The Government’s booklet and the entirety of its contents purporting to be a plan the Morrison government has adopted for a mid-century target of net zero emissions by 2050 has met with universal criticism.

After weeks of melodrama, the Coalition parties have adopted a plan hastily put together in a matter of days with all the swiftness of an African antelope.

There is much to be said about this agreement between the Liberals and the Nationals, and it is, in my view, a superb exercise in nothingness. Probably the worst in Australian political history is about the best I can do.

It seems to me to confirm that whilst our Prime Minister might believe that climate-heating is happening, he is sceptical about doing anything about it.

No coatings, no modelling, no legislation, nothing to even suggest they have done much work on the problem at all.

They couldn’t have given it much thought because we adopted these objectives five years ago when we signed the Paris Agreement.

When he arrives in Scotland, the prime minister won’t be greeted with handshakes of possibility but a kick up the arse for pursuing nothing.

Here is a selection of headlines from news outlets that capture our government’s hypocrisy (and idiocy) on climate change:

Mathias Cormann calls for carbon pricing to be coordinated across the world, the ABC.

Angus Taylor to promote fossil fuels at Glasgow Cop26 climate summit, The Guardian.

“Angus Taylor has declared he will use Cop26 to promote Australia as a good place to invest in fossil fuel projects in a provocative statement confirming he will attend the climate summit in Glasgow.”

For those of us who clean our glasses with ‘see it clearly’ and see what we are looking at through the lens of honesty, well, we are fascinated by the seemingly appalling lack of enthusiasm shown by the government. Conservatives must be asking why Tony Abbott led this country down the road of crap in the first place. It’s not easy being green.

What an embarrassment we are in the world’s eyes and what an absence of leadership we carry. What a shame we are to ourselves. How confused must be our electorate that we would place power in the hands of people with chastisement in their hearts, authority on their minds, and control in their doing, those who do little for democracy.

Control freaks usually cannot see beyond their own self-importance and are hostile to those who might threaten it.

Here are some more headlines – including some from overseas media outlets:

Australia will be the rich world’s weakest link at COP26 with hollow net-zero and emissions pledges, CNN.

The Washington Post raised the devastating bushfires of early 2020 and the urgent push for action against global warming that followed in their article, Australia pivots on climate with 2050 net zero target, but won’t adopt steeper 2030 commitment.

“It really is extraordinary that we could spend the best part of a year tracking towards Tuesday’s pre-Glasgow crescendo – and land with a “plan” that is actually the status quo with some new speculative graphs.

But that’s exactly where we are. After the Coalition’s disgraceful, destructive decade – measured substantively, looking at proposed actions, not slogans – the government is still running to stay still, without any obvious remorse, introspection, or regret.”

She went on to say:

“But if the Coalition were to change course radically, it would be tantamount to an admission that a party of government in this country has traded the national interest for a handful of regional Queensland seats for the best part of a decade.”

Internally many organisations were just as scathing, as reported in The Guardian:

“The Greenpeace Australia Pacific chief executive, David Ritter, said the Australian government’s commitment “will not stand up on the global stage”.

He said without an updated 2030 target that did more than just “repackage” state emission reduction targets, the government’s plan was “meaningless”.

Influential software billionaire and climate advocate Mike Cannon-Brookes slammed the plan as “just more bullsh*t”. He is, in my view, correct.

David Attenborough has “blasted the plan for lacking detail and failing to increase 2030 emissions reduction targets.”

British naturalist Sir David Attenborough warned world leaders it would be too late to tackle climate change if #COP26 does not succeed. He said the richer nations had a moral responsibility to act https://t.co/08DrMq2bs7 pic.twitter.com/0eUbPkJkbQ

— Reuters (@Reuters) October 26, 2021

The Clean Energy Council warned that:

Without a stronger 2030 target, there remains a lack of clarity and positive investment signals to accelerate the decarbonisation of Australia and take advantage of the enormous economic opportunity in play.

Morrison, when he returns from Glasgow and after receiving the condemnation of other world citizens, will as promised, release the modelling within weeks. Given the government’s record on producing reports etc., I can see that waiting until after the election.

The Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese was right onto Morrison’s ploy when he asked during Question Time:

“What is the reason why he says he’s releasing the modelling in a few weeks, rather than now? Don’t Australians deserve the right to see it?”

While:

“Labor climate spokesman Chris Bowen said the next election would be a climate change contest, labelling the announcement a ‘steaming pile of nothingness’.”

Bowen was correct.

The next day:

“Senate estimates was told Treasury had little input into the modelling but provided advice to the energy department… Treasury had little input into the modelling but It’s even possible that none existed or is being done now.”

Morrison dismissed all the criticism by turning his motor mouth to full throttle, saying on the Seven Network that:

“Everyone else who doesn’t understand Australia, our economy and the challenges we have here are entitled to their opinions… I will do what is right for Australia and we are getting results.”

Mr Morrison said Labor won’t release its plan for 2030, and it was yet to reveal if it would take a 2030 target to the next election and had not released its plan for 2050 net-zero.

Labor intends to release its plan after the Prime Minister returns from Glasgow, and this makes sense after being bitten badly by releasing policy too early.

