Recently in The New Yorker, author Andre Dubus III wrote about a weekend enjoying the high life in New York. The premise was

I had been writing daily for nearly twenty years, and now my third published book had become a major best-seller, and I – who at forty-one had never had more than three hundred dollars in the bank, whose mother once had to prepare for me and my siblings a dinner of saltine crackers spread with butter – heard myself telling my dear aunt Jeannie that I was going to fly her first class to Manhattan, to celebrate her birthday in style. I wasn’t sure what “in style” meant, except that it should have something to do with the word “luxury.” When I typed that into my computer, I was led to the Royalton and then to the Plaza, where we’d be staying our second and third nights in the city.

Suffice to say, Andre, Jeannie and family had a good time – and it cost a bomb.

A lot of people don’t have the fortunate circumstances of Andre Dubas III. At the end of his essay, he is somewhat disillusioned with the ‘high life’ and has a new sense of value, based around the home that he and his brother built (with the earnings from the same book) for his family, with the ‘granny flat’ downstairs for his mother

Sometimes a car will roll slowly down our driveway, and for a dizzying heartbeat I’m convinced it’s the landlord coming for the rent we don’t have. But other moments feel like luxury, filling me with a calming gratitude. When I want to visit my mother, I just walk down the stairs to her apartment stuffed with her plants and her books, her photos of us when we were young and often so unhappy. Before sitting on her sofa, a real one, I pour her a bourbon, and I pour myself one, too, and my mother and I sit and catch up on the labors of our respective days, on my brother and sisters, on my kids and her grandchildren, on all these people we love, high times or not, a smile on her lovely, aging face.

According to news reports, a lot of Australians are one salary payment away from homelessness in the current economic environment, something Dubus reflects on in his essay. ABC online reported recently of the plight of a number of people who are living in tents in Wangaratta, Victoria. They all have a different backstory and unfortunately no-one has found their happy ending, unlike Dubus (who took 20 years to become an ‘overnight success’). Regardless, they all have the right to a solid roof over their heads, which obviously keeps the cold and rain out to a far greater extent than the current arrangements.

The problem is larger than Wangaratta as well. Apart from comfort and warmth, there are also significant benefits to people’s lifestyle and ability to find work if they have an address that isn’t ‘under the third gum tree in the Main St park’. This ABC online story discusses homeless in Sydney. Melbourne and on the Gold Coast. Mentioned is Lee, who

Just as Sydney’s temperatures dropped to single digits, he got a break.

Last month the NSW Department of Communities and Justice gave him a one-bedroom apartment in the Waterloo public housing towers.

“That, to me, is literally like winning the lottery,” he says.

“I can get my clothes and dress for interviews … and grab my laptop and apply for jobs – so it just fundamentally changes what’s within your possibilities.”

There should be more of it … but it’s complicated. Crikey recently discussed that social housing is a state responsibility – not a federal one. Yet, most states wait for an injection of federal funds before they do anything about significant upgrades to existing social housing stock or building additional stock. While an injection was announced in the past couple of days, the previous injection was in the time of the Rudd Government.

The current government does have legislation in front of the Senate to increase the funding for social and affordable housing which the Coalition has, naturally, rejected because it doesn’t suit their narrative. Despite their rhetoric about the adverse effects of removing negative gearing and capital gains advantages of property ownership, the number of Australians that own multiple residential properties is reasonably small. It wouldn’t take much to carve out the small ‘mum & dad’ investor from measures targeting the multiple property owners.

The Greens (who have the numbers when combined with the government to pass the legislation) want more money to be available sooner. They also demand that the federal government somehow impose a rent freeze or cap on the states, again despite legislation about property rentals and sales being a state responsibility. Probably adding to the complexity is that most of the Greens in the lower house of Parliament represent reasonably affluent electorates, so at the same time as they are pushing for more social and affordable housing to be constructed, they are supporting campaigns locally to ensure that none of it is the ‘millionaires rows’ that they represent in Parliament.

So we are in position where the government is trying to do something, although arguably not enough to address a social problem in Australia. The political party that could help them do something have decreed it’s not enough, preferring to do nothing. Albanese’s Government has ‘upped’ the offer to the Greens in recent days as the Greens have to the government in recent weeks, but the frustration is showing – with some justification.

All this does nothing for the people living in tents and under cardboard boxes this winter who won’t be able to ‘get my clothes and dress for interviews … and grab my laptop and apply for jobs’. Instead, we have political parties are playing a drawn-out fight to the death in an attempt to position themselves favourably to their constituencies for the next federal election contest.

If circumstances change for some reason in the next 12 months, the person living in a tent under the bridge could be you or me next winter. In a developed and affluent society, a roof over a person’s head is a fundamental right – not a political plaything or a privilege. It’s time our politicians at all levels of government remembered that.

We should be better than this.

At a time where the government admits a considerable number of Australians are feeling cost of living pressures and the Reserve Bank seems intent on a policy of ‘the beatings will continue until morale improves’, what is the media talking about? Cost of living pressures – nope; the creation of more affordable and social housing – wrong; the implementation of measures to ensure we don’t cook the planet before our kids hit middle age – wrong again. They are talking about who knew details around a rather sordid affair in former Defence Minister Linda Reynolds’ office late one night after a staff party well prior to the last election.

Without going into what is claimed to have happened (because we weren’t there and neither the owners of this site or I can afford the lawsuit that would probably follow any discussion), there are two sides to the story. After a court case that was aborted due to the actions of a juror, there have been claims of defamation and a Board of Enquiry into the actions of the Australian Federal Police who are responsible for policing the ACT, lead by Walter Sofronoff KC, the eminent former President of the Queensland Court of Appeal and former Solicitor-General of Queensland.

We can talk about the constant reporting of ‘fascinating’ new information about the events in Senator Reynolds office and its effects on others who have been through similar alleged experiences. Certainly, the Opposition seems to be of the opinion that the ends justify the means by pouncing on the ‘revelation’ that the current Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher, may or may not have known about the events in Senator Reynolds’ office before it was public knowledge and said nothing at the time.

The ‘airing’ of text messages on an individual’s mobile phone is not conclusive of anything. The Opposition should be aware of this as they spent public funds on advertising around cyber security for years to scare the naive into believing they were at risk if they voted against the Coalition. Assuming the text messages are genuine, there may be a lot of reasons why it was deemed to be best to keep the knowledge private. To claim that is a breach of some Parliamentary convention while Howard ‘core and non-core promises; Abbott ‘carbon tax’, and Morrison’s ‘multiple ministries’ are all considered acceptable practice by the same people that are now baying for blood is beyond contempt.

Not that the media is any better. Why was this matter considered worthy of a 15-minute discussion on the ABC’s Insiders last Sunday (11 June)? Did any one of the so called experienced political reporters actually think about what damage continually bringing this matter up would do to viewers who have undergone similar alleged experiences? Of course not. One of the panellists last Sunday was heavily involved in the initial reporting of the matter in Senator Reynolds’ office and seems to have an agenda to defend her reporting at all costs. Despite the claims of caring about the truth or the physical and mental health of the participants in this case, the conversation might have been acceptable around the water cooler ‘back in the day’ when gossip regarding the behaviours and infidelities of others was conversation fodder, but not on national television in 2023.

The initial reporting of the incident elevated the discussion around the toxic work environment at Parliament House and the rights of all individuals around consent and acceptable behaviour. Highlighting the poor behaviours was a good outcome. But it seems we all left the moral high ground some time ago and we’ve ended up down in the gutter talking about the latest rumour and innuendo.

If these people are Insiders, they should know better than continually bringing up an issue that causes genuine hurt and distress to many. If any of the Insiders panel do have evidence they believe the Board of Enquiry is not considering appropriately, as ‘insiders’ you would imagine they would have the knowledge and ability to contact Mr Sofronoff’s office. If they don’t or won’t, really they are no better than the self-proclaimed Outsiders on SkyNews ‘after dark’ talkfest most weeknights where ultra conservative agendas are pushed without any sign of balance or fact checking.

