By Denis Bright

The mobilization by Australia’s womenfolk on Monday 15 March was a real turning point in Australian social history.

SBS and other news services captured the significance of the March4Justice event on the lawns outside Parliament House (15 March 2021):

One month ago, Brittany Higgins broke years of silence to announce her alleged rape inside Australia’s halls of power.

On Monday, she bravely returned to the lawns of Parliament House to address the thousands who attended the Women’s March4Justice rally in Canberra.

The former Liberal Party staffer was not expected to speak at the rally, but she says she did so out of “necessity” and in the hopes of protecting other women from sexual violence.

“We are all here today not because we want to be here, but because we have to be here,” Ms Higgins said.

“We fundamentally recognise the system is broken, the glass ceiling is still in place, and there are significant failings in the power structures within our institutions.

“We are here because it is unfathomable that we are still having to fight this same stale, tired fight.”

 

Brittany Higgins

Cut-off from the wider world by travel restrictions associated with COVID-19, Australia’s womenfolk and wider sections of the progressive movement are welcoming a new spirit of dreaming. Life in a vast country that is Girt by Seas can be better and more inclusive without the contamination of colonial myths about the place of women in society. The real historical factors of the role of women in colonial society are beyond dispute.

Women of course raised the children of Colonial Australia on both sides of the divide between indigenous and immigrant society.

Less than forty years after Ipswich in Queensland had ceased to be a convict settlement, riverboats brought freight from Brisbane and returned with wool and other supplies from rural districts.

Families tuned into the ambience of a sunny climate with the occasional interruptions of disastrous floods like the two epic 1893 floods.

Surprisingly, Ipswich as part of the federal electorate of Moreton, elected an Independent Labor member to the first two parliaments in far-off Melbourne in 1901 and 1903.

A spirit of political innovation saw women’s suffrage extended to an Australian national election in 1903.

During the Great War (1914-18), the women’s vote contributed to the defeat of conscription for overseas military service in the referenda of 1916-17.

However, the excesses of colonial conservatism re-surfaced in the post-war reconstruction as the financial burdens of war became more apparent with re-enforcement from 15-20,000 deaths from the Spanish flu pandemic.

Popular magazines promoted a love of domesticity. Preoccupation with fashions and consumerism replaced just some of the social activism of the pre-1914 era.

Gossip about developments in the royal family added to the alienation from evolving social realities in the very socially divided Australia of the 1920s.

When this domestic bliss was punctured by the Pacific War, the late Sir Robert Menzies opened the prospects of a return to the leadership of those middle class Forgotten People in his broadcasts on the Macquarie Radio Network which commenced in 1942.

With Queen Elizabeth on the throne of the British Commonwealth from 1952, Menzies would encourage involvement in Australian politics by women with the support of conservative women’s networks.

The late Dame Enid Lyons (1897-1981) (widow of Prime Minister Joe Lyons) became the federal member for the NW Tasmanian seat of Darwin (1943-51). She was the first woman to be elected to the Australian parliament but had strong reservations about the leadership style of Robert Menzies.

The Labor Party was slow to endorse women to winnable seats. It was a groundswell from women activists who fostered a change in direction. Joan Child (1921-2013) entered federal parliament after her husband’s death and held the position of House Speaker (1986-89) in the Hawke years.

Had the Labor Party acted earlier to endorse women to winnable seats, Gough Whitlam’s government may have enjoyed greater longevity with better senate results to permit the smooth passage of progressive legislation to avoid The Dismissal Saga on 11 November 1975.

Winning the seat of Henty in Melbourne was not an easy task for Joan Child, even in 1972. Her seat was lost to the LNP in 1975 but reclaimed successfully in 1980.

While women battled for pre-selection and positions of political influence in government, the structures of mainstream mass culture often promoted misogyny under the banner of personal liberation from the old shackles of domesticity.

In her short term as prime minister in a minority government (2010-13), Julia Gillard brought a permanent challenge to the gender divide which has continued to grow since her departure from formal national politics (Image and Quote from Curve, July 27, 2019):

Julia Gillard talks to politician and former Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Tanya Plibersek

Australia has regressed back into a bygone era under two of the three LNP prime ministers since 2013.

The excuse of being too busy in the office to meet the assembled crowds at the March4Justice in Canberra by Scott Morrison and senior ministers was a fatal political mistake which will be remembered for generations ahead across the sexual divide in Australian society. The March4Justice was a successful turning point in Australia’s social history. It approached like an unexpected political storm and is far too strong to be resisted as in 2013 when Australian society regressed against its true historical character.

By Ad astra

Writing in The New Daily, it was Dennis Atkins who drew our attention to the notion that we had a ‘transactional’ Prime Minister. He recounted an exchange between Nick Xenophon and the PM when Xenophon asked him if he’d like to catch up for a coffee to have a chat about issues, to which Morrison responded: ‘What for?’ ‘No, mate. I’m purely transactional.’ It was Morrison’s way of saying: “What’s in it for me?’. Reflect on that and then ask yourself how often he behaves in this self-seeking way.

