The CSIRO and AEMO (Australian Energy Market Operator) released the draft update to their annual ‘GenCost’ – cost of energy generation – report in the past week. It pointed out nuclear energy generation wasn’t particularly cheap and was hardly the ‘silver bullet’ to drive Australia’s decreasing reliance on coal energy generation into the ground. As the report is in draft, there is the provision that someone with sufficient knowledge and evidence in the area could point out to the CSIRO that they erred in the compilation or presentation of the evidence used to argue their point of view. It is also unlikely that the update would have been issued unless there was a good chance that no substantial changes would be made.

Energy generated from renewable sources is cheaper than energy generated from nuclear energy by quite a margin, the GenCost report has found. Unsurprisingly, the Energy Minister welcomed the report as it broadly aligned with the government’s publicised objective to move energy production away from coal and gas to fully renewable sources. The Opposition was less welcoming, with Energy Spokesperson Ted O’Brien claiming the government was ‘weaponising’ the report to argue that nuclear energy generation wasn’t viable in Australia.

O’Brien claims the report looks at the issue through an ‘investment’ lens rather than a ‘consumer’ lens. He is splitting hairs. Either he has forgotten simple economics or he isn’t letting the facts stand in the way of a good story. Inherently, companies exist to generate a financial return on investments made by their shareholders. It is called profit. If a company doesn’t make a profit, it will eventually use up all its financial resources and ask shareholders for more or declare bankruptcy. The investors need the consumers to purchase their product rather than similar alternatives. The purchase price typically is higher than the cost of the inputs to the product, which is returned to the investors as profit. Maybe O’Brien might like to discuss how the two ‘lenses’ are different.

As Katherine Murphy noted in The Guardian

The CSIRO’s new analysis this week noted conventional nuclear power is now cheaper than it used to be. But it also points out that some of the low-cost nuclear found overseas has either been “originally funded by governments” or was at a point where capital costs had been recovered. This allows plants to charge less for their generation because they don’t have to recover the costs of new, commercial, nuclear deployment. Given we don’t have existing generation here, this isn’t an option for Australia.

While we are on facts, here’s another one. The only company to have a small modular nuclear power plant [O’Brien’s favoured option] approved in the United States has recently cancelled its first project due to rising costs.

O’Brien isn’t the only one who should know better trying to talk down renewable energy production. Gina Rinehart is one of Australia’s wealthiest people. She provides considerable funding to the IPA (Institute of Public Affairs) which is a conservative leaning ‘think tank’ and apparently a nursery for upcoming conservative politicians.

Rinehart must be happy with her investment in the IPA as she is currently spruiking some research from the organisation that states that at least one third of Australia’s arable land will be required to generate sufficient electricity once the last coal and gas fired power stations are closed down The research was released to the world by the IPA using the well-known academic peer reviewed journal “X”, formerly “Twitter”.

The problem is the research misses a few facts. Michael Pascoe is a finance writer for The New Daily. He asked a couple of economists who work for the Australia Institute to review the IPA’s calculations and they found

The IPA assumes renewables need to replace the total primary energy from fossil fuel use instead of the actual delivered energy – the stuff that counts, what we get to use.

“Most of the energy from fossil fuels is lost as heat,” explain Messrs Saunders and Ogge. “For instance, for coal at least 60 per cent of the primary energy from coal in coal power is lost as heat, at least 40 per cent from gas.

“Renewables do not have to replace the waste heat from fossil fuels, just the delivered energy, which is significantly less than half the primary energy figure which includes waste heat.

Pascoe goes on to suggest (correctly) that the land required for renewable energy production doesn’t have to be prime arable land, although sheep apparently like the shade provided by solar panels and will in return help to keep the grass under control.

So what is it with conservatives and renewable energy? Leaving aside the discussion around conservatives views on climate change and emissions reduction for a minute, is the concern that renewable energy is far more democratic? After all, you and I can install solar panels on the roof of our house with possibly a battery in the garage and to an extent dictated by energy regulations, finance and availability we can eliminate or at worst reduce significantly our requirement to purchase commercially generated electricity. It really doesn’t help the business model of the extractors of fossil fuels who have until now had a captive market.

It isn’t only electricity generation profits that are at risk here. The increasing uptake of electric vehicles is reducing ongoing demand for petrol and diesel, as evidenced by some traditional petrol retailers installing EV charging facilities. The problem for the retailers is that EV charging can be done at home from the solar panels and batteries, so we are far less dependant on their services. The EV can, in some cases, also be used a a battery to reduce the domestic dependence on commercially generated electricity as well.

On top of conservatives being told that fossil fuel extraction will be subject to far less demand and consequently be far less profitable, it breaks the business model they know and understand. And thats the real problem here. It’s a brave new world which is far more democratic than large companies having the monopoly on the ability to generate electricity. Even though most of us have hesitation when it comes to change, most of us either embrace it because we see the possibilities or learn to live with it.

Society will adapt as demonstrated when the ‘horseless carriage’ gained supremacy over the carriage with horses. Arguably, the change made the world far more democratic as the costs of running a horseless carriage were far less than a stable of horses. We all got used to carrying a small computer that could also make phone calls around in our pockets or bags very quickly as well.

There may be really good arguments for alternatives to renewable energy – but O’Brien hasn’t given us one yet and Rinehart frankly should have pulled her funding if the IPA can’t do far better than the drivel they have presented as ‘research’ on this occasion. It’s time to put up or shut up.

If you walk into a business that retails new cars, find a salesperson and have a discussion on what your specific wants and needs they will always be able to recommend something from the range of vehicles in the dealership. If you’re talking to a Toyota salesperson, they are most unlikely to suggest that a Hyundai or a Subaru would provide a closer fit with the requirements that you set out. Of course, the Toyota wouldn’t have everything you described as needing or wanting, to which the salesperson would go into great detail on why you didn’t need the missing feature or lead you towards a similar ‘better’ feature in the range of vehicles they sold.

It’s the process of making a sale. You can also observe similar practices if you were to wander into an Apple or Samsung store or one of the stores run by the big telcos. The Telcos are even more reliant on making a sale as the products they offer are almost identical. They all offer NBN services, mobile phones and fixed wireless internet. In the case of the NBN, they all resell the same service but claim a point of difference with the price, the quality of their call centre or the inclusion of ‘added extras’.

Everyone does it, Woolworths and Coles have access to the manufacturers of packaged goods, commercial arrangements with primary producers and contracts with logistics companies to get the goods from the paddock or warehouse to the plate as fast as possible with only minimal damage to the quality at worst. Woolworths prices are kept ‘down’ using similar practices to Coles who in turn sell equally ‘fresh’ food as Woolworths. The proof is Aldi who are in the same business, but rarely advertise the freshness or cost of items bought from their shops – but promote their ‘difference’.

It’s not hard to sell something. As we’ve seen business does it relentlessly and well. Bank staff ‘sell’ home loans, electronics manufacturers convince people to throw out perfectly good equipment because it doesn’t have the latest gadget with a multi-letter acronym that ‘guarantees’ a better experience. There are people employed to convince you to change your brand of shampoo as your current one doesn’t leave enough shine or bounce in your hair! So what is Prime Minister Albanese’s excuse for not selling his governments achievements?

In the chaotic last week of Parliament for the year, Albanese’s government managed to cement a deal with the states to ensure the NDIS is used for supporting those that need the support, which meant the states have to tip some additional money into the pot. A report on the NDIS was released that identified where considerable waste (hint: a lot of it is to do with the process the previous Government put in to manage the scheme). Albanese steered the original NDIS legislation through the Parliament when a minister in Gillard’s minority government. He should be shouting from the rooftops that they have fixed the problems with the system imposed by the government where the current Opposition Leader was a key Minister.

In the same week, Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek landed a deal to increase the flows in the Murray-Darling river system that landowners, the Greens and the government could agree to. No, the deal isn’t perfect and each party to the agreement would be able to suggest ‘improvements’ but some improvement is better than the status quo. There was also movement on the long overdue ‘same work, same pay’ legislation.

So, a bit of competence all round eh? Maybe in an alternative universe there was some acknowledgement of a job well done that actually supports those who need some assistance to live in our society or comment on how the additional flows will assist in returning the environment in and around the Murray-Darling basin to something remotely resembling health. It certainly didn’t happen in this universe. Most of the media were reporting Coalition concerns that some refugees that the government had been forced to released from detention after they had completed sentences for criminal offences had been re-arrested, using the Coalitions talking point that it was all a government foul up. Katherine Murphy in The Guardian was one of the few exceptions.