For most of us, remembering what we have for lunch last Tuesday is not that easy, let alone the words that we used in anger two years ago. We have all said and done things in our past that in retrospect we aren’t proud of. The Opposition should be ashamed of holding others to a higher standard than they hold themselves. The behaviour of Peter Dutton and those that are promoting this salacious gossip as news show no remorse for their past behaviour and more tellingly, no intention of holding themselves to a higher standard now and in the future. Those in the media who have reported on this obvious Coalition muckraking as newsworthy should hang their heads in shame.

Reporters are supposed to hold politicians to account for their actions, not join the dogwhistles of a political hit job. The talking heads on Insiders last Sunday should know better.

There are a number of species in the animal world that survive on the leftovers of others. As animals higher up the food chain satisfy their need for food they lose interest in the carcass as it gets a distinctive odour and appearance. In a marine environment, sooner or later the carcass arrives at the bottom of the sea to be preyed on by the opportunistic that wait for their food to come to them. They are the bottom feeders of the animal world.

Humans have bottom feeders as well. You could argue that scammers, internet trolls and others that go out of their way to financially or mentally hurt others are opportunistic predators, as are those that assault others either physically or mentally. It wouldn’t be hard to suggest that those businesses with practices that are just on the right side of the law are also opportunistic and clearly out to exploit the intent of the law to make a living.

Sadly for us, it is difficult to spot the opportunistic business unless some measures are in place to assist us. A bank will provide a loan at a particular interest rate to clients it considers to be a reasonable credit risk. If the bank won’t lend the money, some will approach other lenders that accept higher risk clients but there are more onerous conditions such as higher interest rates or in extreme examples ‘the Boyz will be sent around’ to manage defaults. You could argue that proposals that involve significantly higher fees or interest rates are a warning that you are dealing with a bottom feeder. It is less clear in other industries.

Legally a Pharmacist or group of pharmacists must own and operate a pharmacy. Which is probably just as well as there needs to be some control on drug company representatives claiming the red pill to soothe your patients ills is useless and you need to sell twice as many of the representatives’ blue pills (with the same formulation) to achieve any good. In a similar way it is illegal to call yourself a doctor, lawyer, dentist or a whole range or other professions unless you hold the appropriate qualifications and registration. These professions are frequently accused of charging high prices and being ‘closed shops’ – and to an extent they are. Their justification is they put a lot of time and effort into gaining qualifications and certifications and deserve to be rewarded for that expense. While the justification doesn’t necessarily hold up to scrutiny. most of us would prefer someone who had a good idea of what they were doing to supply your medicine, perform the operation or represent you in court.

So why do we allow our most vulnerable to be cared for by staff that are paid the least? Aged care workers received a mandated increase of 15% this year, but they are still some of the lowest paid workers in the country. Child care workers are also some of the lowest paid workers in the country and both industries receive considerable government funding. As we found out in the pandemic, neither group could perform their jobs ‘at home’, unlike a lot of doctors, lawyers and so on. While child care workers haven’t received any out of the ordinary pay rise this year, one of the large employers in the sector – Goodstart – was calling for a 10% pay rise (funded by the government) last October to stop workers leaving the industry. Yet the daily costs of aged care and child care are subject of frequent complaint..

While aged care and child care are regulated to some degree and there is some government support, there is also no requirement for the owner of an aged care or child care business to actually have any relevant qualifications or experience in the sector. You and I could, should we choose to, purchase an aged care or child care business and employ a management company that holds the appropriate accreditations to run it on our behalf.

Should you be an investor without the appropriate skills and qualifications (or have employees with the skills) to run an aged care or child care business, the real question here is why would we as a country let you do it? If we expect lawyers, doctors and pharmacists to have hands on experience in their profession, why do we let our most vulnerable be looked after in facilities run by investors that don’t have any understanding of how these places should be managed. It’s not likely that the ultimate consumer will necessarily be able to voice their concerns, should they have any.

Management companies ‘ensure compliance’, but the management company is only going to do what is necessary, after all an investor that has no background won’t be interested in the ‘learning experience’ or ‘nutritious food’ over and above the required standard that costs an extra $1 a day per person to implement, because that is $1 a day off their annual profit.

Really, it smacks of opportunism. If the investor contracts out the compliance activities of the enterprise to a management company, it is not prepared to employ people with the skills and qualifications in senior roles. Employees with relevant skills and knowledge in senior roles are those than can make the case for exceeding mandatory requirements and providing a better experience for the users of the service. Demonstrably an investor who is there solely for the profits will be out of the respective industry if something more attractive comes up.

The management company’s customer is the investor, not those that rely on the provision of the service at the facility. It’s not hard to make the case the investors who rely on management companies are gaming the system that seems at present to be capable of producing significant profits, demonstrated by the new childcare and aged care centres being constructed or existing ones expanded.

Not all investors or management companies are bottom feeders and ‘just out to leverage the extra $1 a day’ but there is sufficient evidence available in the 18 reports into the aged care industry in the last two decades to suggest that some are (and the childcare industry hasn’t been subject to the same intensity of review so we really don’t know if its any better). To reduce the potential of treating our most vulnerable as just a ‘profit centre’, should the aged and child care industries be re-regulated to actively discourage involvement of those who choose to buy the services of a management company rather than directly employ the expertise.

If its good enough to expect that the person filling your prescription has a clue on what the chemicals in the medication do, shouldn’t it also be expected that the owner of a aged care or child care facility also have a clue on how their services should be operated to benefit those in their care rather than just comply with the regulations?

In the conurbation that is South East Queensland, most of the towns that have been consumed by population growth still have their agricultural show. The Ipswich Show was held last weekend. Apart from all the ‘fun of the fair’ that you would expect most local politicians were represented by stalls in the exhibitions area, where they or their willing helpers were handing out brightly coloured bags to all comers with the usual pens, notepads and publicity brochures that is customary. The Federal Member for Blair Shayne Neumann was no different – although he was seen on national television coverage performing the ‘obligatory nodding head’ role to the best of his ability behind Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles’ Ipswich media scrum last Friday.

The contents of Neumann’s ‘showbag’ were pretty typical apart from one item. In a very ‘unALP’ green and teal themed brochure adorned with Neumann’s face there are contact details, his life story (both before and during politics) and a description of the electorate. So far that’s all pretty unsurprising, but that’s not all. Unfold the brochure and it describes our Federal Parliamentary System and Neumann’s work within the system on an A3 page. The sections on the page are “How I became a Member of Parliament”, “What I do in Parliament”, What I do in my electorate” and “My working hours”.

The Parliamentary Education Office is credited with assisting Neumann is production of this brochure and while Neumann is a Government MP, it’s highly likely that other Federal MP’s and Senators from across the Parliament have similar brochures in their ‘showbags’. And why not, the brochure very clearly and simply describes in a general way why we have politicians going to the respective Parliament Houses, how they help the community and the hours they work (which would be considered to be excessive in most other industries). While the idea is clearly a response to the ‘lazy politicians’ themes thrown around by some who should know better, the real issue here is that the brochure is necessary in the first place.

For better or worse we have a democratic system of government where, in theory at least, anyone can aspire to represent their fellow citizens in one of the three levels of government that Australia (and a number of other countries) maintains. There are distinctions around what each level of government manages and it’s doubtful if anyone in Australia could rattle off the lines of responsibility between the levels of government without reference. It’s not realistic to suggest that the contents of Neumann’s brochure and a overview of what each level of government does should be taught in schools as that doesn’t work when students aren’t interested, away that day or a multitude of other reasons including working out what to drop from all the other ‘essential’ material that schools are supposed to teach – as schools can’t teach everything.

You would hope that most Australians of voting age take some interest in the process, maybe not to the stage of regular reading of blogs like this, but they at least know who the Prime Minister, Premier and Mayor of their area are. Obviously there are many that don’t, as demonstrated by Neumann’s brochure. Being a democratic system, there is an expectation that people over a certain age have a vote. In some ways, Australia’s compulsory voting system is clearly superior to the optional voting systems used elsewhere.