The word ‘transactional’ evokes memories of the heady days when so-called ‘transactional analysis’ (TA) was in vogue. It was used to give insight into behaviour at many levels of society: in the corporate world, in business, in education, in law enforcement, indeed in almost any aspect of human interaction. It was applied in schools, in organisations, in community and sporting groups, in prisons, even in the home. It was all the go. Older readers will remember Erik Berne’s books Games People Play and What do you say after you say hello? as well as his more formal book: Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy.

This is what Wikipedia has to say about transactional analysis:

Transactional analysis (TA) is a psychoanalytic theory and method of therapy developed by Eric Berne in the late 1950s wherein social transactions are analysed to determine the ego state of the communicator (whether parent-like, childlike, or adult-like) as a basis for understanding behaviour. In transactional analysis, the communicator is taught to alter the ego state as a way to solve emotional problems. The method deviates from Freudian psychoanalysis which focuses on increasing awareness of the contents of subconsciously held ideas.

As Berne set up his psychology, there are four life positions that a person can hold. Holding a particular psychological position has profound implications for how an individual regards his or her life. The positions are stated as: I’m OK and you’re OK. This is the healthiest position about life and it means that you feel good about yourself and that you feel good about others and their competence. I’m OK and you’re not OK. In this position you feel good about yourself but see others as damaged. It’s usually unhealthy. I’m not OK and you’re OK. In this position you sees yourself as the weak partner in relationships as the others in your life are definitely better than yourself. If you hold this position you will unconsciously accept abuse as OK. I’m not OK and you are not OK. This is the worst position to be in as it means that you believe that you are in a terrible state and the rest of the world is as bad. Consequently, there is no hope for any support.

Reflect on how our PM handles those positions. The first ‘I’m OK and you are OK’, reminds us of how he dealt with maverick Craig Kelly, telling us that despite all Kelly’s bizarre, indeed dangerous ideas and crazy behaviour in the media and on his social media platform: ”He’s doing a great job in Hughes”. Hardly a ‘healthy’ position to take! Subsequent ‘dressings down’ were no more than a sop to an enraged media and electorate, which was appalled by Kelly’s behaviour.

The second, ‘I’m OK and you’re not OK’ is the position he takes repeatedly with members of the Opposition, or indeed with anyone with whom he disagrees.

The third, ‘I’m not Ok and you’re OK’ is not a Morrison position.

The fourth, ‘I’m not OK and you’re not OK’ is another position he never takes.

How does our ‘transactional’ PM rate in your estimation? Is he simply applying the self-serving ‘What’s in it for me’ principle?

Let’s take a few instances. Why did he decline to condemn Donald Trump for the part he played in the raid on the US Capitol? To keep in good relations with him should he ever need him again?

Why did he take so long to ‘dress down’ the stupid Kelly? To placate the hard right core of his team – Kelly’s mates? The people of Hughes were so unimpressed with their man that they would replace him in a flash, and probably will when preselection next arises. Morrison judged their opinions less useful to him.

Why does Morrison repeatedly decline to set a target for emissions reduction? To avoid a savage reaction from his coal-hugging mates and the fossil fuel industry, his solid support base? That’s what in it for him!

Why does he smugly dismiss (complete with smirk) any questions during press conferences that reflect on his judgement? To avoid any hint of uncertainty or indecision? To always look firmly in control? That’s what in it for him!

Why does he defend his Attorney General so vehemently, refusing to stand him down to at least partly defuse the explosive rumours enveloping him? To avoid any question of weakness? Or to don the mantle of loyalty? Is that what’s in it for him?

Why does he so vehemently assail the Opposition during Question Time? To enable him to wear the mantle of the ‘strong man’, the ‘smart man’, the one who always has a cutting response that his members and supporters will applaud? That’s what in it for our transactional PM!

Taking the transactional approach – What’s in it for me? – is Morrison’s preferred modus operandi. It suits him and his backers.

But wouldn’t we all like to know: ‘What’s in it for the rest of us?

By Denis Bright

As it is my 75^h birthday on 13 March 2021 – today – I will take this opportunity to remind readers of the positive reasons for my commitment to articles for The AIM Network.

Although my articles for The AIM Network cover a range of topics, they are often linked to one or more of these mega-themes:

• support for responsible democratic activism and inclusiveness
• commitment to peace, disarmament and human rights as foundations for strategic policy
• commitment to the sustainable social market within contemporary globalization

Let me illustrate how these commitments positively affect my writing within the MEAA’s ethical code and commitment to Fair Comment.

Commitment to Responsible Democratic Activism

Journalism should always have an activist component. Apologists for eyewitness news service as a mechanism for neutral coverage of the day’s events overlook the extent to which the news agenda is a planned promotional event. Staged events showing leaders making pasta derivatives at the opening of an apprentice policy launch are hardly newsworthy. However, they are soft news items which foster loyalty to the federal LNP and improve audience ratings.