The ‘refugee crisis’ always was a beat up by the Coalition. Apart from the tradition suggesting that once you have done the time associated with the crime, you are rehabilitated and free to go, the policy around permanent detention was written and implemented predominately by the Coalition when in government. In short, the Coalition was arguing that its own lawmaking process was incompetent or badly managed. Albanese folded and brought in rushed and ill-considered legislation before he even tried to make the argument. Maybe the Home Affairs and Immigration Ministers should have been out prior to the Court’s decision suggesting there was a chance that the refugees would have to be released and if that occurred, it was the Coalition’s poor legislation drafting that would cause it. Alternately having the discussion around the ethics and morals of keeping one group of people in detention indefinitely while others who had behaved in a similar way were free of restrictions would have made Australia a slightly fairer and more equal society could have been worth it.

The problem with generally competent governments is the media loses influence if it’s not seen to be driving the agenda and hammering home what you should believe. While some will have a genuine concern with some of the actions of a government, a lot of the output is aligned to the media owner’s individual political preferences. Nature abhors a vacuum and tries to fill it, so if you don’t get your positive message out to fill the available space, others will have no hesitation in filling the space with negativity.

In the 1970s, both the Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council had regular five-minute TV broadcasts that gave their version on the benefits of the programs they were implementing. Rightly or wrongly, both the Premier (Joh Bjelke-Petersen) and Lord Mayor (Clem Jones) stayed in their roles through multiple elections. They both knew that if they drove the agenda it was harder for opposition to catch up, regardless of the issue of the day.

For the Government to succeed, they have to suck the venom out of the Opposition’s opposition to everything. A comprehensive demolition across the Dispatch Box won’t do it as most of us might see the 30 second version on the TV and decide it’s just politicians being politicians again. The media won’t help the government as there is a commercial imperative to sell the conflict. The government telling us to wait a little while until the release something clearly doesn’t work as it allows the vacuum to be filled by others to set the agendas in a competition where coming from behind is always difficult.

If the government doesn’t change how it markets itself – Dutton will be Prime Minister in 2025 and a textbook case of how to win government in one term.

It’s very convenient for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton that a lot of us are not overly interested in politics and can’t remember what we had for lunch last Tuesday. It gives him the chance to suggest that white is white today and suggest black is white in a month’s time.

According to Dutton and the Opposition, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been too busy jetting off overseas to understand the nominated issue of the day, whether it be interest rates, refugees or some other confected crisis that will destroy the country because the Prime Minister is not in his office in Canberra. As this is being written, Albanese is in San Francisco, attending an APEC meeting. It is his 18th trip overseas in his 18 months in office. San Francisco has its charms but its a pretty good bet that Albanese and the other Asia-Pacific leaders won’t be riding the cable cars or ‘chillin’ out’ with some legalised cannabis. Dutton’s criticism is probably based around attempting to make the argument that ‘Airbus Albo’ is travelling far more frequently than the ‘gold standard’ in Australian political leadership – recent Coalition Prime Ministers.

Well he’s not. According to RMIT’s FactCheck unit, Albanese’s 18 trips

nudges him slightly ahead of former prime ministers Scott Morrison (17 trips) and Tony Abbott (16) at the same point in their tenure.

Morrison clocked up his 17 trips in 14 months before his ill-fated family holiday to Hawaii. which was disclosed only after Morrison was photographed in Hawaii during the severe bushfires on the east coast of Australia in 2019. Despite the lack of travel that was a fallout of his ill-timed vacation to Hawaii and a long period without travel due to the pandemic, Morrison still clocked up 24 overseas trips in his term. Abbott did 21 in 2 years while Turnbull travelled overseas 23 times in his 3-year Prime Ministership. As RMIT FactCheck notes

For all the criticism of Mr Albanese, the Coalition has itself defended the necessity of prime ministerial travel, at least for Liberal prime ministers.

“Every trip the prime minister makes is to advance Australia’s interests [by] strengthening our trading relationships and strengthening our national security,” a spokesperson for Mr Morrison told SBS News in 2019.

“… he only travels overseas when it is necessary and will deliver outcomes that benefit Australian families and businesses.”

As recently as last month, Dutton was telling us the Constitution of this country was sacrosanct. Any change to it, such as recognition of First Nations people and creating a mechanism where the was a Voice to Parliament enshrined in the Constitution was effectively heresy. Yet, when the High Court rules that a number of refugees and asylum seekers are to be released from indefinite detention, the Coalition is claiming as some of them are reputed to have committed ‘heinous’ crimes the government needs to ignore the High Court. The government has pointed out that not all of the indefinite detainees were found to be guilty of a criminal offence and those who were released have completed their term of imprisionment.

Despite the claims of the Coalition, people are released into the community every day who have been found guilty of heinous crimes and have served their punishment. There are a number of well tried and tested measures in place to manage the release of former criminals into the community. It is not a national emergency, despite the Coalition’s claims. According to the Parliamentary Education Office

The High Court of Australia and other federal courts have the power to interpret laws made by Parliament and judge if laws are consistent – valid – with the Constitution.

The Parliament and the Judiciary are independent of each other. This allows each to keep a check on the actions of the other. However, the Parliament, Executive and Judiciary are not completely separate; for example, the Parliament can create Federal courts and the Executive appoints High Court judges.

So the Coalition suggestion to ignore the ruling of the High Court breaches the Constitution that a month ago the Coalition said was never meant to be changed.

The Coalition claims they are the better economic managers. Yet the government cancelled $30Billion or so in transportation projects that the Coalition promised but never actually funded or started. While the cancelled projects may have sounded like a good idea, no one had put much thought into them except the (Coalition) politicians announcing them presumably to gain additional votes. As the ABC News website suggests

Now, some of these were kind of pie-in-the-sky anyway, having either been promised by a past Coalition government convinced it was about to lose which then awkwardly didn’t, or offered as a squeaky toy to distract Barnaby Joyce from COP26.

Five commuter car park projects (remember those?) were quietly euthanased among a bunch of other largely unviable plans…

For an opposition, the chance to curry electoral favour by theatrically mourning the loss of amazing things that you rashly promised to do to curry electoral favour but then didn’t actually have to do because you lost is … well, it doesn’t come along all that often, so you enjoy it when you can.

It’s true that this week’s news is next week’s fish and chips wrapping but there is a larger issue here. Week in and week out Dutton and the Coalition make statements that are calculated to cause damage and division. It’s a sad reflection on all of us that instead of discussing how the Coalition might do things better than the government, they are attempting to tear it down. The ALP isn’t much better when in opposition as the conventional wisdom suggests that the release of any policy document leaves the party open to a death by a thousand cuts – as was recently demonstrated in the referendum campaigns. It’s not a recent thing as the same tactics were used by the Coalition against Shorten’s ALP in the 2019 election and by the ALP against Hewson’s Coalition when it proposed a GST in the early 1990s.

There is a maxim that we get the government we deserve. Arguably we deserve better than a Opposition that changes position faster than fast food chains serve burgers, a government that trashes its own party policy on refugees and the environment and a potential alternative that claims to have an environmental focus but will happily vote against environmental legislation because its only 60% of what they want.

The media won’t change it, the ‘conventional wisdom’ won’t change it – so it’s down to us.

It seems the Coalition under Dutton isn’t planning to work with the government anytime soon. Dutton and his cohort are throwing whatever they think it takes out there to go negative. Any positive measures (such as a second referendum to acknowledge First Nations people in the Constitution) are reversed almost before they are announced. After all, absolute opposition eventually got Abbott the Prime Ministership. ‘Back to the Future’ was a successful movie franchise and Dutton’s betting it is a good political strategy as well.

Not that the ALP is much better. While the referendum failed, there are a number of ways for the Albanese Government to legislate for a fairer and more equal society. While the move to ensure ‘labour hire’ staff are paid the same as employees doing the same work and laws around the deliberate use of mis-information are a good start, there is a number of additional measures that should be undertaken.

In an environment when state and the federal governments are all claiming they cannot afford to deliver basic health, transportation and education needs to all in the communities they service, the lack of resolve to cancel or at least significantly reduce the cost of the Stage 3 Tax Cuts is criminal. Supporters of Modern Monetary Theory may disagree with claims of balanced budgets and so on, but the ‘conventional wisdom’ is that governments don’t have limitless credit cards and taxes are one of the measures used to engender trust in a sovereign currency. So if there is a need to fund education, transportation and health services equitably to most if not all Australians, why is the government committed to a previous governments failed re-election strategy of handing money back to those that have less absolute need for it rather than actually benefitting the community?