For a start, it is extremely difficult the make claims similar to those made by the Trump re-election campaign in 2020 that “truck loads’ of votes were substituted. We know that roughly 95% of eligible voters will vote – if for no other reason than avoiding the fine – it would be very odd for more votes to be counted that could be theoretically cast. If ‘truck loads’ of votes were also removed to make way for the ‘truck loads’ that were brought in, the candidate that organises the fraud risks losing a significant number of ‘legally cast’ votes in the process.

Also in the last week, it was reported that Nigel Farage, one of the leading lights of the UK’s “Brexit’ process finally admitted that it didn’t work, and the promised land of milk and honey was unlikely to occur. Of course, he had pre-prepared reasons (or excuses depending on your point of view) that cast the blame to a multitude of sources that were not his ‘fault’. In Farage’s view, Brexit had nothing to do with a campaign by self-appointed conservatives that claimed they would make Britain great again (sound familiar) if it isolated from the rest of Europe. While there was a vote, a lot of disinterested or those that believed their vote wouldn’t count stayed away. As a result, Brexit occurred.

The problem the UK has now is that the regulation and subsides that have been shown to be essential to the economy have now ceased and trucks are queued up on each side of the British border waiting for customs clearance to proceed. Large global manufacturers are planning on leaving the UK in droves as it is too hard to get materials into the country and the manufactured goods out. Migration is higher than prior to Brexit as no one in Britain wanted to do the dirty and unskilled work that was previously done predominately by eastern Europeans who could enter and leave the country as they chose.

We too have our politicians that exist based on the votes of the ‘can’t be bothereds’. These people heed the advice of those in the media taking a swipe at the ‘gumment’ while knowing they will never be accountable for the ratbag promises they make. Neumann’s brochure is a positive step towards countering the disinformation but there needs to be more done to demonstrate to everyone that the system is important, how they can play a role and exert their influence. In Australia anyway, there is no such thing as a wasted vote.

The alternative is Trump’s America or Brexit – and we don’t want to go there.

While Opposition Leader Peter Dutton didn’t have a wonderful budget week by all accounts, it must have given him some joy to see the government and Greens arguing over how to establish more social and affordable housing in Australia. It’s actually a shame that the federal parliament is even discussing how to fund housing that is affordable as many years ago each state and territory had a ‘housing commission’ or ‘housing trust’ that was constantly maintaining their existing housing stock and building more to cater for growth. In the era of economic privatisation, government wasn’t meant to compete with the private sector, the claim being it was seen to be ‘crowding out’ the private sector, which leads us to where we are now.

It’s not difficult to demonstrate that privatisation of rental housing has not worked – witness the rort that is negative gearing on multiple ‘investment properties’ and the cost of housing anywhere near services in our larger cities. Sadly, it seems that neither of the major political parties have the courage to even have a discussion about reining in the excesses. The housing rental subsidy increase in the last budget will be swallowed up very quickly by those that really only see their tenants as a business opportunity.

In regard to the housing affordability legislation currently before the Senate Albanese’s ALP and Bandt’s Greens are both as equally bad as each other. Harking back to the Constitution, the Senate is a house of review. In this case, the Senate has reviewed the ALP social and affordable housing legislation and given it a rating of ‘could do better’. By the same token, the Greens should have learnt over the years that perfection is usually unobtainable and a good percentage of something is better than everything of nothing.

For example, while the Greens might have had genuine issues with parts of Rudd’s original emissions reduction scheme and voted it down, Rudd then shelved the legislation rather than compromise. The net effect was that we didn’t have any sort of effective scheme for most of the past decade and a half. Regardless of the claims of the Greens or the ALP, they both made bad decisions and we are paying the consequences of their refusal to compromise in 2009 to this day. They would have had 15 years to ‘tweak’ the 2009 legislation to better meet the objective of emissions reduction had they have passed it.

Should the 2009 emission scheme been legislated, it would have had sufficient time to demonstrate that most of the then Opposition Leader Abbott’s subsequent claims regarding the Gillard Government carbon reductions legislation were the complete and utter fabrications they have since been shown to be. Don’t forget, even his former Chief of Staff and now Sky ‘after dark’ talking head Peta Credlin admitted years later that their claims the Gillard Government carbon reduction scheme legislation was a ‘carbon tax’ was ‘just brutal politics’ rather than in any way accurate.

The debate over the housing legislation is similar. Both parties are claiming their scheme is better for a whole lot of different reasons and they are both probably correct in their claims, while ignoring the benefits of the other parties proposals. However standing there and arguing their version of creation of affordable and social housing is the only version that should be considered is absolute bollocks. Arguing over how something is going to be done is not actually doing anything to fix the issue. There needs to be compromise. The Coalition won’t assist here – after all if they were at all concerned about affordable housing over the ‘rights’ of those that negative gear multiple ‘investment properties’ they had nearly a decade in power to do something, and didn’t. Instead their ‘enduring legacy’ is the tax reforms’ that gave a less than a take away coffee per day in tax cuts to those that earn the least and will give thousands to those that earn the most (assuming the Albanese Government doesn’t do something to change the legislation).

According to this ABC report, only one in four voters under 40 gave the Coalition their vote in the 2022 election. The rest are now looking for a return on their investment

Their message to the government was simple: you were elected off our backs, and now we’ve been forgotten.

“The government is taking a different view of young people than they should be,” President of the National Union of Students, Bailey Riley, told Hack.

“The reason there was a change of government from Liberals to Labor was because of young people.”

“We voted them in with this mandate for change and mandate for action, and they’re not realising that mandate still exists.”

And despite the government’s message that they budget was carefully configured to take pressure of the cost of living (from the same ABC report)

Unfortunately, not all young people are on board with that.

Young people want radical change, and whether you see that as a folly or a virtue largely depends on your age and political leaning.

Some economists agree with the ‘radical change’ approach

In her pre-budget speech to the National Press Club in Canberra, head of the Grattan Institute Danielle Wood, said now is the time for bold, radical change.

“Overall, the picture is a budget of incremental change. It will make some things a bit better and not too much worse. But ultimately it will only play footsies with the big social and fiscal challenges,” she said.

When Brisbane’s LNP Lord Mayor, Adrian Schrinner, is arguing that government in general need to do more for those that don’t have a secure roof over their head by suggesting the disused COVID isolation accommodation facilities at Pinkenba be used for homeless, the ALP has a problem. Schrinner is also playing politics here by announcing his Council will fund some bus and library services to the disused centre in the upcoming Council budget – but apparently is still going through the process of submitting a proposal to the federal government who own the facility.

While the Greens are claiming that Tasmanian Senator Jacquie Lambie has been ‘bought out’ by the government on this issue, the absolute frustration as recorded in this video link from The Guardian while saying

So please, for you people over here, that think you have a social conscience, do you really want to keep playing with people’s lives? Do you really?

to the Greens Senators in the Chamber says it all.

And she has a point.

There is an old joke about the Pentecostal Christian that arrives at the ‘pearly gates’ after drowning in a flood while telling anyone that would listen the Lord will save him. He asks the Lord why he wasn’t saved. The Lord’s response is ‘I made sure you heard the weather forecast, then sent a flood boat and finally a helicopter to save you; what more did you want’.

It’s not unfair to make a comparison between that old joke and the current Liberal Party. Fresh from a general election loss their new leader, who doesn’t have a reputation for considering alternative views, calls the new government a ‘bad’ government before they are formally sworn in. After announcing his shadow cabinet of predominately the same people that lost the election, the shadow cabinet then start work. The work they start is the comparison between what they would have done and what the current government is doing. The immediate concern is the realisation that a number of the pork barrel announcements on car parks, installing traffic lights and so on were cancelled by the incoming government. Traffic lights and commuter car parks are typically not a federal government responsibility anyway.