Australians would be more open to alternative critical journalism over news communications from media releases. Lots of fellow Australians are rightly turned off from involvement in formal politics by the largely rhetorical nature of mainstream political debate with its emphasis on point scoring over a quest for real solutions.

Having worked in political positions almost continuously since graduation, our political insiders should be aware of Labor values as eloquently expressed by Labor’s Victorian Branch:

Some elements of royal privilege have permeated the mindset of political insiders and minders who could easily be at home in the House of Windsor. Even the right of members to express informed opinions are questioned in the Yes Minister traditions.

As a financial member of the MEAA, I should be protected against such excesses in defence of the right to fair comment which was enshrined as a journalistic right even in colonial times before 1901.

Non-members of the MEAA of course enjoy common law rights to free expression. There should be few concerns about the right to social communication when every point in my articles is well sourced. I often use block-quotes to promote discussion on issues which require specialist knowledge.

This right to fair comment is embedded in common law which was restated in colonial defamation acts such as Queensland’s Defamation Act 1889.

A block quote from the Defamation Act 1889 would be a tedious exercise. Interested readers should check s.13-14 of this colonial legislation. This legislation was enacted in a still very conservative era of Queensland colonial politics when strong personalities competed for electoral support from a male only constituency long before the extended periods of Labor Governments in Queensland (1915-57) with the exception of that single term of the Moore Government (1929-32) under the banner of the Country and Progressive National Party.

From commitment to inclusive democratic activism, this article will move onto the other two mega-themes.

Commitment to Peace and Disarmament in Accordance with the UN Charter

While global freight moves at a slower pace during current COVID restrictions, Australia is more seriously affected by a curtailment of service trade including tourism, international student enrolments and all forms of travel. Added to these shocks, are the current trading, investment restrictions and strategic problems between Australia and China.

Australians are being asked to make more commitment to the US Global Alliance through continued support for Freedom of Navigation exercises in the South China Sea when China’s goodwill could be tested without undermining traditional strategic goals. Ironically, the US superpower has not yet signed the UN’s Law of the Sea conventions (1982) which was implemented from 1994.

With the US in domestic crisis, a proactive ally like Australia will hopefully press for diplomacy over more strategic tensions as noted in New York Times coverage of the two-hour telephone conversation between Joe Biden and Xi Jinping:

In a summary of the call, the White House said that Mr. Biden “underscored his fundamental concerns about Beijing’s coercive and unfair economic practices, crackdown in Hong Kong, human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and increasingly assertive actions in the region, including toward Taiwan.”

But the leaders also discussed “the shared challenges of global health security, climate change and preventing weapons proliferation,” according to the summary.

According to the official Chinese account of the two leaders’ call, issued by Xinhua, Mr. Xi cautioned Mr. Biden that the two powers had to cooperate or risk calamity, and gave no sign of giving ground on Xinjiang (NW China), Hong Kong or Taiwan.

Contrast such possibilities with gung-ho press statements by US military leaders who are stoking up tensions in the Taiwan Straits in the traditions of the old Cold War era (US Defense News, 5 March 2021):

A Taiwanese Air Force F-16, in foreground, flies on the flank of a Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force H-6 bomber as it passes near Taiwan on Feb. 10, 2020. (Taiwanese Ministry of National Defense via AP)

WASHINGTON – The United States should provide “consistent arms sales” to Taiwan to deter Chinese aggression in the Pacific region, the head of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said Thursday.

“And I would say, you know, for the greater U.S. government – consistent arms sales to Taiwan to help in this deterrence strategy is critically important. And again, that takes a balance to capabilities to go to them,” he added.

Davidson’s comments come amid a tour of Washington to make the case for funding the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, for which his command is seeking $4.6 billion in fiscal 2022, and $27 billion through 2027, to build up capabilities in the command’s area of responsibility. Part of that funding involves reinforcing ties between the U.S. and its partners and allies in the Asia-Pacific region.

For military planners, Taiwan remains a potential flashpoint in the region, with U.S. intelligence analysts saying in 2019 that the Chinese military is getting closer to the point it may feel it can successfully invade Taiwan. Both the U.S. and China have stepped up activity around Taiwan in recent months, with Davidson expressing concern about recent activities from China.

Surely, the disputed Island of Kinmen, now occupied by Taiwan, could be a shared picnic area for people on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. It currently lies within in sight of the Chinese city of Xiamin but is off-limits to Chinese citizens.

Map Image of Kinmen: National Parks of Taiwan

Every billion dollars spent on military manoeuvres or non-essential purchases of military equipment, detract from commitments to reduce the social and economic divide in Australian society.

Many of my articles also address this social divide in Australia. Pragmatic policies can make market ideology more inclusive in an era of rampant and legalized tax avoidance which the current LNP persists in fostering.

Stoking up a return to old style market ideology is no exercise in long-term political stability on both international strategic and domestic fronts in Australia.

One of my previous articles addressed the economic and social divide between Riverview in Ipswich and Moggill in the Ryan electorate. Excessive tax concessions to wealthier families and opportunities for legalized tax avoidance have contributed to problems with delivery from the federal government.