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the operator of the ‘off-shore’ asylum and refugee processing and detention Centre in Nauru has been paid $1.82 Billion over the past 5 years to run the facility on your and my behalf. The payments haven’t decreased in line with the reduced number of refugees being held in what the PNG Court system determined was an illegal detention system when a similar scheme was operational in that country.

There are now more New Zealanders and ‘others’ in some form of ‘onshore’ immigration detention in Australia due to cancelled visas than ‘Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals’ according to the government’s own report yet there is no apparent need to fly them around the South Pacific to ‘suitable’ places of detention at your and my expense. It is still the case that a large number of asylum seekers are in fear of their lives if they return to their homeland. It doesn’t necessarily follow that Australia should be seen to be still running pseudo-concentration camps as a deterrence measure to address a confected political issue where both sides of politics have been equally culpable until now. Onshore detention is equally as horrid – as demonstrated by the plight of the Murugappan family from Biloela. There has to be a better and more humane way to do establish bona-fides quickly and settle people into our community permanently.

With frequent reports of the earth getting close to a tipping point where climate change will be irreversible, transport is one of the more obvious areas to work on and clean up (pun intended). The Coalition Government pushed actual action on doing anything about reducing the emissions and average fuel consumption of any vehicles into the weeds by commissioning report after task-force after strategy. The ALP Government has at least determined that something has to happen. However in the past 18 months, we are still stuck in a limbo where yet another strategy is being developed to determine how to do some things that have been in place in the majority of the economically developed world for decades. There is no local manufacturing industry that has to be given time to adapt – all our vehicles are imported (thanks to the Coalition). Even the USA has fuel efficiency and consumption standards that are yet to be beaten by Australia.

The thing is that the ALP doesn’t need to rely on Coalition support to implement anything. There are enough Greens and independent Members of Parliament to legislate a fairer and more equal Australia tomorrow if the ALP had the political will to work with others to achieve a solution. Rather that talking about it, they could be implementing appropriate funding of services designed to help those who need a hand, remove the stain of inhumane practices to asylum seekers and refugees or pick some more low hanging fruit in the battle to reduce emissions before the planet cooks.

Certainly, Dutton and his cohort of media mouthpieces will scream blue murder, however the proof is in the pudding. If the ALP, the Greens and the independents can go to the next election with well marketed evidence that they have actually made a positive difference to everyone’s lives and the future of the planet in the past 3 years, they have a pretty good shot at re-election. As Leader of the House in the Gillard minority government, Albanese knows how to do it – he just needs the political courage to actually commit.

Apparently during the recent referendum, there were a number of social media posts that suggested if Australia had voted for the proposed Voice to Parliament all sorts of dire consequences would occur.

Some claimed that we would all lose our homes. The same claim was made at the time of the Mabo Decision in the High Court and despite a number of government departments knowing where I live, how much I earn, who I bank with, my phone and email contact details – it never happened. Granted I am still not in the same home as I was when land rights legislation was implemented – but that was my decision. Governments and the Native Title Legislation had nothing to do with it.

Another claim made was that all immigrants since a certain [variable] date would be repatriated back to where they came from. That bit of the referendum question must have been in the 25 or so pages of the Uluru Response that only those with tin foil hats could see. The additional pages never existed, neither did any documented evidence that any immigrant would be repatriated.

Conservative political leaders were at best bending the truth to suit their narrative. Dutton’s claim that the concept of a Voice to Parliament was divisive had nothing on his and his Coalition Colleagues divisive actions over the past 20 years in regard to refugees, social security recipients, conservationists and even First Nations people. Dutton, Price, Mundine and Thorpe all showed that they are incapable of listening to others opinion, considering alternative points of view or understanding that not everyone gets exactly what they want all the time.

Of course Dutton and his fellow travellers were ably assisted by sections of the media who, instead of encouraging people to look at both sides of this or any other issue and make up their own mind – pushed a dumbed down agenda which some obviously swallowed without thinking. ‘If you don’t know – vote no is an insult to everyone’s intelligence. It is assuming that we are incapable of finding out information, thinking about it and making a decision. Very 1950ish ‘father knows best’ really – isn’t it? It could also be described as a scam as there was little if any factual information being presented.

The sad reality is that people have been falling for scams for centuries. Governments have introduced legislation to mitigate scams in certain areas. For example, it is illegal to sell a product in Australia that claims some medical benefit without evidence to support the claim. All new motor vehicles must have certain features to mitigate harm before they are allowed to be sold in Australia (and most countries around the world of that matter). You can’t legally give yourself a whole list of titles such as Medical Doctor, Lawyer, Architect or even a Justice of the Peace unless you are actually qualified to use the title.

So why did we endure months of lies and misinformation from those with a political axe to grind in the lead up to the referendum? The real reason is there is no legislation requiring truth in political advertising. Not only that, but anybody with an axe to grind and sufficient money to spend can make any ludicrous statement they want to and buy the publicity to do so. As recent events have demonstrated yet again, we all suffer as a result.

The government’s response to the failure of the referendum should be multi-pronged. First, find a way to commit to Truth, Voice and Treaty that is acceptable to our First Nations People where they don’t have to rely on the ‘good graces’ of the Coalition. Second, point out to Dutton and his political mouthpieces that if there is a need for a Royal Commission into child abuse or grants expenditure, it should examine the problem across the country – as limiting it to Aboriginal communities is divisive. Lastly, but not least importantly there should be a massive overhaul of the Electoral Act to prohibit falsehood in political advertising and comments by politicians.

Despite the claims of Dutton, Thorpe, Price and Mundine there had to be some serious money from ‘elites’ going to the ‘no’ case as well as the ‘yes’ case. The ‘yes’ case were disclosing donations, who the ‘elites’ funding the ‘no’ case will be disclosed in a year or so by the AEC. Funding of political campaigns must be online and real time so that you and I are aware of who is potentially providing the script for politicians to act out. At the moment, federally it isn’t.

Obviously the Coalition wouldn’t support any of these measures. The second referendum for recognition without a ‘voice’ promised by Dutton in the lead up to the referendum a week or so ago was quietly taken out the back and strangled within hours of the referendum result being obvious to all. The Greens and independents probably would support advertising and financial truth in politics. It’s about time Albanese’s ALP Government worked with them to achieve real and hopefully meaningful change to our political processes. While politics should be the contest of ideas, the ideas have to be grounded in facts rather than the obvious falsehoods some relied on in the recent referendum.

As for the financial disclosure, if a multitude of on-line shopping websites can tell you within minutes that Anthony A of Marrickville purchased a “Comfy” camping chair – complete with image and price for your fear or missing out to trigger and get the identical product – the software exists for the $20,000 donation to any political party to be given similar publicity. It can’t be that hard.

A ban on lies in political advertising is popular according to a survey by The Australia Institute. All we need is the Parliament to work together and make it happen.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton, Senator Price and others are telling us to vote ‘no’ at the Referendum because we don’t know what will happen and it is divisive. Let’s take that advice and consider it further.

Most Australians have had a loan for some reason at some point in their lives. Essentially what you do when applying for a loan is (with your hand on your heart) suggest to the people that are considering giving you what is sometimes a multiple of your annual income that you will be able to pay it back with interest – over a number of years. Realistically, you don’t know if you can keep you end of the bargain this time next year – let alone in 30 years’ time. Using Dutton’s logic, if you don’t know what is going to happen you shouldn’t be taking out a loan for a car, house or anything else for that matter because you can’t guarantee you’ll pay it back.

It is generally acknowledged that compulsory superannuation (introduced by the Hawke/Keating Government) has and will allow most Australians to retire and look forward to a better lifestyle than the Age Pension would have allowed without supplementation. The problem with Superannuation is that each individual’s funds are combined and large sums of money are invested by ‘specialists’ in various ways to ensure there is more money returned to the ‘specialist’ either through continual income or a lump sum payment. If we don’t go near anything where we don’t know what is going to happen, why would you let someone else take your money and invest it anywhere? After all, even the Superannuation funds acknowledge that every so often you will have a negative return on your investment – in short, the ‘specialists’ sometimes get it wrong. You’d be better off stashing the money in your mattress, until your house burnt down or the mattress was thrown out by some well-intentioned relative during a clean out.