The commentary is to ‘give them time’. They have to ‘find their feet in opposition’ and in time they will work out that they have to develop alternate policies to the government’s. It is also felt that in time they will work out that the policies they implemented during their decade of power are not relevant to regaining government sometime in 2025. The Liberal Party seems not to have understood the commentary.

The Victorian branch of the Liberal Party goes to a state election with similar policies to the federal Liberal Party against an ALP Premier that has been in power for a number of terms, had a considerable amount of time to make enemies (and has succeeded quite well with long term lockdowns during the COVID Pandemic years of 2020 and 2021 as well as his reputed management style) and some feelings that a new broom is required. Some in the Victorian Liberal Party obviously thought they had won power prior to the election day by divvying up the spoils and being less than subtle about their real agenda. The public took one look and decided they were not ready to govern, handing government back to Dan Andrews for another four years.

Then Allan Tudge, a former federal minister resigns his seat in the east of Melbourne after a mediocre career at best, highlights being one well publicised extra-marital affair and assisting in the development and implementation of the fraudulent Robodebt process. The Royal Commission into the Robodebt scheme was told there were a considerable number of victims suffering mental illness as a result of stress and sadly a number of suicides directly attributable to social security recipients being told to repay debts that were not incurred or overblown.

The Opposition Leaders marketing slogan coming into the by-election was the government couldn’t run an economy because prices and interest rates were going up. Yes, they were but a similar economic problem was occurring in a number of developed economies around the world. Tudge’s election lead had been reducing at recent elections but a candidate selection by Liberal Party Victoria HQ over the wishes of the local members saw the seat won by the ALP. It is the first time in over a century that an incumbent government has won a seat from the major opposition party. The Opposition Leader’s marketing slogan after the election was that at least he had kept the party together.

Around the same time, the Opposition Leader, after ‘considering the evidence and discussing with stakeholders’ announces the Liberal Party leadership will campaign against the ‘Voice to Parliament’ referendum. A number of Liberal backbenchers have publicly announced they will either not campaign or campaign for a yes vote regardless of the official party position. The Opposition Leader still hasn’t disclosed the evidence he considered and the stakeholders he consulted.

In more recent times Karen Andrews, another former minister announced her retirement from the shadow ministry immediately and her retirement from parliament at the next election to pursue other interests. The shadow Attorney General Julian Leeser also announced his move to the backbench so he could campaign for a yes vote at the forthcoming ‘Voice to Parliament’ referendum. The Opposition Leader announced some more hard line conservatives would be taking the place of both of these former ministers and told the press that neither of the former ministers were pushed, they resigned from the shadow ministry on their own terms.

Early in May, another former and now shadow minister Stuart Robert announced his immediate retirement. In comparison to Allan Tudge, Robert had a stellar ministerial career. In 2018, Independent Australia produced a list of Robert’s Parliamentary career highlights to date – including the $2,000 per month in ‘internet charges’ charged to the taxpayer. Robert’s claimed internet usage was 300 gigabytes of data per month on a plan that allowed 50 gigabytes, the rest being charged at a ‘per gigabyte’ rate. Robert has a masters degree in information technology. More recently, Robert accepted absolute responsibility for the management of the illegal Robodebt system implemented by the Coalition Government in the ongoing quest to belittle those who need some financial assistance to survive.

It seems that the Liberal Party can’t see that Australia has moved on from the politics of division and hatred. The mythical Pentecostal Christian drowned rather than accept the reality of their situation, it seems that the Liberal Party is also fixated on an outcome that is unrealistic. Will they accept the help of the flood boat or the helicopter? No one knows, but it could be fun to watch.

The federal government’s budget is due to be released on 9 May. Since assuming power in May 2022, the government released a budget in October that removed a lot of the excess and pandering to special interest groups that was inherent in the aptly abbreviated ATM (Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison) Coalition Government’s budgets of the previous decade. However, as they say in the murder mysteries, ‘investigations are continuing’ as other rorts and ideological funding decisions are being uncovered.

Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been leading the discussion around the number of ‘booby traps’ left for an incoming government by former Prime Minister Morrison and his Treasurer Frydenberg. They include the ‘Stage 3 Tax Cuts’ that are legislated for introduction from 1 July 2024. The ALP promised they would be implemented on time at the 2022 election which could be more an own goal than a booby trap. There has been some discussion about other issues including essential federal agencies that have had no funding in the forward estimates, declining Medicare bulk billing rates, clearly inadequate social security payments and blow outs in the NDIS – to name a few.

Chalmers and the Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher, undoubtedly do have a number of competing priorities they have to balance. As is normal practice, neither Chalmers, Gallagher or any other minister that might have an idea of what is in or out certainly won’t telling us ahead of time.

But the ALP came to power on promises of looking after the poor and dispossessed rather than the well off. They even agreed to a proposal from independent ACT Senator David Pocock to establish a committee that reports on the adequacy of social security payments prior to the budget, in order to get Pocock’s vote on industrial relations legislation.

So when the government’s finance ministers are saying the government cannot afford to do everything it wants but ‘hasn’t changed its view on the ‘Stage 3 Tax Cuts’, commits billions to the construction on the latest version of Australia’s new submarine fleet or promises millions for football stadiums, there is at least a marketing problem. If you were spending your days wondering if you can afford to buy food and pay the rent this week on your clearly inadequate Jobseeker payment the ongoing funding announcements for big ticket items would be soul destroying. You can understand the calls of ‘what about us?’.

The Albanese Prime Ministership and Government are still enjoying considerable popularity according to the poll numbers. Most of us are not in the select group of people that know what is in the 2023 Budget ahead of time, for all we know the ‘Stage 3 Tax Cuts’ might be getting taken down the dark alley and disposed of so that a more equitable society can be created. Heaven knows that the government has been given plenty of opportunity to imply that is the case should they want to suggest it might happen on 9 May. They haven’t.

Regardless, it would be good policy to discuss with the Australian public why financial decisions are being made such as why there is a need for a football stadium in Hobart while there is a shortage of affordable and social housing around the country. Typically, people aren’t allowed to routinely live in football stadiums, conversely there may be solid economic reasons why the construction of a stadium in Hobart makes sense. The point is – we don’t know and the government’s not telling.

As demonstrated in this ABC Online presentation, the value of the proposed tax cuts alone could increase social security payments to a level where people don’t have to make a decision if food or rent can both be paid this week, alleviate the issues that plague the NDIS as well as driving a concerted push towards electrifying everything which would reduce our net emissions to almost nothing. It’s not hard to argue that all or any of these outcomes are better for the country that tax cuts to those that have a reasonable income already. Who knows, there may be good economic reasons for giving the better off tax cuts rather than spending the money on lifting others out of the poverty trap. We need to have the discussion rather than just a conga line of spending announcements that contain the word Billion. Everyone else that is the business of selling intangibles can do it – why can’t the Albanese Government?

The government is in a fortunate position where the Opposition Leader doesn’t seem to be able to cut through on any issue and their current popularity gives then a reasonable amount of political capital to use. While some should be reserved to ensure that the ‘Voice to Parliament’ referendum is a resounding yes vote, arguably those that are living well below the poverty line (according to the government’s own research) deserve more help – regardless of the views of the entitled and well off. The political capital will gradually evaporate in any event, so you have to use it while you have some available.

At the very least, the government should be having a conversation with us why they are making choices. Claiming they are implementing an eye watering value of tax cuts because the previous government thought it a good idea isn’t likely to generate understanding in a section of the community where the real concern is if they can afford the $3 bus fare to the only doctor within 50km that will bulk bill their consultation tomorrow.

Former Prime Minister Bob Hawke has a popularity poll rating above 70% of the population at one stage and it didn’t last. At least his government did some marketing to lead discussions with us why they through various decisions were for the public good. If you’re old enough you’ll remember the ‘recession we had to have’ and the ‘J curve’. If you’re not old enough, search is your friend. They were prepared to burn a bit of political capital where necessary before they lost it anyway. It’s a policy the Albanese Government should follow.

Who knows, finding someone in the government that passed a Marketing Course and tasking that person to explain the thought process for the government’s spending decisions might gain the current government another term or two in power. Then they can really deliver on their implied promise of a better society for all.