Bill Shorten offered an alternative to such delays in his 2019 policy launch but it was rejected by the electorate with a net loss of one Labor seat in the House of Representatives and some big swings to the federal LNP in Queensland where Labor currently only six of the available thirty federal seats.

How did the political and social divide on the Riverview-Moggill Straits along the Brisbane River in Metro West respond to Bill Shorten’s legitimate appeal for a change of heart?

Alternative Commitments to the Sustainable Social Market Within Contemporary Globalization

Image: QT 16 June 2016 of the Unbridged Social Divide Between the Blair and Oxley Federal Electorates at Riverview in Ipswich

Although Ipswich, as part a sprawling Moreton electorate, elected an Independent Labor Member to the first two Australian parliaments in Melbourne in 1901 and 1903, interest and involvement in social democratic movements has not been maintained in very recent federal elections. Falling rates of trade union membership outside key unionized sectors should be a cause of real concern to the future of the broader Labor movement.

Steering Traction for Social Democracy

While the Labor Party was comfortably ahead in Riverview at the 2019 national elections, there was a strong indirect swing to the LNP through preferences from One Nation (21 per cent primary vote) and the disciplined preference flows from the UAP and Fraser Anning’s Conservative National Party.

On the more comfortable side of the Brisbane River at Moggill in adjoining the Ryan electorate, Labor performed relatively better.

The irony of the whole exercise was a small swing to the Left (2.85 per cent after preferences) in the traditional LNP seat of Ryan but a 6.93 per cent swing against Labor in Blair on the other side of the social divide.

Ryan and Leichhardt in North Queensland were the only federal seats where Labor slightly increased its primary vote. In the case of Ryan, the LNP primary vote was down by 3.51 per cent. This was the fourth largest reversal in the LNP’s primary vote across Queensland in 2019 (after Moncrieff -6.84 per cent, Kennedy -5.11 per cent and McPherson -5.05 per cent).

Beyond Political and Social Divides

Despite the recent regressions in Australian political life over insider bullying and support from saber-rattling by joint US-Australian naval convoys on so called freedom of navigation jaunts, most Australians are still quite detached from involvement in formal politics. For many, a quick scan of news coverage on mobile phones as a substitute for real involvement in public affairs with an occasional glance at an eyewitness television news programmes if the coverage offered is entertaining enough.

The major challenge facing Labor in 2022 is the need to draw back some of those protest votes from both the left and right. Adding more players to the Labor team is a logical imperative. The ghosts of those Cold War era splits in Labor’s support base from that 1955 national conference in Hobart still lurk behind the scenes in Australian federal politics.

Readers might check the policy agenda being offered and offer their own feedback as welcomed on the Labor Special Conference site (Image: Labor Special Conference Platform).

Labor is planning to fine tune its policy frames with a special platform conference of four hundred delegates in late March 2021 and involvement from across the Labor Movement to develop an appealing change agenda.

Even if your perspectives lie to the left or right of the Special Conference Platform, why not take a glance at the policy platforms on the site and submit your comments to your nearest local Labor federal member and senators.

With communication links still affected by the current global COVID-crisis, critical journalism can assist in reporting on developments across the three mega-themes which are a recurring feature of my own articles.

By 2353NM

Former Prime Minister and Donald Trump wannabe Tony Abbott bobbed up again in the media recently. Apparently our world class response to COVID-19, driven by the Premiers and Chief Ministers was a hysterical reaction driven by health despots. Abbott, now a ‘distinguished fellow’ (their words, not mine) of the conservative ‘think tank’ the Institute of Public Affairs used his announcement of employment to promote his beliefs that would, in his view, save the Australian way of life.

The Australian Communications and Media Authority recently forced Sky News ‘to publish a correction to an ‘editorial’ by their ‘personality’ Alan Jones where he claimed that the Victorian Government severe lockdown in the middle of 2020 to snuff out the community transmission of COVID-19 was excessive

“I thought a pandemic was a disease which was prevalent over a whole country or the world,” Mr Jones said.

“I think that spells four words; catastrophic state government failure.”

“We have never seen this incompetence in the history of Australian government.”

The three-paragraph clarification of Jones remarks have been added to the editorial on Skynews’ website, although the original statements remain online. It advises that Jones’ claim of a report proving that masks and lockdowns were ineffective were wrong as he misrepresented the evidence presented in the source journals.

It’s not the first time Abbott, Jones or any other politician or media ‘personality’ has attempted to fire up public indignation by skewing the evidence presented. In the same editorial

I’d suggest [Andrews is] fighting a virus with the wrong response,” Jones said. “Listening to the wrong experts and trashing everything in our wake.

Notwithstanding the obvious – extremely sick or dying people aren’t usually out and about spending money in the community – Abbott and Jones are, in the words of Monty Python, pining for the fjords of a land when the establishment had all the power and, when asked to jump, the minions (that’s the rest of us) asked ‘how high’?