Most of us will leave our homes this week at some point for work, to buy food, see a medical professional, go on holiday or a million and one other reasons. We could choose to stay at home because we’re concerned that we’ll be in a car crash, the 8.04 bus won’t turn up and leave us standing in the sun or rain, the doctor’s office has lots of germs and you’ll catch a fatal illness, or the holiday starts with a Qantas flight and you don’t want to be stranded at the airport, If you did stay at home you could also have a problem. What if you stay at home and the power goes off and you can’t store food appropriately? What happens if your house does catch fire? What happens if a car runs into your house? How do you make sufficient money to pay the bills, buy food and keep the power on?

Really it doesn’t matter if the 8.04 bus turns up at 8.17, there is a negative return on your Superannuation account for one year in several or if you have to ring the bank and ask for some clemency if you know you’re going to miss a payment. In the long term, none of these problems will change your lifestyle completely. In the scheme of things it might be slightly annoying that the plane to start your holiday is an hour later than you expected, but it’s not going to kill you. Even if you were unfortunate enough to catch a severe illness in the doctor’s office, Australia has one of the best and most affordable health systems in the world.

The point is we all take risks, every day. To suggest that we shouldn’t support what is potentially a positive life-changing experience for our First Nations peoples because we don’t know exactly whats going to happen is absurd. The Referendum question goes too far (in Dutton’s view) or not far enough (in Price’s view) so potentially the question is pretty close to reasonable, especially when a representative body of First Nations peoples have said through the Uluru Statement From the Heart that this is their preferred option.

As far as Dutton and Price’s claims of divisive are concerned, they are even more ridiculous. Currently the average life of a First Nations person in this country is significantly below the national average. The average First Nations income is also significantly below the national average. the average First Nations person is not as healthy as the population generally. That is divisive – an attempt to listen to the ultimate consumer of services to ‘close the gap’ isn’t.

First Nations people have been subject to measures to ‘close the gap’ being forced on them for two centuries. While some of the measures have been more ‘well meaning’ and ‘productive’ than others, none of them have been totally successful. We all know that people are more invested in a process where they have input to it. While in the past a number of versions of a representative body of First Nations people have provided advice to the government of the day. All of these bodies were formed by legislation which was subsequently repealed by a government with (lets be nice here) alternative agendas.

If we want our kids to eat dinner, it’s not a bad idea to ask them what they want rather than serve up something they dislike. No group of outsiders with a political agenda (a government) can ever hope to understand the needs of distinct groups around the country – and the needs of one group could be substantially different from another. If we really want to ‘close the gap’ between the national averages and the First Nations averages – why wouldn’t we seek advice from those affected?

Sure, a Voice to Parliament can be legislated again, but whats to stop a future government with an alternative agenda repeating the legislation – again? Since the current Referendum was announced the leader of the alternative government in Australia has had a number of different positions on the concept of a Voice to Parliament. None of the proposals saw the light of day in the nine years of Coalition Government where the current Leader was a ‘Senior Minister’. Don’t forget the last Coalition Government were responsible for income management for those on social security payments, an ‘intervention’ that was close to Martial Law in the Northern Territory, Robodebt, moving legitimate refugees to detention centres offshore and defunding of education, child care and aged care programs. And a lot of the moderate members of the last Coalition Government were voted out at the last election!

Doing nothing is always an option – but generally not a good one. To blindly accept the divisive and fear filled arguments of Dutton, Price and their fellow travellers to do nothing is a disservice to your intelligence and the nation. If you don’t know – do the research and make up your own mind.

As the now former Royal Spanish Football Federation President Luis Rubiales discovered recently, no means no. Kissing someone on the lips without consent has consequences – and rightly so. There were various arguments put up why the non-consensual action was permissible before the reality hit that the action was completely inappropriate and even if Rubiales thought the gesture harmless, it wasn’t. His ‘resignation’ is pretty fair and reasonable in the scheme of things. We teach our youth that ‘no means no’ for a reason. There are no exemptions or excuses such as it was harmless or it didn’t mean anything to reduce its severity or ‘explain it away’.

There seems to be a growing list of those opposed to the Voice to Parliament who are claiming they are supporting the Opposition Leader Dutton ‘no’, Warren Mundine’s ‘no’ or the Senator Price ‘no’. In reality, it doesn’t make a scrap of difference – no mean no. Regardless of which ‘no’ you favour, no means nothing happens to alleviate the centuries of pain, torment and angst caused to the First Nations of this country by those who have immigrated or lived here since 1788.

The ABC recently published an article online that discussed what would happen to the Constitution if the referendum is agreed to. First of all, the Constitution covers:

• the structure and law-making powers of federal parliament

• how the federal and state parliaments share power and expenditures

• the roles of the executive government and the High Court of Australia

• frequency of elections

The constitution is a legally binding document and has a special status – it can only be changed through a referendum and it overrides all other laws.

Even a law passed by federal parliament is invalid if it contradicts the constitution.

Those that believe their actions are legitimised because of the ‘bill of rights’ should be concerned because:

Unlike the constitutions of some other countries, Australia’s does not include a list of the rights of citizens or a “bill of rights”. [There is also no legislated ‘bill of rights’ in Australia.]

These rights are, instead, protected by common law (made by the courts) and statute law (made by parliament).

Also, the Australian Constitution didn’t include a reference to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people until 1967, when recognition was included as a result of a referendum.

So what are the changes? According to the ABC:

The federal government is proposing to add a ninth chapter to the document.

It comes in response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart – which was signed by more than 250 Indigenous representatives and calls for constitutional recognition through a Voice.

The proposed chapter would come after Chapter 8 and just before the Schedule and Notes.

The new chapter contains four paragraphs and are typed out for you to read and consider if you click here.

Like in a lot of discussions, there is considerable nuance that separates the views of different members of the community. Dutton’s ‘no’ seems to be predicated on blanket opposition to anything proposed by the Australian Government rather than any ideological concerns with the Voice. He had a number of meeting s during the planning stages with supporters to attempt to come to an agreed common ground. Dutton also has a history of not understanding our history with First Nations People, having walked out on PM Rudd’s Apology to the Stolen Generation in 2008 (although he did apologise for that 15 years later when politically expedient to do so).

Senator Price’s ‘no’ seems to be because she believes that the Voice effectively doesn’t go far enough. She may be correct, however the Voice referendum is the product of the Uluru ‘Statement from the Heart’ where 250 representatives of First Nations Peoples came together and developed a consensus view of a way forward. As each of these people would have brought different views and objectivity to the discussion, the result is a distillation of the views and almost certainly not the view of one or two individuals. Senator Price has every opportunity in the Parliament to influence the makeup and process of the Voice – should it be agreed to, but she will have to compromise as she is one of over 200 Parliamentarians that consider federal legislation.

Warren Mundine’s ‘no’ seems to be less ‘hard line’ that Price’s, however he still argues a treaty between First Nations people and the Australian Government is required. Mundine’s list of requirements also includes changing the date of Australia Day to a day less emotive for all of us.

The obvious question is if a representative group of First Nations people determined that the current process is preferable, would those opposing it be acting any different if Australia was voting on a proposed treaty that didn’t cover off on their individual requirements? Realistically – probably not. In any society not everyone is going to get everything they want – ever.

When you’re watching your favourite football code finals over the next week or so, just remember that no one has got on the field because they stood back and covered off on all the risks and uncertainties. The players, coaches and team staff are there because they took calculated chances. The Uluru ‘Statement from the Heart’ participants have taken the calculated risk and hope to achieve a positive outcome.

They developed a solution that was acceptable to the majority at the forum and presented to all Australians for consideration. It may not have been the best, almost certainly could have been worse, but it is a consensus and a pathway to finding a solution to a long running sore that is holding back Australia. Regardless, there seems to be people who are telling us to disregard the Uluru ‘Statement from the Heart’ because it doesn’t represent their world view of the ideal process for recognition and treaty. It’s a bit like the 3-year-old child throwing a tantrum because they aren’t getting their own way.

Voting ‘no’ is essentially a vote to not change anything because there might be something we didn’t think about that happens down the track. As countless people, including the former Spanish Football President have found out to their cost – no means no – there are no excuses. Your ‘no’ vote is the same as Dutton’s, Price’s or Mundine’s – regardless of how you try to justify it to yourself or others.

And if you don’t know – do the research. Here’s a link to help you start.

