that benefits the elite. They see themselves as the superior class, adhering to the principle of the aristocracy or the ‘betters’. They believe that they are natural leaders and the best suited to rule. They feel entitled to all the benefits that society creates as a reward for their superiority.

Considering that we live in a more complex and scientifically advanced world than ever, it seems unrealistic to expect the LNP, with its Luddite principles, to guide us through these complexities. Since the May 21, 2022 election, Labor has been busy correcting the mistakes made by Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison. Fixing the country’s economy may take years.

Sorry, I cannot swallow this nonsense. Andrew, Michaelia and Gerard should get a grip on themselves.

Anyway, Coalition strategists would know victory next time for them is a huge ask. First-term governments federally very rarely lose.

The unpardonable, outrageous trial of Australian whistleblower David McBride was a brief affair. On November 13, it did not take long for the brutal power of the Commonwealth to become evident. McBride, having disclosed material that formed the Australian public about alleged war crimes by special forces in Afghanistan, was going to be made an example of. 

McBride served as a major in the British army before becoming a lawyer for the Australian Defence Force, serving two tours in Afghanistan over 2011 and 2013. During that time, he gathered material about the culture and operations of Australia’s special forces that would ultimately pique the interest of investigators and lead to the Brereton Inquiry which, in 2020, made 36 referrals to the Australian Federal Police related to alleged war crimes.

McBride was subsequently charged with five national security offences. He was also denied immunity from prosecution under the near-unworkable provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth).

A central contention of the Crown was that McBride had, first and foremost, a duty to follow orders as a military lawyer. Such a duty flows on from the oath sworn to the sovereign, and no public interest could trump that undertaking. “A soldier,” contended Trish McDonald in her astonishing submission, “does not serve the sovereign by promising to do whatever the soldier thinks is in the public interest, even if contrary to the laws made by parliament.” 

Even a layperson’s reading of the oath would surely make a nonsense of this view, but Justice David Mossop was in little mood to suggest otherwise. “There is no aspect of duty that allows the accused to act in the public interest contrary to a lawful order.” It was a point he would be putting to the jury, effectively excluding any broader public interest considerations that might be at play in disobeying a military order.

For anybody vaguely familiar with military law since the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders in 1945, such orders are never absolute, nor to be obeyed without qualification. Following orders without question or demur in all cases went out – or so the 1945 trials suggested – with Nazi officialdom and the Third Reich. There are cases when a soldier is under a positive duty to disobey certain orders. But McDonald was trapped in a fusty pre-Nuremberg world, evidenced by her use of a 19^th century authority on military justice that would have sat well with the German defence team: “There is nothing so dangerous to the civil establishment of the state as an undisciplined or reactionary army.”

Chief counsel representing McBride, Stephen Odgers, hoped to drag Australian military justice into the twenty-first century, reaffirming the wisdom of Nuremberg: there are times when a public duty supersedes and transcends the narrow demands of authority, notably when it comes to the commission or concealment of crimes. The oath McBride swore as a member of the ADF to serve the sovereign comprised an element to act in the public interest, even when opposed to a lawful order.

There being no direct Australian decision on the subject (in itself, a startling fact) McBride’s legal team took the matter of duty to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory on November 16, hoping to delay the trial and argue the point. Chief Justice Lucy McCallum heard the following submission: “His only real argument is that what he did was the right thing. There was an order: don’t disclose this stuff, but he bled, and did the right thing, to use his language, and the question is does the fact that he’s in breach of orders mean that he’s in breach of his duty, so that he’s got no defence?”

If such an approach was adopted, Odgers went on to state, it “may well mean that the consequence is that he’s got no real alternative but to enter pleas of guilty and that would obviously shorten things but he seeks an opportunity to have that critical issue determined by the court of appeal.” Were the jury to understand that a public interest test applied in certain cases, they would then work on the “basis that there is a powerful public interest that members of the defence force do obey orders, but circumstances might arise in which that is not in the public interest.” 

What Justice Mossop was essentially saying was “not that orders are relevant to the question of duty but rather that they trump anything else, so that you must obey.” This was irrespective of “how unreasonable or in breach of fundamental principles of justice they may be, and will commit criminal offence if he does not.”

Odgers suggested an example elementary but salient. Picture a junior officer, being given a supposedly lawful order to commit what would be seen as a war crime. “Is that junior officer necessarily in breach of his duty? And there’s no way that a jury can say no he didn’t have a duty to obey that order? That’s the implications we say of his honour’s decision.”

Unfortunately for McBride, McCallum would not be swayed. Mossop’s ruling was “not obviously wrong.” She did not feel “that there is sufficient doubt about his honour’s ruling on either issue to warrant interrupting the trial.”

With the trial resuming on November 17, Mossop issued another stinging order: that the Attorney-General’s office remove classified documents in McBride’s possession that could be presented to the jury at trial. As one of the defence team, Mark Davis, told reporters, “We received the decision just this afternoon, which was in essence to remove evidence from the defence.” In doing so, “The Crown, the government, was given the authority to bundle up evidence and run out the backdoor with it.” 

With such gloomy prospects, McBride requested a new indictment on lesser charges, to which he pleaded guilty. Facing sentencing in the new year, he may be eligible to serve time outside carceral conditions, though a decade long stint is also in the offing. “The result of today’s outcome,” wrote transparency advocate and former Senator Rex Patrick, “is one brave whistleblower likely behind bars and thousands of prospective whistleblowers lost from the community.”

In June this year, Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus proudly claimed that “the Albanese government has delivered on our promise to the Australian people to strengthen protections for public sector whistleblowers.” Hardly. While modest amendments were made to the unspeakably clumsy Public Interest Disclosure Act, including the establishment of a National Anti-Corruption Commission, McBride had little reason to cheer. Dreyfus refused to use Section 71 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which gives the country’s chief lawmaker to drop prosecutions against individuals charged with “an indictable offence against the laws of the Commonwealth.”

Dreyfus, however, did discontinue the obscene prosecution of former ACT attorney-general Bernard Collaery under that same provision but refrained from exercising that same power regarding McBride and the Australian Tax Office whistleblower, Richard Boyle. His reasoning proved strikingly inconsistent: only in “very unusual and exceptional circumstances” could Dreyfus use such discretion. We are on slippery terrain when revealing alleged war crimes is a matter usual and unexceptional.

In McBride’s understandably distressed reading of the result, he warned that, in joining the Australian military, you were not “joining a noble profession, just a criminal gang like any other criminal gang: silence and complicity are the touchstones. A judge has made that clear.” And, sadly, more besides.

Image from the Human Rights Law Centre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In October 2020, I wrote the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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