Things aren’t going well for the establishment. Apart from pesky laws requiring equality between all people, questioning of the establishment’s authority, the images of American insurgents storming the US Capitol seemingly at the request of the US President and the demonstration that alternatives to fossil fuels are capable of equal or better performance and economics, it seems that the establishment finance system is also now under attack.

One of the tools in the Investment Bankers shed is the art of ‘short selling’

Here’s how it works. Essentially, you sell before you buy, and like any trade, you hope to sell at a higher price than your purchase price. It’s just the timing is reversed. To do so, they have to borrow or rent the shares from someone, usually a big insurance company or investment fund.

That makes it a risky trade. Because unlike a purchase, you can’t just sit on your investment indefinitely. You have to hand those rented shares back.

Let’s say that our Investment Banker (let’s call him Jonathan) has sold 1 million Widgets Pty Ltd shares Jonathan’s firm don’t own at $10 each. As it usually takes 2 days to transfer the ownership of a share, Jonathan has to rent or borrow 1 million shares in Widgets Pty Ltd at a price under $9 a share – so costs such as his salary, office space and so on can be covered.

However Jonathan would have a problem if he couldn’t find enough shares to ‘borrow’ at a lower price than his sale price. As he has contracted to deliver 1 million shares to a purchaser for $10 a share, if he couldn’t find the shares available at a lower price, he would have to pay whatever it took to purchase the required shares to fulfil his contract. This could cost serious money.

In January, a group of people on the ‘Wall Street Bets’ subgroup on Internet site Reddit gamed the system. They found a computer game shop in the USA called GameStop which was publicly listed (you could buy shares in the company) and poorly regarded by the Investment Banking community. As reported in The New Daily

The simplest explanation for what happened is that a bunch of hyper-online mischief-makers in Reddit’s WallStreetBets forum – a clan of self-described degenerates with user names like “dumbledoreRothIRA” and “Coldcutcombo69” – decided it would be funny and righteous (and maybe even profitable, though that part was less important) to execute a “short squeeze” by pushing up the price of GameStop’s stock, entrapping the big-money hedge funds that had bet against it.

The strategy worked. Within two days, GameStop was the most heavily traded stock in the world; Elon Musk and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got behind the revolt; and WallStreetBets users were posting screenshots of their suddenly inflated account balances.

The scheme’s originator, whose Reddit user name is unprintable, claims to have turned an initial investment of $US50,000 into a windfall of more than $40 million. One of the hedge funds that had shorted GameStop’s stock, Melvin Capital, had to get a $2.75 billion bailout from two other investors after it was hammered with huge losses.

By early February, Gamestop’s share price, which reached $483 in January had sunk back to $90 and the similarly fuelled rally on silver had run out of steam as well. As the author of the article in The New Daily observes

While watching the GameStop drama, I’ve been reflecting on what author Martin Gurri calls “the revolt of the public.” Gurri writes that the internet has empowered ordinary citizens by giving them new information and tools, which they then use to discover the flaws in the systems and institutions that govern their lives. Once they’ve discovered these shortcomings, he writes, these citizens often rebel, tearing down elites and dominant institutions out of anger at having been lied to and withheld from.

Which is where the likes of Abbott, the IPA and Skynews need to be careful. Their audience is the establishment and a lot of it is either ageing or responsive to counter argument by others. Considerable numbers of the ‘minions’ are coming to an understanding they also have power and can exercise control, should they choose to mobilise it. While the Reddit subgroup members didn’t win in the end – as the ‘market establishment’ enforced new rules to ensure a ‘short squeeze’ doesn’t happen again, the ‘proof of concept’ is out there that there are ways to manipulate the financial system, even if you’re not part of the establishment.

Like a bushfire – all it takes is a spark that is given time to develop. The Abbotts and Jones’ of this world do need to worry as their control is slipping day by day.

What do you think?

By John Haly

Morrison announcement of “permanently increasing the rate of working-age payments by $50 a fortnight from 1 April 2021” received a lacklustre response. The Australian reporting about the lead-up to this said, “The base rate of JobSeeker is currently $570.80 a fortnight. But pressure has been mounting on the government to raise the rate with the $150 coronavirus supplement for welfare recipients ending in late March.”

Small bickies

The Australian Council of Social Service’s disappointed response reported that they would have preferred $25 extra a day rather than a week. The cheapest coffee I can buy around in my suburb is $4, an extra $3.57 a day is hardly enough. It has, although, lifted our unemployment allowance from 37.5% to 41.2% of the national minimum wage. That means we will no longer have the lowest level of unemployment benefits as a percentage of the average salary in the OECD. Fifty dollars lifts us above Greece to second-last place. Mind you, the original Covid Jobseeker supplement incrementally lifted the unemployed for the first time, above the Henderson Poverty Line.

Paying such low levels “under the false pretence of encouraging more unemployed Australians to look for jobs” has no evidentiary basis. The international market demonstrates it has the opposite effect. Higher unemployment payments internationally are more often correlated with lower unemployment rates. More money flowing into Jobseeker generates spending in the economy, and drives demand. The multiplier effect of which, our country in recession has shown it desperately needs to boost the economy.

Australian Welfare no longer in last place.