Don’t know if you’ve noticed that in some of the major supermarket chains they have cameras throughout the store. If you use one of the farcically named ‘assisted checkouts’ in some stores there is a camera focused on your face. The large supermarket chains tell us the reason for all the cameras are that people were scanning high value goods as lower value goods. What a surprise! People will take advantage of the opportunity to steal from a large supermarket. In fact the supermarkets budget for a certain amount of theft, making the business decision that items not being scanned correctly is cheaper than employing people to ensure items are scanned correctly.

And if the people that are staffing the ‘assisted checkouts’ can get a break from attempting to get the checkouts to work when someone does something the programmers didn’t think of – they are supposed to be watching for people scanning $20 items for 20 cents. Given that frequently if the staff member has left school, it wasn’t that long ago, assertiveness towards thieves incorrectly scanning goods isn’t guaranteed. ‘Assisted’ checkouts are really a recipe for stock disappearing from the store without payment. Yet, the stock disappearing is the justification for increased video surveillance and those that have to buy food losing more of their privacy. The stores are happy to shout from the rooftops how low their prices are or how fresh their food is, but won’t address the ‘own goal’ of self serve checkouts, making the rest of us responsible for their economic decision.

Melbourne relies on Skybus to transport passengers to and from the major airport in the city. While the Skybus service and cost is reasonable, it is less environmentally friendly and has a lower capacity than the electric trains used in Sydney, Brisbane and Perth. Various Victorian State Governments have announced that they will construct a rail line to Tullamarine Airport which would link into the Melbourne suburban rail network. The latest version of the scheme (first discussed nearly 60 years ago) was supposed to be completed by the end of the decade and cost $13billion.

The Guardian recently reported

Transport and planning experts agree a train line to the airport has multiple benefits. It would reduce emissions from car travel, ease road congestion, cut travel times and improve connectivity for Melbourne’s western suburbs – which include some of the fastest growing local government areas in Australia.

However, there is a shortage of construction workers and material that would add to the cost of the project, so it is likely to be delayed.

But Infrastructure Australia found most of the project’s benefits would not be felt until the recently widened Tullamarine Freeway – which links the airport to the city – reaches capacity. This is expected to happen in 2036.

“Delaying it would not reduce those benefits because the benefits were not expected to be felt for some time,” says Bradshaw, from the Grattan Institute.

Jago Dodson, the director of RMIT’s Centre for Urban Research, argues an airport rail project would help Victoria be a competitive city.

But he says the wider issue Victoria faced was not having an overarching transport plan to determine infrastructure priorities, which he believes is “failing” the state.

“If we had a coherent transport plan it could have asked whether it was preferable to leave the Tullamarine Freeway at previous capacity and for a rail line to pick up the future additional travel to the airport,” he says.

What a surprise! Spending billions on what was probably the more popular option (because people could see the work occurring) – widening the Tullamarine Freeway – is not the best answer to the real problem which is the ability of airline passengers and workers to travel to and from Melbourne City and surrounds quickly and efficiently. The article reports that transit times on Skybus (and logically every other vehicle accessing the airport from Melbourne) are expected to almost double over the next 30 years. Again, those that came up with the solution didn’t think through all the issues before implementing a solution that will cost more in the long term. And if the construction of a rail line is left until the Tullamarine Freeway reaches capacity in the mid 2030’s, Melbourne’s residents and visitors will have to put up with many years of substandard transport to and from the Airport until the infrastructure catches up with the reality that is already understood. To be fair, the same commentary could be applied to the Cross River Rail works in Brisbane or the need for the abundance of toll roads in Sydney. Again, we all pay for the ‘own goal’ of economics.

We could end up like the UK where there are reports of the roofs on schools are falling down because of lack of funding for repairs. It seems that there is a cost to the 13 years of austerity and ideology supported by the Conservative Government.

In 2010, when David Cameron and Osborne, with the help of Nick Clegg’s Lib Dems, ushered in austerity, they presented it as a short period of necessary pain that had to be forced on the country to put the public finances right.

Instead, today, the images and experiences are of under-resourced services and a general decline resulting from chronic, systematic lack of investment.

During the first term of Tory rule, austerity often went hand in glove with ideological arguments about creating a smaller state. But here, too, as Conservative MPs search for positive stories, there is instead evidence of mismanagement in pursuit of those ideological visions.

What a surprise! Poor building standards and a lack of maintenance even when essential, eventually ensures that infrastructure starts to decay.

The thing is that it doesn’t have to be like this. Essentially austerity and ‘small government’ hasn’t worked, as demonstrated in the UK. Can Australia become the ‘lucky country’ again by observing the problems elsewhere and refocus on people rather than attempting to judge when an economic benefit will be realised in the short term?

We can start by supporting the Voice Referendum. Giving our First Nations people input into decisions that affect their lives is logical because we all know that imposing economic solutions hasn’t worked for over 200 years. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the next referendum was to revoke the Voice to Parliament because there was essentially equity in lifespans and opportunities between all who choose to live in this country?

We have the means and ability to help people rather than ideology on October 14 – don’t waste it.

When a government department requires your land for a new electricity transmission tower, a highway or some other infrastructure they normally advise you of the need and negotiate a sale around the price identified by an independent valuer. The price doesn’t take into account that you will never be able to look at the spot under the gum tree where little Jenny (who is now 35) took her first step, or where little Johnny (who is now 32) first rode his bike unaided – but your compensation for having to move is usually reasonable. Some government departments will notify owners of properties 20 or more years out that the property will be required in the future and inviting discussions around the sale at any time the owner is ready.

Who knows, the sale of the family home to the authorities may be the catalyst to eliminate a number of financial or physical issues to do with aging, the state of the house you are living in or may generate a much wanted change in lifestyle. At the very least you will usually be in a similar financial position to where you were before the sale and most will quickly find the location of the local supermarket, sporting clubs and so on that is part and parcel of moving to a different community.

In 1788, our First Nations people were not give the opportunity to negotiate a sale price for the continent that subsequently became Australia and there was no prior notice given either. In fact the English invented a legal fiction know as “Terra Nullius” to justify their actions. Some First Nations people were massacred, others forced to live in squalid conditions on the boundaries of towns or forced to relinquish their children in a process of ‘assimilation’. Most were never compensated for the loss of their history and lands. Yet, some will tell us if we formally recognise our First Nations peoples lifestyles and traditions were irrevocably changed without any chance of input into the process, we will all go to hell in a hand basket.

The introduction of the Native Title Act in 1993 by then Prime Minister Paul Keating was bitterly opposed by then Opposition Leader John Howard. There were claims that no Australian backyard would be exempted from claims from First Nations Peoples making ‘land grabs’. The reality is somewhat different –

According to the National Native Title Tribunal, the 2022 statistics for the existence of Native Title in Australia includes:

555 Registered Native Title Determinations, of which:

441 were by consent – meaning a court or other official body negotiated an agreement under the Native Title Act. 60 of these were unopposed, and not contested by another party.

55 were litigated – meaning it had to go to trial.

So much for Howard’s claim Native Title Legislation would mean the Australian way of life would be going to hell in a hand basket.

In the early 2010’s then Opposition Leader Tony Abbott claimed that emissions reduction legislation would be the ruin of Australia. His Chief of Staff and now one of the Sky after dark ‘talking heads’, Peta Credlin admitted years later that the claims were ‘brutal retail politics’ with no basis in fact. So much for Australia going to hell in a hand basket.

The Marriage Equality legislation was implemented by the Turnbull Government in the mid 2010’s. While the process taken to get there was questionable (there was no reason for a plebiscite when the various Members of Parliament could ignore the direction from their electorate) the outcome was in accordance with the general mood of the country. While those with a moral axe to grind didn’t like the outcome and foresaw all sorts of moral and physical harm as a result of the legislation becoming the law, again Australia hasn’t gone to hell in a hand basket.

As a matter of fact, the scare campaigns have existed for centuries. According to various interest groups at the time, decimal currency, the introduction of the metric system, changes to legislation to promote equal pay for equal work regardless of gender and similar changes to our lifestyle have generally improved lives for those affected – despite the claims of the naysayers that each change would mean that Australia would go to hell in a hand basket.

Given Australians love of travel, it is interesting to note that the naysayers of the 1830’s claimed the use of railways to carry people to different towns would lead to ‘decay of moral fibre’. Perhaps the real concern here was that those that defined ‘moral fibre’ in each small community saw the potential for travel to broaden the mind and potentially people would find out the guardians of ‘moral fibre’ in the next community down the line might have been more liberal. Regardless, people moving from community to community and later across the world didn’t mean the world went to hell in a hand basket.