It seems another icon is in trouble. Tupperware, the company that for decades relied on selling storage containers for the kitchen, is in financial difficulty. On 11 April, Yahoo Finance reported

[The share price of] Tupperware tumbled nearly 49% Monday, the largest drop on record, to notch an all-time low after the company said it hired financial advisers “to help improve its capital structure and remediate its doubts regarding its ability to continue as a going concern.

Despite the generations of (predominately) women who sold Tupperware to their friends and acquaintances at the “Tupperware Party” and the uniqueness of the product over the years it seems that the business has not kept up with the times. According to one retail analyst

Issues include a “sharp decline in the number of sellers, [and] a consumer pullback on home products”. He also said the iconic brand doesn’t connect with younger consumers.

“The company used to be a hotbed of innovation with problem-solving kitchen gadgets, but it has really lost its edge,” he said.

There’s no doubt Tupperware revolutionised food storage. However, now there are countless options that are often more affordable.

In 2020, Choice reviewed plastic food storage containers. Two Tupperware options were ranked the highest, one priced at $53 and the other at $31.

But coming in third place was a plastic container that had a Choice expert rating of 82 per cent and it cost just $2.

The US based company also didn’t file its most recent mandatory reporting on time – which may lead to various regulatory and financial penalties in that jurisdiction.

And while this site is not a business blog, there are similarities between the manufacturers of Tupperware and the behaviours of the federal Coalition led by Peter Dutton. It seems that Tupperware’s problem is that while it is a known brand, there is no unique selling proposition as others have innovated to create market share. Given the choice, most of us would purchase the $2 food storage container and assuming it did the job of keeping things fresh, just keep on buying the $2 items as required. After all you can purchase quite a lot of them before the Tupperware container is cheaper. In a similar fashion, the conservative vote is being split across different groups who are taking votes off the Liberal Party. Dutton’s problem is that a lot of the votes don’t come back to the Coalition through preference distributions.

In a similar way to Tupperware, the current state of the Coalition is a demonstration of a failure to innovate or move forward. While those that are left in the Coalition continue to prosecute arguments that were settled some time ago, such as climate change, the “Voice to Parliament” or even the selfish and pointless arguments about who’s cost of living estimates were less accurate at the last federal election, the rest of us have moved on. Fear, uncertainty and despair can only work for so long; and not for everyone. Instead of calling critics ‘woke’ or ‘communist’ and suggesting that only an ABC reporter would ask such questions, the Coalition should be engaging with those of differing opinions in an effort to broaden their appeal. After all, they need 50% of the voting population plus one to vote for them or their fellow travellers to gain government.

The Albanese ALP Government is not perfect by any means, and you could argue they are not making sufficient changes fast enough, but there does seem to be a plan locked away somewhere far away from the view of the public or the media. In short, they are innovating, and the only reaction seems to be a collective sigh of relief and release of pent-up frustration across the country. It also seems that the Government can reach out to others to implement policy when the need becomes apparent. While neither the ALP or their counterparts might get everything they want, they get what they need and can live with.

Results in both the New South Wales State election and the Aston by-election indicate that the Coalition has come to the view that eventually we will all ‘come to our senses’ and return Coalition Governments to power if they keep promising to act in the same way as they had previously. While some may enjoy the familiar embrace of the Prime Minister holding additional Ministerial roles without telling too many people, the rorts evidenced by the promised construction of commuter car parks, the complete disregard for action on climate change or acknowledgement that most social security recipients were not out to game the system for their benefit, most of us won’t.

Tupperware have realised their lack of innovation and ability to change with the times has caused a serious problem for the company, and they are attempting to address it. The Coalition under Peter Dutton seem to be deliberately digging in to the past and suggesting it is the way of the future. Another large American company tried that in the early 21st Century and went bankrupt. That company was Kodak. Despite inventing the digital camera, they decided there was more money in selling photographic film than digital cameras. There wasn’t.

Those that forget their history are likely to repeat it.

If you’re not Queensland LNP Senator Gerard Rennick, you’ll understand there is a connection between the burning of fossil fuel and increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ALP and Greens recently called a truce for long enough to pass changes to the Coalition’s ‘Safeguard Mechanism’ to ensure it actually has the effect of reducing carbon emissions by Australia’s ‘top emitters’. For that, we should all be grateful. While the ALP was apparently forced to climb up the hill a little more than they wanted and the Greens had to come down a bit from their moral high ground to meet them, the result was better than when the Greens with Bob Brown as leader voted against an emissions reduction scheme proposed by former Prime Minister Rudd. Rudd can’t take any credit here either as after calling it ‘the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time’ prior to the vote – the scheme was effectively shelved after the vote.

You might have missed a recent report in The Guardian where LNP Senator for Queensland Gerard Rennick claimed that gravity causes climate change. Rennick seems to think he has the proof and his claimed degrees in taxation, commerce and finance gives him the right to publish his views. The article is here, good luck in working out the logic although some of the published responses by real atmospheric scientists show they are are capable of using humour to make a point. Suffice to say, his claims demonstrate why the former Coalition government couldn’t manage any genuine action on emission reduction.

And while we have the top emitters in Australia ratcheting down their emissions over time (or buying offsets if they can’t or won’t reduce them internally), there is a lot of other ’low hanging fruit’ that could be harvested to reduce emissions further and faster. One of them is transportation. While electric vehicles are available that cost similar amounts to traditional medium sized hatches, sedans and wagons, electric vehicles are not the answer for everyone.

Australia, unlike most developed economies, doesn’t have vehicle fuel consumption standards. It’s not a co-incidence that Europeans and New Zealanders seem to be able to move around quite adequately without the need for a large SUV or ute to do the grocery shopping, dropping the kids at school or commuting to the workplace. And while a regular sedan or hatch can’t get to the off-road fishing or camping spot it’s probably fair to say that most SUVs or utes don’t get there either – even if they have the capabilities to do so.

The fuel consumption regulations in Europe and New Zealand financially penalise vehicle manufacturers or importers and vehicle users if fuel consumption targets are not met. Unsurprisingly there seems to be a correlation between vehicle fuel consumption and carbon emissions as identified by the Climate Council’s ‘Ute Beauty’ report

“If people really need a ute for work today, there are much more efficient and cheaper-to-run utes out there than most Australians are buying,” Rayner said.

“People who want to cut their fuel bill and emissions can do that without waiting for any new technology. There are vehicles on the market right now.”

The report found that the two top-selling utes in Australia, the Toyota HiLux and the Ford Ranger, are among the most expensive to run and have poor tailpipe CO2 emissions, while other popular utes such as the Toyota LandCruiser are considerably worse.

However, the report highlights some readily available models that are fuel efficient, such as the Mazda BT-50.

The Grattan Institute recently released a report on the financial and environmental implications of tax breaks when it came to people’s choice of vehicle.

The surge in popularity of larger vehicles in Australia has been driven by tax perks that incentivise buying SUVs, utes and other 4WDs instead of less-polluting smaller-sized cars and sedans, transport experts argue.

SUVs accounted for more than 50% of new vehicles sold in Australia last year, a share which has almost doubled over the past decade. The uptick has prompted calls to tackle the trend by limiting tax incentives, building bus lane-style narrow lanes and more parking spots exclusively for small cars.

The Grattan Institute has also identified that the predominance of large SUVs and utes in Australia has adverse implications on land use and safety for road users such as bike riders and pedestrians.

Vehicle importers also have a role to play here. Even the US has ‘fuel consumption’ requirements that are mandated for each vehicle importer/manufacturer. To meet the standards, they have to balance the demand for large ‘thirsty’ SUV’s/utes against fuel efficient or zero emissions vehicles to achieve a ‘corporate average fuel consumption’ within the legal requirement or pay the substantial fine. In Europe, not only the manufacturers have to manage the ratio of fuel-efficient vehicles, they also have to manage the emissions of those vehicles. The manufacturers comply by spending money on the engineering development of engines to develop units that don’t use as much fuel or emit as much from the exhaust pipe while providing existing levels of power and torque.