Training?

Despite the Coalition undercutting higher education, Michaelia Cash supported the idea that after six months on Job Seeker, recipients undergo training to help them get a job. Department of Employment figures show the smallest job market in January were the unskilled labourers (8.1%), Sales Workers (7.7%), Machinery Operators and Drivers (5.9%). This collection of low skilled jobs (37,975) are in rare supply in the Australian economy. Therefore, any Jobseeker training to elevate them to the skill level needed to widen their prospects would require extensive TAFE/University level education; well beyond “approved intensive short courses.“

Job vacancy classification breakdown

Dob ’em in

These were not the only changes Morrison implemented to job welfare. That Australian article also reported, “Under a raft of welfare reforms, Employment Minister Michaelia Cash said employers would be able to dob in unemployed Aussies who don’t take up jobs they are offered.” A move even Business groups denounced, let alone the welfare groups and unions. Social media references to “Dob a bludger!” accompanied curiosity as to the probability of emerging hotlines for “Dob in a wage thief” for businesses that were “accidentally underpaying workers“. Further suggestions provided ideas to establish hotlines for dob in a rorter, silencer of whistleblowers, white supremacist and sexual predators. It is tantamount to licensing abuse and employee exploitation which already occurs in industries like farming, retail and service.

Michaelia Cash's “Dob a bludger!” hotline is a license for employers to misuse & exploit vulnerable unemployed people during a recession. It will be rife with questionable subterfuges for unscrupulous employers do demand unethical acquiescences to their whims & advances. #auspol https://t.co/aRiqeFAX0x

— 🦉🤝🌍 Johnboy Halyucinations (@Halyucinations) March 5, 2021

Get off the couch!

The prevalent attitude towards the unemployed by politicians suggests that the unemployed are dominantly lazy, and distracted by Netflix as Nationals leader Michael McCormack claimed, or on drugs as our currently on leave, Attorney-General Christian Porter claimed when Social Services Minister. Several Federal ministers like David Littleproud MP, Senator Michaelia Cash, Senator Gerard Rennick, and Colin Boyce MP attacked the unemployed demanding they “get off the couch”, and get farmhand jobs that Australians discovered were not available. Others would suggest this patronising attack on people who, because of a recession and the pandemic, are without work, is merely targeting “low hanging fruit“. These Federal Ministers all would have us believe jobs are plentiful.

They are not alone in spouting propaganda that jobs are readily available. Minister for Families and Social Services Anne Ruston, in a Triple J Hack interview with Avani Dias on the 23rd of February, repeated the fallacious claim. That there are “plenty of jobs” in her region. This was demonstrably wrong. Based in Renmark, her territory in the Murray had 8,364 people on Jobsearch in Jan 2021 but only 626 job vacancies (13 times less than the people looking for work). That ratio is better than the national average (approx 18x), so perhaps she might have had something to boast about if she had only bothered to tell the truth.

Job Vacancies in Murray District, SA

Unemployed in Murray District, SA

Anne Ruston's region of Renmark in the Murray had 8,364 people on Jobsearch in Jan 2021 but only 626 job vacancies which is 13 times less than the people looking for work in her electorate.
I suspect getting a job in your region is not something easily done, Anne.#auspol #jobs https://t.co/LoPxvq8NoS pic.twitter.com/cuOToGgoot

— 🦉🤝🌍 Johnboy Halyucinations (@Halyucinations) March 3, 2021

What jobs?

It isn’t easy to be finding a job in our economy, as reflected by any measure or methodology:

– jobs claimed by ABS (254,400 jobs), Dept of Employment (175,100 jobs), Seek (182793 jobs);

verses

– the unemployed registered by Jobseeker (1.236M people), ABS (877,600 people) or Roy Morgan (1.68M people). [All Stats currently published as of the end of Feb 2021 for January 2021]

These measures demonstrate that irrespective of what stats you accept, there are far more unemployed than available jobs. Beyond understanding the basics of how unemployment is measured, it is crucial to understand what some methodologies do not appraise.

The difference between ABS and Roy Morgan’s stats are considerable, and while the government and Main-Stream Media lean heavily on the ABS measure, we should appreciate what it represents. I have for a long time explained the ABS’s shortcomings from its

• exclusions of anyone doing any work in a month,
• exclusions for unpaid work in a family business,
• exclusions of foreign workers through 12/16 rule,
• hiding the increasing gig / part-time economy,
• exclusions of persons unable to take up immediate work,
• hiding unemployment via the government PaTH program.

Statistical variations of Unemployment reported.

Subsets

These exclusions mean that what the ABS measures is not our internal domestic unemployment, but a subset of the numbers of unemployed for reasons of international comparison. A long-time economic analyser of ABS statistics, Alan Austin, expressed similar conclusions, to that of my recent article on this subject.