The point is that change is really the only constant in life. Our families change with the birth of new children, people finding their life partner, family members moving to or from the area local to you and so on. We routinely change jobs, vehicles, furnishing in the home, allegiances and points of view. If we never changed anything, the ability to light a fire would never have been successfully popularised by cave dwellers. Those that want to live forever in what is a halcyon era (for them) commonly don’t reflect that the era may be anything but agreeable for others. Why should you be able to impose your chosen point in time without questions?

You would have to wonder if those that are considering voting ‘no’ at the forthcoming referendum because they don’t know what the consequences will be are still concerned about the use of mobile phones, television, computers and many other items that are in daily use around the world. If they aren’t, they should be as not all of the current features inherent in the latest mobile phone, television or computer operating systems were explained in detail and agreed prior to the introduction of the first itineration of the devices some years ago. The lack of consistency in accepting upgraded and new features without full relevant disclosure at the same time as voting against the ‘voice’ because you claim not to have enough detail is duplicitous at best.

And the biggest example of duplicity goes to current Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. He has offered to run a referendum if he gets to be Prime Minister at the next election to create a symbolic reference to our First Nations people in the Constitution – while justifying his absence from the Australian Parliament’s 2008 apology to the stolen generations because in his view, it was only symbolic. It’s almost Trumpian, isn’t it?

Why should we let Peter Dutton and his fellow travellers confuse the real issue for their own political ends? The Voice is necessary to enable our Fist Nations people to have a discussion with our elected representatives around what they need – rather than governments forcing what they believe First Nations peoples want. Determining what people want without input has worked so well in the past!

The Voice may not be perfect, it may not answer all the questions but it’s a start and just like most other changes we have seen in our lifetimes, won’t lead us to hell in a hand basket.

While not identifying as or trying to sound like an old school socialist, the slogan of the ‘ruling classes’ for the forthcoming referendum is abysmal. “If you don’t know, vote no’ is not only a reflection of the attitude of those that believe they are born to rule, it also assumes that people who have genuine questions or concerns don’t have the intelligence to do some research and determine a point of view for themselves.

The current strategy of the conservative political parties and their fellow travellers over recent years seems to be to encourage everyone to be relaxed and comfy at home in the favourite armchair, dressed in a dressing gown and fluffy slippers with a pipe and the gas heater burning away in the background listening to the wireless while the rich and powerful work out what is good for you. It all sounds very 1950ish and ‘father knows best’ doesn’t it?

But what if you have been recently kicked off the comfy home you have rented for decades, primarily because the Howard Government cut in half the tax on the profit of selling an investment property as detailed in this news story? Despite the Howard Government being turfed from power in 2007, the effects of this vote buying measure linger. While more progressive governments have attempted to resolve the issue, the hue and cry from disaffected investment property owners, amplified by the Coalition and their ilk to keep an obvious rort with a high cost of entry has been overwhelming.

But what if your comfy house is next to some bushland? Even if you’re not concerned than ever before about the greater risk of an out-of-control bushfire consuming your property, your insurance company is – and they have increased your house insurance costs as evidence of their concern. Their actuaries have determined there is a greater risk they will have to pay something out to you or others with a similar proximity to bushland because sadly more Australian’s homes will be consumed by fires this summer. It’s a pity that we have been pumping increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere for the last decade, because a Coalition Government scrapped an emission reduction program that was beginning to work. There is also a higher probability of more extreme cyclones, severe storms and other adverse weather events.

The conservatives that are now telling you not to do the research and vote for no change are also the ones that told you before the past couple of elections that the ALP’s vehicles emissions and electric vehicle mandates would ruin the weekend. The implication being the weekend’s future was dire as there were no electric utes. Well, there is and there is an growing industry in Australia converting two of the bestselling utes to battery power – here and here for starters. Before you start repeating the conservatives claims that the batteries only have a limited life before landfill – read this, including the bit where they tell you why dead batteries aren’t going to landfill. We haven’t even got to the potential health benefits of EVs, which the Coalition won’t tell you because it doesn’t suit their comfy 1950’s message.

The ‘anti-everything’ conservatives recently ran their CPAC event in Sydney. The usual roll call of right wing ‘thinkers’ (an oxymoron if ever there was one) reportedly stood up and preached that the world was going to rack and ruin because they weren’t in charge. Hopefully CPAC made enough to enable one of its ‘think tanks’, Liberty Works, chaired by leading ‘no’ proponent Warren Mundine to pay the $172,000 or thereabouts it owes the federal government after being found guilty of spreading misleading information during the recent pandemic. So much for ethics and morals.

“The Voice’ referendum is a response to the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Despite the claims from the naysayers, the statement is one page and slightly over 400 words. Perhaps unsurprisingly to the rest of us, it is not a third chamber of parliament as it can’t make legislation. It is not going to decide what the next interest rate movement is because it will not have any ability to do so (that ability is solely in the hands of the Reserve Bank) or make any other rules or legislation. It is certainly not going to mean that large swathes of Australia is going to be managed any differently to what is occurring now (as was claimed when the ALP passed Native Title legislation). But it doesn’t stop them trying it on.

The referendum is needed to enshrine a ‘voice’ to discuss and recommend actions to the parliament for our First Nations peoples in the Constitution so that a government in the future can’t abandon the process if and when it suits them. Certainly a future government can choose to ignore the ‘voice’, but will do so at their own peril. Let’s face it, the Coalition’s most recent attempt to assist First Nations people, the intervention in the Northern Territory, was ultimately as successful as many of the probably well-intentioned but ultimately useless previous attempts to ensure all our First Nations peoples have equal opportunities. Who knows, if we ask First Nations people how to help them, they might have the chance of an equal lifespan to the rest of us who are or have descended from immigrants.

If you want to retreat to the comfy 1950s and never change anything, that is your prerogative but you can’t pick and choose to take the technical and lifestyle benefits of the 21st century while decrying the same lifestyle and technology. In short – you can’t have it both ways. Do your research and vote accordingly but if you vote no because you don’t understand – that’s a cop out and a sad indicator of your intelligence.

My first opinion piece on The Political Sword blog was written about 10 years ago and dealt with truth in political advertising. The piece discussed advertising that demonstrated alleged reckless behaviour when promoting products can be banned by an industry regulator. There was an instance quoted of advertising for a Nissan vehicle that showed the car being driven at a speed in excess of the speed limit (together with appropriate squealing tyre noise and engine revving) was banned even though Nissan claimed that during the filming of the advertisement, the car was driven appropriately with the sound effects added and the film sped up. The contrast was made with politicians that could promise the world with no intention of delivering, assassinate the character of their political opponents or just mislead with absolutely no consequences. The point was there was no regulation around political advertising in most of Australia in 2013 – and there still isn’t.

All sides of politics are guilty of exaggeration and deceit in advertising. For example, when Abbott was in opposition his claim that the Gillard Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme process was ‘a carbon tax’ was inaccurate at best and a lie at worst. Gillard didn’t help on this occasion by likening it to a carbon tax after claiming there would never be carbon tax legislated by her government. The ALP advertised at one stage while in opposition that the Coalition was going to axe Medicare, also an exaggeration at best. The advertising was rightly called Mediscare by the Coalition government who claimed there was no plans to axe Medicare (although they did introduce a co-payment for a while).

Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party is a serial offender. His billboards and TV advertising prior to the last couple of elections claiming he would ‘Make Australia great again’ convinced some, although not enough to make a difference to the election result except maybe in Victoria where one UAP member became a Senator. Prior to the last election I did email Palmer’s party asking why Australia wasn’t great and how would his party rectify that if elected to majority government. I’m still waiting for a response. Clearly they had no actual plan to address their advertised claims. Palmer also advertised incorrect claims at the last Queensland election the Palaszczuk Government would introduce a tax on the assets of those who have died, two years later, they haven’t.

Some of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party claims over the years have also been absolute fabrications. Immigrants in general (and specifically from the middle east or Asia depending on the mood of the times) have not come and taken all our jobs. In fact, immigrants have assisted the economy of our country greatly and there are a lot of immigrants doing the service jobs such as cleaning, caring and food preparation that most ‘dinky-di Aussies’ won’t do, regardless of the need for the work to be done. Hanson knows as well as anyone that her political party will never be a majority in a parliament so she consistently creates advertising claims that never have to be substantiated.