The subtext of both the Grattan Institute and Climate Council reports is that the manufacturers and importers are dumping vehicles fitted with older design engines with less efficiency and higher emissions in Australia – because they can. More stringent government standards on fuels available for sale would also assist. To be fair the Albanese Government has brought forward new standards that allows less contaminants in fuel by a few years which will allow for higher technology engines to be used. A cynic would suggest that the engineering development of some of the engines in a number of vehicles sold in Australia was completed some years ago and the costs have been well and truely amortised over the years the engine has been in production. The manufacturer/importer is making more money from every less efficient vehicle sold – while the vehicle prices are broadly equal to those overseas they have no incentive to promote fuel or emissions efficiency in this country and the older motors cost less to make.

The cynic could be correct. Recently a family member was looking to purchase a small hatchback manufactured by a large German vehicle manufacturer. The same manufacturer also sells a SUV that salespeople at two dealerships admitted was the same car ‘on stilts’. The SUV is priced around $5000 higher than the hatchback and while the fuel consumption estimate is the same, actual results may vary (with the SUV having to push more air out of the way to go anywhere combined with a higher and accordingly less stable centre of gravity). The SUV in most permutations of colour and option packs was available within weeks, the hatchback was effectively a factory order only – meaning a 6-to-9-month delay between order and delivery of the vehicle.

Clearly the manufacturers and importers of vehicles are there to make money, not friends, The government has to step up to provide direction on the future vehicle fleet in Australia because clearly the importers won’t do any more than charge additional money for essentially the same vehicle ‘on stilts’. While no one is saying that SUV’s and utes should be immediately banned, there has to be some not so gentle encouragement to convince Australian’s that there are better environmental, efficiency and space usage options than the large SUV or ute at the school pickup (with the air-conditioning running for half an hour) or sitting in the traffic jam at 5pm most weekdays on the way home from work.

Australians purchase around a million new vehicles a year. If the top 10 cars were efficient fuel and space consumers, the environmental costs start falling almost immediately with no real impediment to our lifestyle. And that should be something the ALP and Greens can both work on from their respective high moral grounds.

There were two equally significant history making moments in Australian politics in the last week.The better known one was the ALP’s claiming of the seat of Aston from the Coalition in a by-election caused by the resignation of former Minister Alan Tudge. It is the first time that a federal government has won an additional seat from the opposition in 100 years, which suggests that despite the trials and tribulations of daily life and no doubt a concerted effort by every person or group wth an axe to grind, the Albanese Government is reasonably popular in Aston (a electorate based in suburban Melbourne).

The other history making event in Australian politics in the last week was the resignation of Councillor Jonathan Sriranganathan from the Brisbane City Council. Councillor Sriranganathan – better known as Jonno Sri – was the second elected Greens politician in Queensland, the first being Senator Larissa Waters. Last week Sri handed his seat in the Council over to fellow Greens member Trina Massey. Obviously Sri and the Greens felt that there was enough support for the Greens in his seat, rather than just him personally.

The Brisbane City Council is rather unusual in Australian politics as it is highly party politicised and controls a considerable part of the greater Brisbane area rather than just the inner City as Sydney and Melbourne’s Councils do. Brisbane City has a population of 1,264,024 in the local government area. As well as the usual roads, rubbish and recreation spaces, Brisbane CIty has considerable ability to influence planning and development policy in Queensland. Since the ALP claimed victory in the NSW state election a week or so ago, Brisbane’s LNP Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner is the leader of the largest government in Australia controlled by the the Coalition parties. While the Tasmanian Liberal Government controls a larger land mass, Tasmania’s population was estimated to be 567,909 in 2021 and the state’s budget is smaller than Brisbane City’s.

In The Guardian, Sri claims

“To be honest, we got kind of lucky that we won in the Gabba ward,” Sriranganathan reflects over a cup of chai on his houseboat in a muddy and mangrove-lined creek this week.

“But then that little green crack, we’ve been able to widen into something much bigger.”

Since Sri’s election and possibly despite his usual attire of scarves, mismatched socks and beanies he has seen the election of Greens members to state and federal parliaments from the southeast corner of Queensland. While Sri claim that the Greens could win a number of seats in the Brisbane City Council and maybe topple the LNP Lord Mayor is yet to be proven, the electors of the state and federal seats that are now coloured green around Brisbane obviously saw Sri’s regular incursions into the nightly news – either drawing attention to the lack of community services or getting arrested at protests against ‘over-development’ or mining – and liked what they saw.

One of the community services that Sri and other Greens have chosen to make a stand on is social and affordable housing. It shouldn’t have been a shock got anyone when the Greens federally drew the line in the sand when they thought the Albanese Government’s housing fund went nowhere near far enough. The Monthly recently reported that

Labor’s policy would reportedly provide up to $500 million per year to build up to 30,000 social and affordable homes over the next five years. The Greens want $5 billion annually, plus $1 billion for First Nations housing, and a national agreement to freeze rents.

According to the Productivity Commission, 176,000 households are on the social housing waitlist around the nation, with others suggesting the number is higher.

Despite the Prime Minister being justifiably proud of his heritage, which includes some time in social housing, the legislation to increase the funding of social housing across Australia has been withdrawn from Parliament rather than coming to some agreement with the Greens. As The Monthly reports

Labor doesn’t have a majority in the Senate; it must compromise if it wants to pass this and other legislation. But, by the same token, neither do the Greens. It’s not clear who is failing to come to the table, and we don’t know who has offered what – both sides have accused the other of failing to negotiate. But it is incumbent on both sides to do so, especially on an issue of this much importance.

These debates are getting extremely tiresome. We have a Labor government, with a progressive balance of power in the Senate. We have a housing crisis, which we all agree needs addressing. We have a shell of a Coalition that has made itself entirely irrelevant to the national debate. This shouldn’t be hard. It’s obvious that both Labor and the Greens are playing hardball – but could they please speed things up? All they have to do is put pride aside and meet somewhere in the progressive middle, taking into account their respective shares of the national vote, and perhaps, you know, the national interest.

The Aston by-election result tells us that the Coalition hasn’t improved its position since the 2022 election. On top of the 6% or thereabouts swing to the ALP this time, in 2022 when Tudge last contested the seat, he suffered a swing against him of around 7%. At the same time Tudge was losing support as a sitting Coalition member, the Greens were taking seats in Brisbane that no one outside the Greens thought they had a hope of winning. Former PM Rudd’s seat and two seats along the Brisbane River which include a lot of ‘old money’ suburbs that had been held by the LNP for years, are now represented on Capital Hill by the Greens. And while we probably won’t be talking about a Prime Minister coming from the Greens any time soon, if the ALP and Greens could work with each other rather than attempt to score political points we could be living in a country with a progressive federal government for years to come.

As the last decade demonstrates, progressive government sure beats the alternative.

While the former Coalition Government was never one to consider the frail, elderly, unwell or jobless as full members of society, you would expect better from an ALP Government. Perhaps we are expecting too much.

Various Ministers have crowed from the rooftops that social security payments have risen, which they have, but only because they are indexed every six months. We’ve also had Ministers tell us that various requests made to them to increase social security payments to a level where people can afford to pay the ever-increasing rent as well as put meals on the table the same week are unaffordable. Similar responses have been made about some of the funding requested for the Olympic Games in Brisbane, renewable energy, medical services or drugs that will either prolong life or make whatever life people have left more bearable, and the list goes on.

Anyone who drives a new car out of a showroom will realise sooner or later there are newer cars around with a greater level of technology, better fuel economy, different features or more comfort. Once the realisation has been made, there are in reality two options, either trade the car in on the newer one with the desired ‘better’ feature and be forced to rinse and repeat consistently or accept that the newer model may be able to do something better than the car you drive. It’s the same with electrical appliances. The latest model television may be able to do something faster or produce a better picture and certainly will have more acronyms on the box than the 10 year old television in your lounge room. But economically is it worth upgrading when you can still see Opposition Leader Dutton routinely saying ‘no’ regardless of the question on the ol’ faithful? Of course, you might have to purchase a new television if you throw something at it when Dutton is being completely obnoxious.