To be clear, ABS measures a subset of our internal unemployment, as are JobSeeker numbers. The disparity between them illustrated in the variations graph depicts the entire period over which Job Seeker has existed. ABS’s subset, guided by the ILO methodology, facilitates international comparison, but does not measure any country’s national unemployment numbers. These stand in stark contrast to Murdoch and Nine Media’s claims that unemployment is a single whole digit percentage rate. Roy Morgan reveals unemployment hasn’t been under 10% since February 2020, and neither has under and unemployment been under 20%.

Under and Unemployment vs Job Vacancies

So ABS’s claimed 877,600 unemployment numbers are a subset of the domestic reality. Similarly, ABS claimed a 2.08 million subset of under and unemployed. Alan Austin and I are in enthusiastic agreement that “It might be time for the unemployment rate published by Australia’s Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to be put out to pasture.” Alan continued affirming “the steam engine that is Roy Morgan’s real unemployment rate”. Roy Morgan shows in January 2021, unemployment is 1.68 million people, and adding underemployment reaches 3.118 million souls looking for a decent job. The Department of Employment’s IVI job vacancy report for January reveals that over three million people in Australia are competing for 175,100 jobs. Nearly 18 people for every job advertised, and we are not even beginning to deal with the logistic issues of job searching.

Location, location, location

Beyond Australia’s 19 cities, over 100K population, there are 1700 towns with populations between that and a thousand people. Spreading 175,100 jobs across a continent representing 5% of the earth’s landmass, when the towns are dominantly coastal, represents the first challenge to job seekers. An “off the back of an envelope” averaging for any given town/city would tell you that more than 100 jobs in a given population centre mean you are probably living in a city. Which might mean less than ten jobs advertised in that region will be for unskilled labour (8.1%). That’s not a nuanced presumption, as industry and commercial activity vary considerably from place to place, and I’ve given no consideration to rural areas. Still, one might understand that job locality has to be one of the most considerable obstacles for the unemployed.

The government’s expectation announced on the 23rd of February is “job seekers will be required to search for a minimum of 15 jobs a month from early April, increasing to 20 jobs per month from the 1st of July”. Purely considering the subset of the unemployed on Jobseeker (1.236M people) generating 15 applications per month creates 18 million letters and has the potential to cover every advertised job in Australia 105 times until July, when it will be 141 times. Given the likelihood of the number of jobs existing in your city or town as aforementioned, just how long will it take any given unemployed person to run out local employers?

Limitations to employment are locality and factors such as job requirements for education and/or skills, competition for work, financial limitations/burdens, physical/mental impediments, security clearances, pay awards not commensurate with needs and employment discrimination and/or exploitation.

Nobody in the coalition government is prepared to concede they are failing the unemployed. The party of “Jobs and Growth” has in reality been expanding “Unemployment and Recession” for years and no policy the government has implemented in Morrison’s $9B Social Security Safety Net seems capable of changing that path.

By Brian Morris

Politics and religion have enjoyed a symbiotic relationship since Christianity became the Church of Rome in the 4th century. The legacy continues with impending legislation.

Power does have a tendency to corrupt and – in the hands of many political and religious leaders (over many centuries) – all evidence points to the fact that too much power can indeed corrupt absolutely!

Throughout 2021 there will be an increasing sense of irony as politics and religion come under greater scrutiny. Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, has begun her inquiry into the toxic workplace culture in federal parliament. Allegations of rape and sexual harassment have finally come to a head, together with a side issue of historical rape alleged against Attorney General Christian Porter.

Central to this political quagmire is the “elite privilege” enjoyed by parliamentarians, especially ministers, to “hire and fire” at will – with no questions asked, or answered – according to ABC’s March 7th Insiders program.

It’s therefore ironic that Christian Porter is the architect of a Bill – soon to be introduced into parliament – that will provide bonus “privileges” to all religious institutions. The new law will give more power to hire and fire any employee, based on their religion and compliance with the religious “ethos” of that institution.

While Canberra is dragged kicking and screaming to confront its chauvinistic internal culture, it also appears that religious institutions have learnt little from recommendations of the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse. Their hubris comes from centuries of enshrined power to control believers and influence social policy.

Christian Porter’s ‘Religious Discrimination Bill’ is a prescriptive devise which panders to a religious culture that is socially divisive. It is based on a logical fallacy that all religions have been deprived of their “religious freedom” – a claim roundly repudiated by Phillip Ruddock’s original Religious Freedom Review. Attorney General Porter has cherry-picked that review to concoct a ‘Religious Discrimination’ law that is blatantly anti-secular.

What is the imperative for Catholic schools to only hire a maths teacher steeped in the ethos of Catholicism? Equally, why is it essential that an Islamic institution hires only a Muslim gardener, or a Jewish chemist is able to discriminate against female customers, based on his own narrow religious beliefs?

Our federal government administers a workplace culture that remains gender divisive, with a predominance of cabinet ministers who are strongly religious – and a number who openly proclaim their faith; most notably Scott Morrison who flaunts his Pentecostalism. But a growing concern is with Christian lobbies who now actively recruit candidates to stack federal and state parliaments with more Christian MPs.