In the 1970’s the Australian Democrats was formed from two smaller parties that comprised predominately disaffected conservative party members. By 1980, they held the balance of power in the Senate under the advertised promise to ‘Keep the bastards honest’. Arguably they did what it said on the box for a number of years by reducing some of the proposed excesses of both ALP and Coalition governments and placing an emphasis on the environment before it was fashionable, using the balance of power to ensure amendment of legislation to cater the the needs of the broader community. Sooner or later however, in the eyes of many, the Australian Democrats became one of the many groups of ‘bastards’ in Parliament when they assisted John Howard’s Coalition Government in the introduction of the GST. Certainly they carved out exemptions for some basic items however they left us with an ungainly tax on almost everything that is difficult to understand or manage. Economists also claim the GST disadvantages the less well off as they spend more each week on essentials such as food and shelter as a percentage of their income.

In recent years, the Greens have had the balance of power in the Senate. Despite their core advertising of being committed to a greener environment they objectively failed to assist the Rudd Government introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2008 (apparently 50% of something isn’t as good as 100% of nothing). To the Greens credit, they did manage to frustrate some of the proposed excesses of the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison (ATM) Government, especially when these respective Prime Ministers were responsible for acting like ATMs to their favoured allies or seeking votes in some electorates.

More recently the Greens have been holding up the passing pf legislation for the creation of a fund to finance the construction of affordable housing across the nation – another issue the Greens have been advertising they support for years. In July they issued six demands on the Albanese Government as well as state and territory leaders. All the requirements (rent caps, limiting rent increases and so on) fall under state and territory legislation. So I asked one of their elected Senators how a majority Greens Federal Government in 2023 would implement their list of demands – maybe in an alternate universe somewhere. After all, the advertised claim is it is would be an easy matter for Albanese to implement the list should he have the will to do so. To their credit, someone in the Senator’s office did respond however the response reinforced the Greens belief that their demands were necessary rather than addressing the questions raised which indicates there has been no thought on how it would be done. However some will believe the advertising and wonder why Albanese doesn’t fix the problem with a stroke of a pen.

Which brings us to the ethical dilemma here. Advertising in politics isn’t regulated. If you or I had a big enough urge to make a political statement and the money to do so, nothing is stopping us forming a political party and telling the government (whoever is in power) how to do their job, what is wrong with the country or make aspersions on the character of other politicians or groups of people who live here on billboards, in the newspapers, on radio and TV. And while there is correctly an expectation that you or I have a right to say how the country should be run, morally we don’t have the right to make aspersions on others without evidence or generalise that particular groups of people are out to fundamentally change our individual lifestyle as Hanson has done. Neither should we be able to make meaningless claims that the country is no longer great or a government is going to introduce a tax as Palmer has done. And despite the advertising, clearly the Greens have no insight on how the housing crisis would be fixed with the stroke of a pen. No one should be able to make accusations and advertise their claims without evidence or any sort of factual basis to support them.

Standards are important, especially standards of honesty and decency. Politics is supposed to be a contest of ideas and ways to improve the country articulated and advertised by those aspiring to be our leaders, not a bear pit where anything goes. If politicians can’t self-regulate, we should regulate for them. South Australia has had ‘truth in political advertising’ laws since 1985. Maybe the rest of the country should catch up.

In the mid 1970s, Australian ‘glam rock’ band Skyhooks released an album titled ‘Ego is not a Dirty Word’. The single of the same title reached number 2 on the Australian ‘Top 40’ in mid 1976. Little Scott Morrison, born in 1968, would probably have heard it on ‘high rotation’ across the airwaves of a Sydney AM radio station (because commercial FM radio was 4 years in the future). If he was fortunate enough he might have had enough money to of to the local Record Bar and purchase a copy of the single. If he was really wealthy (for an 8 year old) he might have bought the album, as downloading the music was something that wasn’t an option until the next century.

‘Ego is not a Dirty Word’ provided commentary on the egos of some famous identifies including Richard Nixon, suggesting if he had kept is ego in check he might not have been one of the few US Presidents to have resigned under a cloud. Like Nixon, Morrison’s political end may have been completely different if he had kept his ego in check.

Since 2007, Morrison has been the Member of Parliament of the seat of Cook, based in southern Sydney. Prior to then he had at different times been the CEO of the government tourism offices in both Australian and New Zealand. Both the Australian and New Zealand Governments of the day asked Morrison to leave prior to the completion of his contracted period. In the case of the Australian Government, the request was made by a Coalition Government. It’s also history that Morrison was pre-selected by the Liberal Party after an internal war that involved the existing Member of Parliament who apparently didn’t have any plans to retire from politics in the lead up to the 2007 election.

Morrison’s rise through the ranks to his eventual appointment as Leader of the Party and Prime Minister is well known, as is his disdain for refugees, those that claim social security benefits and those who actually work for the government. As a part of his claim to be a ‘strong welfare cop ‘strong welfare cop the beat’ he was instrumental in introducing the system now known as Robodebt, where income matching was completed by machines and unusual cases were not checked by a person before the system raised fraudulent debt notices that have been found to be illegal. Someone who had their ego in check would have checked the legality of such a scheme prior to introduction. Instead Morrison stood by and allowed Home Affairs to extort money from Australians.

Like most schemes designed to extort money, Robodebt was eventually found out for what it was – a scam. Unlike most schemes designed to extort money, this one was implemented and managed by the Coalition Government who seem to have cowered the Public Service into submission. In The Monthly’s emailed newletter last week, writer Daniel James suggests that Morrison certainly has no contrition for his leading roles in the establishment and promotion of the extortion scheme

Speaking to an almost empty lower house shortly after Question Time on Monday, Morrison said: “This campaign of political lynching has once again included the weaponisation of quasi-legal process to launder the government’s political vindictiveness. They need to move on.”

As James notes

The reference to the royal commission as a “quasi-legal” process is straight out of the Trump playbook – an attempt to reduce the most powerful form of public-interest inquiry we have in this country to that of nothing more than a political pitchfork rally.

Thousands of Australians were wrongly accused of debt, with a significant number of the real victims (those that were extorted by the Coalition Government) suffering mental health problems and the families of others that couldn’t see a way out of their dilemma took their own lives. And one of the architects of the scheme is still collecting his $200,000 per annum salary as a parliamentarian while claiming to be the victim of a political hit job. Ego may not be a dirty word, but contrition and seeking forgiveness for poor decisions in the past takes more than ego, it needs emotional intelligence, something that Morrison seems to lack completely.

Thank your teachers. In your individual case your teachers probably included your parents, family, siblings and almost definitely the teachers when you went to school. In your school, the teacher was the one that convinced you to put the effort in to learn how to read the squiggly lines on a page or a screen that make up words and numbers, it wasn’t the operators of the school, the quality of the infrastructure or the school’s history.

Private schools were set up in Australia for a number of reasons. Some religious groups determined the state school system didn’t teach the morality of the group, others addressed a perceived need in the community. Until the Menzies Government started funding private schools (effectively to buy their compliance), parents who sent their children to private schools generally paid the cost of their children’s education. Since Menzies, it’s become a bit more complicated. Generally private schools receive greater federal funding than state government operated schools. There have been a number of efforts by various governments to equalise the situation, the latest being the Gonski Review which was implemented by the Gillard Government.

One of the core recommendations of the Gonski review when it was released in 2011 was implementing the SRS, a needs-based model to provide a baseline education to students, set at $13,060 for primary students and $16,413 for secondary students.

The federal education minister at the time of the Gonski review, Peter Garrett, said the aim was to ensure any student, irrespective of their background, could reach their potential.

Sadly, this core recommendation was ignored by Gillard, Rudd, Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison. The Guardian’s article (linked above) details the failures of the implementation by all five governments.

Gillard started the rot by pledging that no school would end up with less money – a problem considering that most private schools were receiving more per student than the needs-based funding recommended. Let’s just say the situation has not improved over the subsequent decade. As Van Badham suggests in The Guardian ‘Public Schools are struggling as St Poshies builds wellness centres with taxpayer money’.

It is completely wrong to suggest that state government operated schools do not educate to the same standard. For those that know the leafy (and now politically Green) inner western suburbs of Brisbane, there is a state high school on one side of Lambert Road at Indooroopilly and a high-profile private school on the other. The Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty attended the state high school. While he has gone on to great things, as have a number of students from both sides of Lambert Road (and every other high school in Australia for that matter), it is the quality of the teaching – not the surroundings -that counts. While private schools may attempt to attract the teachers perceived to be ‘better’ and be able to boast of the numbers of their students that achieved the highest level of University Entry ranking, they also have a unique advantage that they can choose their students, state government schools have to take all comers in (usually) a geographic area.