Apparently it’s the same with submarines. It seems that in the typical thought process of those who like the latest ‘bright and shiny thing’, our former Coalition government and some in the defence community have for the past decade been playing games rather than making a decision and sticking with it. First, we were to buy Japanese submarines, then the ‘better’ French ones and now apparently we are getting some really schmick ones from the US until a jointly designed submarine is conceived and built in the 2040s that must be better still – but no one knows because it hasn’t been built yet! One wonders if there is a notion that if anyone really wants to invade Australia have they have agreed to wait until the 2040s as well?

The Monthly suggests that

We all surely shared a sense of inner glow at this implied prosperity, but then as The Australia Institute’s Richard Denniss points out, “Australia is an incredibly rich country, our GDP per capita ranks eighth largest in the world … our public debt to GDP ratio remains way below the OECD average. Likewise, we are a low-taxing country, even before we blow another quarter of a trillion dollars on the Stage Three tax cuts.”

More on tax in a moment, but even if it turns out that we can afford submarines, did we really want them? Was there public debate? A series of rigorous green and white papers leading to a full-throated and exhaustive parliamentary examination of the proposal? Not quite. It was a deal hatched in the cabinet-of-a-secret-handful presided over by the member for Walter Mitty, Scott Morrison. A deal then ratified and made concrete by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese without even the superficial consensuality of a Labor partyroom vote. These are the quiet wheels of “democratic” power, acting in our best interest without ever investigating our sense of what that interest might be.

The Monthly goes on to quote the author of the (generally ignored) 2010 review on taxation in Australia, Ken Henry

“Right now, Commonwealth tax revenue should be at least 2 per cent of GDP higher. That’s about $50 billion a year in today’s money. And, given the pressures of accelerating spending on defence, healthcare, aged care and disability support, among others, we are clearly going to have to raise the tax-to-GDP ratio even higher over the decades ahead.”

While Albanese’s Government can always claim that the AUKUS submarine decision was made before they came to power, there is clearly a need to have a conversation with Australia that discusses why half a trillion (or thereabouts) dollars spent on nuclear submarines and tax cuts is acceptable, while spending on health care, transport, energy security, genuine attempts to mitigate climate change and the host of other initiatives that could make Australia a far more equal, healthy and caring society are subject to budgetary pressures.

Sadly, the magic pudding always was a fiction.

Former Government Services Minister Stuart Robert appeared at the Robodebt Royal Commission last week and attempted to do as so many others have done – blame someone else. As The Guardian reported

Repeatedly he made comments directly at odds with what he now tells the commission he believed: that the scheme was deeply flawed. In fact, he explained its key mathematical flaw – the central reason it is unlawful – as articulately as any other witness on the stand on Thursday.

Robert accepted on Thursday that he had told the public things he believed were “false” because of “cabinet solidarity”.

In a particularly memorable encounter with the commissioner, Catherine Holmes, Robert said: “As a dutiful cabinet minister, ma’am, that’s what we do.”

Holmes replied: “Misrepresent things to the Australian public?”

The Commissioner has a point. The New Daily reports

Mr Robert cast himself as the man who brought robodebt to a swift end after his conscience had been pricked by a report into the scheme.

His conscience sent him straight down a parliamentary corridor to burst into Mr Morrison’s office.

“Within hours I walked into the prime minister’s office to put an end to it,” he testified.

“I think my actions go to my state of mind.”

However

the recollection of Professor Renee Leon, a distinguished lawyer and the public servant in charge of a government department as robodebt dwindled, contradicted Mr Robert’s evidence.

Professor Leon recalled receiving advice in February that the scheme was likely illegal and quoted directly from what she said were two briefings she gave to Mr Robert after his appointment in May, during which, she said, she suggested apologising.

“We absolutely will not be doing that. We will double down,” she recalled him replying. “Legal advice is just legal advice.”

Professor Leon testified that senior members of the Coalition appeared “very attached” to the scheme, but that she had been at a loss to explain why it had lasted for so long.

Robert denies Leon’s claims.

Heavens knows if Robert went to the PM’s office as soon as he realised the problems inherent in Robodebt but it is known that Robert is a Pentecostal Christian, as is former PM Morrison. Morrison apparently calls Robert ‘Brother Stewie’, which begs the question how well have both of them read their holy book? There are multiple references to doing to others as you hope they would do to you, looking after those who are less fortunate than yourself and not killing anyone. It is a mystery how a lot of Coalition policy promoted by Morrison and Robert passes those tests.

A list of somewhat dubious political decisions made by Robert that go back years was published by The Saturday Paper last December. His claimed trip to the PM’s office obviously wasn’t a sign of a change of character, as The Saturday Paper was reporting on Robert allegedly telling people how to avoid registering as a lobbyist in 2020.

Thats not to say that the senior public servants have covered themselves with glory here either. While the public service exists to implement the policy of the government of the day, they also have to act morally and ethically as well as providing frank and fearless advice. Assuming the evidence given to the Royal Commissioner is accurate, there was a lot of senior public servants that chose to stay below the parapet rather than voice the reality that averaging income over a calendar year based on ATO data was inaccurate, probably illegal and just dumb – because the inequity and unfairness of the system would get out in the end. And when the gig was up and some evidence reported, any calls about this Royal Commission being a political ‘hit job’ disappeared very quickly.

We all like to be told that we are brilliant thinkers and everything that we attempt is going to be successful. Unfortunately, the reality is somewhat different, most of us compensate for that by discussing plans to spend a significant sum of money, completely change our lifestyle and so on with a group of trusted people who usually have different experiences and outlook to yours. Politicians in the past employed a group of non-partisan, independently minded and experienced public servants to both formulate and implement policy that was in keeping with the perceived government of the day and the public’s wishes. At times, the senior public servants best advice would be ‘no Minister, that is not a good idea’ prior to giving reasons (such as illegality, public perception, ethics and morals and so on). Sadly, it seems that the Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison Coalition Government removed the public servants with the courage to suggest a course of action was wrong from positions of influence. They aren’t the first government to do so and sadly won’t be the last in all probability.

So what have we learnt so far from the Royal Commission? No one actually stopped for a minute to ask if ‘welfare cheating’ (as marketed by the Coalition politicians to further denigrate those who didn’t have sufficient income to live) was as prevalent as claimed. Neither did anyone stop to connect the dots that a significant number of Australians do earn wages of part of the year and are also entitled to social security when not earning. Then someone decides to automate a manual process to create ‘efficiencies’ – better known as staff cuts without remembering that computers can only say yes or no – they aren’t really good with determining individual circumstances.

At the end of the day, it seems that the politicians and senior public servants focused more on the political outcome than the process. The Royal Commission is currently scheduled to report on 30 June. Let’s hope it brings some peace to the those that have been adversely affected by this illegal Coalition scheme.

In the world of Deputy Opposition Leader Sussan Ley, the Albanese Government’s ‘Voice’ process is a stunt to get re-elected. This is the same Susan Ley that added the extra ’s’ to her name in her 20s because

“I read about this numerology theory that if you add the numbers that match the letters in your name you can change your personality,” she told The Australian.

“I worked out that if you added an ‘s’ I would have an incredibly exciting, interesting life and nothing would every be boring. It’s that simple.

“And once I’d added the ‘s’ it was really hard to take it away.”

In the Morrison Government, as the Environment Minister

Ley approved a Coalition decision to scrap 176 out of 185 recovery plans designed to prevent the extinction of threatened species and habitats, including the Tasmanian devil. This was despite a government call for feedback, which received 6701 responses, all disagreeing with the proposed removal of the recovery plans.

Rather than a stunt, the ‘Voice’ is an attempt at reconciliation towards first nations people and creating equality. Ley’s criticism is probably as rational as the reason there is an extra ’s’ in her name.