Religion in Australia does not require additional privileges to exert greater religious power. The national census in August this year will again show a substantial increase in the ‘No Religion’ demographic – historically kept low in comparison with our cousins in New Zealand, UK and Scandinavia, due to our strongly Christianised parliaments and a misleading census question on ‘Religious Affiliation’.

Our constitution was originally framed as a ‘secular’ document but successive conservative governments, and a number of unfortunate High Court decisions, have led Church authorities to repeatedly claim (incorrectly) that Australia is a “Christian nation.” It is not.

Christianisation of education has steadily increased since Prime Minister Robert Menzies began eroding secular public schools in favour of government funding for Catholic education. Today, with clever marketing, 40 per cent of children attend taxpayer funded private religious schools – close to the highest rate among all OECD nations.

Christian Porter’s Religious Freedom Bill seeks to escalate religious privilege within the highly labour-intensive sectors of education, health and aged care. It is ironic that the toxic culture of parliament is about to pass more divisive legislation that will make religious-based health and education a “closed shop” for the faithful.

By Ad astra

Charade: an absurd pretence intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance.

We, the people, are the victims of such deliberate pretence by the political class.

Do any of you need convincing of this cruel reality?

If you do, reflect for a moment on the proceedings of Donald Trump’s so-called ‘impeachment trial’ in the Senate that was thrust at you every day on your TV screens. There you saw both sides of the ‘debate’ pretending that it was a serious attempt to ascertain the facts and reach a reasoned conclusion about whether Trump incited the riotous behaviour at the Capitol building on January 6 that we all saw in such graphic detail on our TV screens, and whether his words: ”Fight like hell or you won’t have a country” were simply rhetorical flourish, or whether they were calculated words of incitement?

Even a cursory glimpse at the Senate process exposed it as a charade, indeed the most cynical we are ever likely to witness during our lifetime! From the very beginning we knew what the outcome would be: Trump would be acquitted.

The February 10 issue of The New York Times spelt this out in an article that asserted: ”Donald Trump’s impeachment team is trying to rewrite the narrative of January 6, calling the charge against Trump ‘a monstrous lie’.” It went on: ”Trump’s team insisted that he never glorified violence during his presidency, and that he consistently called for peace as the rampage of the Capitol unfolded. By showing video clips of Democrats urging their supporters to ‘fight’ and Donald Trump venerating ‘law and order’ they sought to rewrite not just the narrative of Trump’s campaign to overturn the election, but also that of his entire presidency.” Charade writ large!

Of course, Trump is a supreme master of charade. Can you recall a more striking example than Trump’s insistence that despite the vote count that showed he had been convincingly defeated by Joe Biden in the recent Presidential election, he had actually won it in a landslide, and had been ‘robbed’ of his due only because there had been widespread corruption in multiple jurisdictions all across the US? If he really believed that, his deranged mental state could be the only plausible explanation.

When we hear China’s CPC feigning distress at Australia’s ‘dumping’ of our barley and wine on their markets, we know immediately that is yet another charade, Chinese style, that permits them to retaliate.

But we don’t need to look at the US for examples of charade.

When PM Morrison stands outside the parliament and repeatedly refuses to commit to a zero emissions target by 2050, because he can’t until he knows how to reach it, we all know that’s a charade.

When he insists that his office had nothing to do with Bridget McKenzie’s ‘sports-rort’, the evidence exposes that distortion of the truth as a charade.

When he pretends that the illegal attempts to retrieve so-called ‘over-payments’ by Centrelink were appropriate, he perpetrates another charade.

More recently, when asked to explain the actions of maverick Craig Kelly’s repeated spread of false health information on his web platform, our PM responded (complete with smirk) with: “He’s not your doctor, and he’s not mine”, and even more irrelevantly, “He’s doing a great job in Hughes”, you immediately recognise the cynical charade those words portray.

Still more recently, there was the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins in the office of Defence Minister’s Linda Reynolds, which evoked this response from Brittany: “It was the sight of the Prime Minister standing on a podium with Australian of the Year Grace Tame, a survivor of sexual assault that hardened my resolve to speak. I was sick to my stomach. He’s standing next to a woman who has campaigned for ‘Let her speak’ and yet in my mind his government was complicit in silencing me. It was a betrayal. It was a lie.”

This is charade writ large, and in a distressingly extreme form.

Of course, charade is universal. You’ve see Boris Johnson perpetrate charade after charade as he pretends he knows the solution to the UK’s escalating COVID-19 crisis, that worsens by the day. Many would call it simply BS! You’ve seen Vladimir Putin’s charades again and again.

Years ago, writing in The Hill, in an article titled: Change tack: Don’t embolden Putin to continue his charade, Mareh Sarif detailed the unsuccessful attempts of successive US Presidents to reach rapprochement with him. Master of charade, Putin outmanoeuvred his counterparts again and again. He had Trump on a string despite Trump’s bluster. We can envisage him smiling from the safety of the Kremlin at Trump’s egomaniacal ineptitude, stupidity and arrogance. Is there any doubt that Putin interfered with the recent Presidential election?

Do these examples convince you that politics is a charade? Do tell us of other instances.