Of course, there is the ‘status’ of your children attending (or you are working at) a well-known and usually quite expensive private school. This is where the real issue is. It would be an interesting study to determine how many of those that attend private schools actually live their lives in accordance with the claimed philosophies of the private schools they or their children attend. Or maybe the forking out of thousands a year for something that can be received at significantly less cost is a (illogical if you think about it) part of the parent’s inevitable climb up the social ladder. It works nicely with the McMansion in the ‘nice’ area and the large SUV or ute in the driveway – in between clogging up the roads around the time of the school pick up because the beloved Tarquin or Millicent shouldn’t be seen on a public transport operator’s school bus.

It really wasn’t surprising to recently read that vehicle importers spend double on marketing their SUVs and utes than traditional sedans, wagons and hatchbacks. There are real problems with large (usually American) SUVs and utes and their resources consumption, along with the lack of safety for other road users and pedestrians around these vehicles. They still get stuck with the bus or small hatchback in the traffic jam – regardless of the owners highly visible ‘look at me’ statement.

It is similar to the reliance on ‘external consultancies’ with expensive marketing and communications strategies rather than using the in-house talents of the public service, so beloved by the Abbott, Turnbull or Morrison Governments. In the majority of circumstances, the advice of the external consultancies is probably quite valid when considered from the viewpoint of the consultants, who generally have left school, gone to university, gained additional qualifications in their selected profession and then climbed the greasy pole in one of the external consultancies with very little experience in how the rest of us live. So the same people in similar roles at similar service providers are contracted by a public service who have not been resourced well enough by a series of governments to ensure the government can perform their role in society, That is somewhat ironic given the hollowing out of the public service that occurred under the recent decade of Coalition governments – and the claims of the ‘Canberra bubble’ made by the leaders of the same governments. Where’s the real ‘bubble’ or echo chamber here?

Anyway, the point of briefly discussing all of these issues is this. Governments, especially Coalition ones, have completely destroyed any pretence of an equal society. The outcome is Robodebt where (regardless of the lack of legality) decision makers in the government thought that reversing the proof of innocence and making baseless claims that people owed thousands to the government was a good idea. At the same time, the process made it incredibly difficult for those affected to demonstrate the government had it wrong.

It does matter that if you don’t send your child to “St Poshies”, the government doesn’t fund your child’s education to the same value. It isn’t fair or reasonable to you or your child that your child may experience facilities that are falling down around them and staffed by teachers that don’t have the time to prepare lessons and teach the syllabus in amongst the myriad of other things they have to do to ‘help out’. Your child certainly won’t be able to use school-based world class sporting fields or ‘wellness centres’ or gyms because the state systems usually don’t have the funding to pay for them. Your poor child might also have to catch public transport to and from school (quelle horreur!) rather than private transport options provided by the school.

And for those who pick their treasured Tarquin or Millicent up, the reality is that a lot of people in the queue outside the private school this afternoon driving the oversized SUV or ute are one or two pay cheques or cancelled contracts away from social security. Regardless of the Coalition’s’ labelling’ of some sectors of the community as ‘lifters and leaners’ or ‘quiet Australians’, implying importance on people’s income, spending and behaviours, things can change dramatically and quickly.

Greed is not good, whoever dies with the most toys doesn’t win and we all deserve to live in a compassionate society. Education of our children is too important to be a political football and using it as such disadvantages all of us. The sooner our political leaders realise that – the better off we all are.

The Guardian recently reported that in the eyes of the American conservatives the ‘pink haired liberals’ are killing the New York Pizza. Unsurprisingly, the conservatives have added 2 and 2 and got 5, helped by News Corp’s New York Post.

The real story is in 2016, New York City legislated that filters be installed on the kitchen exhaust chimneys belonging to commercial kitchens, including pizza restaurants. The requirement was to reduce potentially carcinogenic particulate matter (smoke and dust) being emitted from the chimneys and being trapped in the lungs in nearby residents. A lot of New York pizza restaurants use coal or wood as fuel in their pizza ovens, producing considerable smoke which is sent up chimneys.

Conservatives have pounced on the regulation claiming that it is carbon emissions reduction by stealth and the filters are affecting the taste of the pizza. According to The Guardian’s report

What’s being asked of traditional oven pizza restaurants is simple: install a type of air filter in their chimneys to keep their cancer-causing dust from blowing into their neighbors’ homes. The city originally asked kitchens to do this by 2020, then postponed the plan until this year due to the pandemic. But many restaurants had already made the changes, some of them years before the rule was even drafted.

The filters are installed in the chimney close to the exit point and use a water vapour to wash the soot and particles out of the exhaust, then it collects in a tank connected to the sewer system. It also has the added benefit of cooling the exhaust air before the leave the chimney.

However, conservatives with an axe to grind can’t let the truth or logic stand in the way of the ongoing quest to enforce their political and social philosophy. There is no logical reason why the pizza taste should be affected if the particulate matter generated by the cooking fuel is removed from the exhaust airflow half way up the chimney. It is a ridiculous argument. Almost as ridiculous as Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s claims about ‘The Voice’ referendum.

Dutton claimed he spent some time ‘attempting to understand’ the proposition and then he has claimed that the referendum is going to divide the community. He is going out of his way to be divisive, create straw men and cherry-pick the facts to suit his needs. If you think it sounds like the playbook of the conservatives in the USA, you could have a valid point. As Nine Newspapers suggests, Dutton [is] saying no with an American accent.

Dutton talks of ‘the Canberra voice’. The Voice proponents have recommended that a number of people from across Australia will comprise ‘The Voice’. Assuming they might meet in Canberra, they would make their way to Canberra from the area they represent, similar to Dutton making his way to Canberra to represent his constituents who reside in his electorate in the northern outskirts of Brisbane. It really doesn’t matter where they meet. What does matter is that the Committee has to be referenced in the Constitution so that future governments can’t abolish ‘The Voice’ without going back to the population for approval.

Dutton talks about what will happen if at some point in the future ‘The Voice’ Committee provides advice to the Australian Government of the day to move Australia Day from 26 January. January 26 was not always the Australia Day public holiday. Regardless that the proposal for ‘The Voice’ is to ‘recommend’ rather than ‘legislate’ on matters affecting our indigenous peoples to the government of the day, Australia Day was not a National Holiday until 1988 and was the Monday after the last weekend in January (to create a long weekend), only becoming a fixed date in 1994. If it did change again, the governments of the day would be making the decision – as they can ‘legislate’, not a group that constitutionally can only ‘recommend’. Quasi religious fervour for ‘national imagery’ is ‘Trump style’ conservative Americanism.

Dutton is claiming that the drafters of the Australian Constitution had almost ‘godlike insight’ which makes changing the Constitution heresy, similar to the US conservative claims regarding the drafters of the US Constitution. Our Australian drafters were clever people but neglected a number of important provisions, including making 26 January a nationwide public holiday for Australia Day (as that is now apparently sacrosanct), and discussion how our indigenous peoples 65,000-year-old civilisation should be recognised and celebrated by all Australians. If either ours or the US constitution drafters envisioned no change ever – they would not have put a procedure in the respective documents to enact change when required.

As Nine Newspaper’s article suggests:

There were further American echoes when Dutton dramatised the dangers of the Voice. Here, he cited three scenarios: potential disputes over the expansion of defence bases; funding allocations in the federal budget; and, most tellingly, what is taught in schools. In arguing that the “Voice may make a representation seeking that a particular version of Australian history be taught in classrooms”, he seemed almost to be channelling Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, and alluding to one of the American culture war’s angriest new fronts: critical race theory.

If the Indigenous Voice to parliament came into being, Dutton warned of “an Orwellian effect where all Australians are equal but some Australians are more equal than others”. Again, this has parallels with the argument heard especially vehemently during the Reagan era against affirmative action, a debate in which whites were portrayed as the true victims of discrimination.

While some apparently have genuine concerns about the forthcoming referendum not going far enough or the need for treaty with our indigenous peoples prior to a ‘Voice to Parliament’, Dutton is playing us all for fools. Dutton is using the US conservative playbook to create fear, uncertainty and division in our society for his own ends. What those ends are is anyone’s guess.

The question Dutton won’t answer is who is better placed to recommend effective action to improve the lives of indigenous communities than a group of people representing the communities? If he has a different answer to recognition, a ‘Voice to Parliament’ and treaty, perhaps he could tell the rest of us how it would work. Because the Coalition’s famed ‘interventions’ in recent history certainly haven’t.