Angus Taylor has a long list of cringeworthy performances as a Federal Government Minister, helpfully listed by Crikey in 2020-including responding to his own social media post in 2019 with ‘well done Angus’. He also has a hard time accepting that others may have a different interpretation of an issue than he does.

Taylor as the Shadow Treasurer has obviously been given carriage of the argument that any change to superannuation arrangements is a ‘broken election promise’, The government is considering options at the moment but have decided nothing. Taylor is ‘laser focused’ on nothing changing despite Treasurer Jim Chalmers suggesting

“What we have to accept at the same time is the average super balance is about $150,000,” he said.

“Less than one per cent of people have got more than $3 million in their super [and] the average amount that people have when they’ve got more than $3 million is $5.8 million.

… in an interview on Nine Radio.

Most of those with the average superannuation balance of $150,000 probably couldn’t comprehend $3 million, let alone have any realistic ambition of having that amount in their personal superannuation account. Superannuation was originally introduced to prevent stories like this ever becoming commonplace in Australia, not as a ‘tax effective’ shelter for those with considerable assets and the funds to employ expensive accountants to find every loophole in the system (it may be legal – but is it moral or ethical?).

Not only does Opposition Leader Peter Dutton have to manage the ramblings of his shadow ministers, he has his own problems to consider as well. The Aston by-election, scheduled for April 1 is to replace another ex-Federal Minister capable of a cringeworthy performance or two; Alan Tudge. Tudge was most recently seen denying culpability at the Robodebt Royal Commission even though he didn’t ask the questions about the legality of the income equalisation process in the scheme. Political pundits are suggesting that any result apart for the typical 1.7% dip in the vote for the first term government is more a commentary on Dutton’s leadership of the Opposition than anything else. To add to Dutton’s discomfort, the Greens and other smaller political parties are also looking for an improved result in the seat (as a ‘pox on both your houses’ to the major parties). While his shadow ministers criticising ‘the Voice’ and a possible review of superannuation concessions may retain existing supporters, the negativity is hardly likely to attract many others to the Coalition.

Granted it’s likely Labor didn’t categorically state they would assess the tax treatment of superannuation accounts where, on the face of it, there is considerably more than the amount required to keep a superannuant in comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their lives. It’s probably also likely that the Coalition didn’t specifically promise Robodebt, the Prime Minister being sworn into multiple Ministries, scrapping 176 recovery plans for native species threatened with extinction, the Indue ‘cashless welfare’ card or many other ‘initiatives’ they introduced.

However all governments have a responsibility to govern for all, not just those that comprise some special interest group. Arguably, removing some tax breaks in the superannuation system for those that have more than a reasonable amount to live out their lives in comfort and redirecting that money could be justified. The redirection that could provide additional funding to education, social housing, health, transport or one of the thousand and one ways government should be improving the lives of all in the community is conceivably a reasonable decision.

The problem with the Opposition basing their claim for re-election solely on criticism of the current government is it doesn’t give anyone but the rusted-on supporter any reason to vote for them at the next opportunity. Oppositions have a duty to criticise decisions where a government is not treating people equally but they also have a duty to have a discussion with the electors on what they would bring to the table should the electors trust them with a chance at government. Bringing negativity (and that’s about all) to every conversation not only shows an Opposition bereft of policies for improving our community, but seriously dilutes the message when the Albanese Government really does deserve to be told ‘that’s not good enough’.

If the sound from your TV stops one day, you logical first step is to check a couple of other stations to see if the TV station is having a problem. When they are all showing silent pictures as well, you’ll probably turn the TV off, go to the computer and check prices of a replacement TV. Once you have sufficiently recovered your breath from the price of a new TV with all the bells, whistles and acronyms that are apparently essential in 2023, you’ll probably go and turn on your existing one again and voila – the sound works … for about half an hour or so. By this point most of us will have decided that the TV is past it’s use by date and reluctantly make time to visit the local electrical stores to get bamboozled by ‘must have’ pseudo-technical features you’ll probably never use. The alternative is to turn the TV on, watch it until the sound goes off, turn it off, then go back to it after a while when the sound goes back on.

Repetitively turning the TV on and off is treating the symptom, buying a new TV is addressing the root cause of the problem. Sadly, addressing the root cause in this case costs you more but is certainly less frustrating in the long run (and you can be confident you can see the unveiling of the criminal in Midsomer Murders while wondering who on earth would deliberately move to a small town where murder appeared to be a regular occurrence).

If you use your favourite search engine to give you references to ‘root cause analysis’, you’ll find page after page of results. The Wikipedia entry suggests:

RCA can be decomposed into four steps:

• Identify and describe the problem clearly
• Establish a timeline from the normal situation until the problem occurs
• Distinguish between the root cause and other causal factors (e.g., using event correlation)
• Establish a causal graph between the root cause and the problem.

RCA generally serves as input to a remediation process whereby corrective actions are taken to prevent the problem from recurring. The name of this process varies from one application domain to another. According to ISO/IEC 31010, RCA may include the techniques Five whys, Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA), Fault tree analysis, Ishikawa diagram, and Pareto analysis.

A number of restrictions on members of the Alice Springs community have been re-introduced as a result of an apparent crime wave in the six months since alcohol and movement bans were removed. In reality it demonstrates that no one correctly thought through the reasons the bans were required in the first place – or correctly implemented real and genuine improvement in people’s lives in the fifteen years since the Howard Coalition Government mounted its ‘intervention’ operation. In other words, even though the claim is the bans worked they really treated the symptom rather than the root cause of the problem.

Various states, including Queensland, have announced a ‘get tough on crime’ approach in recent times and it’s true that those that commit the crimes need to be identified and convinced there is a ‘better way’. However, it’s unlikely that throwing them in jail is a successful solution. The ‘get tough on crime’ approach is red meat to those that want to see results now – and that’s it. It is treating the symptom rather than the root cause. Putting more people in jail seems to only increase the need for jail cells and corrections officers.

The root cause analysis would have to consider why do people commit crime. Anecdotal commentary seems to suggest that a lot of crime is due to people feeling socially excluded and possibly unemployed, making it hard to find the money to ‘make ends meet’. They are sent to the fringes of our society, both physically and mentally with conservatives inflicting systems such as ‘income management’ and making ridiculous statements about ‘lifters and leaners’ or ‘dole bludgers’ because ‘they can’t look after themselves’, further isolating the victims from society. Some understandably do purchase legal and illegal drugs to temporarily forget the real problem, a lot of people don’t. All these actions are society demonstrating again the failure to address the root cause of the problem.

Addressing the root cause doesn’t necessarily produce the instant result such as the TV news tonight showing people being taken away to ‘assist Police with their enquiries’. It does over time reduce the demand for jail cells and the associated infrastructure. A recent study on transport provision, reported in The Guardian demonstrates that reasonably cheap and easy to implement solutions can make a large difference to employment and social inclusion. The study supports running buses at higher frequencies in ‘underprivileged’ suburbs:

Transport planners have long considered the connection between mobility and social inclusion. They rely on a formula that calculates the monetary value to society of public transit trips based on an individual’s household income, employment status, social support, participation in community such as library or sports events and political activity.

The new research bolsters that formula by adding a measure for neighbourhoods – and how at-risk residents are of social exclusion – based on data including: the proportion of residents aged 15 or older without a university or school education or English skills; one-parent families; households without a car; and the number of people employed as labourers, machinery operators or service workers.

People who are socially excluded commonly have a higher risk of being unemployed, having poorer mental and physical health, being less socially connected and some will be more likely to engage in crime and substance abuse – which has consequential costs for the wider economy, the paper said.

The study suggests that in large metro areas, if the bus transports 8 people a hour it is worth the cost and the bus only needs to transport 6 people per hour in smaller regional communities for the same benefits.

Pity our conservative governments will look at the seemingly empty buses running around and claim it’s a waste of money. Apparently a ‘Police Task Force’ or a newer, bigger jail isn’t.