The prime minister produced his smartphone in defending a reliance on unproven technology to achieve his emissions targets:

“An iPhone would never have been existing if it was based on the assumptions of the leader of the opposition,’ Mr Morrison said. “We wouldn’t have had a COVID vaccine. I have more confidence in technological innovation and science than I do in taxes and regulations.”

All this was meant to imply that he had great faith in technology, but he missed the point that millions of dollars had been spent on carbon capture and storage over a long period without success.

The government won’t budge from its 2030 emission reduction target of 26 to 28 per cent on 2005 levels or its 30 to 35 per cent by the end of the decade.

Just what the National Party’s cooperation will cost the country or the taxpayer (businesses won’t pay) in this ill-founded exercise is unknown, but it will come out in dribs and drabs.

Resources Minister Keith Pitt returns to the cabinet, but we will suffer much more than that. And in more ways than one. So, I end this piece with the same paragraph with the exact words as my previous one:

Morrison will have to tell the truth, which is always a delicate proposition, and he will have to say we will do our best, but because our coalition partners don’t want a target, there is “nothing” much we can do. It’s just the way we govern in Australia.

Fools rush in where wise men never go.

One can understand that Labor is hesitant about climate change after the subject has been a dead runner for them in the past two elections. As things are shaping up, the Prime Minister will front other world leaders as a climate denier, prepared to lie to convince them that Australia is meeting its climate obligations.

And to watch Scott Morrison and other ministers doing their media rounds, they certainly sound convincing. Words fly from frequently moistened lips with the sting of dishonesty and an absence of explanation.

The blatancy of Morrison’s lying confuses this writer because Proverbs 6:12-13 says; “let me describe a worthless and wicked man; first, he is a constant liar.” Undoubtedly some of you, most of you, or all of you when you hear the words; “we are meeting and beating”, you may be as confused as I am. Given his Pentecostal brand of Christianity, which believes in a literal interpretation of scripture, does the word of God presuppose that he is both a liar and a hypocrite?

When Morrison uses the phrase “we are meeting all our obligations”, it is camouflaged with the uncertainty of lies but not backed with the truth of evidence, then he lies.

At this stage of these Clayton’s negotiations between a corrupt party and a smaller but equally defective one, the Coalition has left us with a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. However, we are assured that Australia will not attempt to reduce emissions between now and 2030. We will be seen as laggards by an international community, increasing its targets and suffering international isolation. Our target should be more like 50%, not 30%.

Fools rush in where wise men never go.

Ask yourself this question: “Are they serious?” Do Scott Morrison and energy minister Angus Taylor want to have a much more ambitious emissions reduction policy? No, not on your nelly. They are not driven by the innate goodness of saving the planet but by the politics of power. It’s more about one party appeasing the other and working out a political plan between them. A balancing act between the Liberals, the Nationals and their ability to win the next election. Advance Australia fair. They can give no certainty on the as yet unproven technology they intend to use.

I want to get this absolutely right. So correct that there can be no ambiguity. Morrison and his cabinet members tell us “We are meeting all our obligations” at every opportunity, but they tell the most dreadful lies.

What they don’t say is important. They talk about a target set for emissions reductions at the Paris climate talks in 2015.

It’s not apples with apples, and what we are actually beating is the commitment we made to cut 26 to 28 per cent of our emissions compared to 2005. Similar countries to Australia committed to cuts of more than 50 per cent.

The meeting in Scotland will in the main focus on 2030 targets because they are more critical than 2050.

The Coalition insist that we have cut our emissions since 1990, when the fact is that they have risen.

“The truth is that electricity emissions have increased by around a third, and transport emissions have grown by more than half.” (The Climate Council, New Report: Australia ranks dead last on climate, 21/10/2021).

So, it’s only when you add in all the land clearing that impacts emissions that the figure starts to look genuine or at least healthy.

Call it what you like, dirty tricks, political skulduggery or creative accountancy, but that’s what we used at the Kyoto talks in 1997.

They talk about a “gas-led recovery”, the “technology roadmap“, but no policy work or legislation is involved, and it is only unproven science.

Here are some facts from Climate Action Tracker (CAT):

“The CAT rates Australia’s climate targets, policies and climate finance as “Highly insufficient”. The “Highly insufficient” rating indicates that Australia’s climate policies and commitments are not Paris Agreement Compatible. Australia’s 2030 domestic emissions reduction target is consistent with warming of 4°C if all other countries followed a similar level of ambition. Under Australia’s current policies, emissions will continue to rise and are consistent with more than 3°C warming. Australia needs to set a more ambitious target for emissions reductions, establish associated policies, and provide finance to support others to get a better rating.”

Last week Laura Tingle (7.30’s chief political correspondent) wrote:

“And, whatever the Government does do in terms of setting, goals, ambitions, or whatever terms of sophistry are employed to not appear to have adopted a target of net zero emissions by 2050, it is not expected to be legislated, lest it produce a humiliation on the floor of the Parliament as Nat’s cross the floor against it.

Can you think of a more abject failure of political leadership in living memory?”

The Australian Government has a dislike of accountability and transparency unequalled by any other. It has reduced the budget of the Auditor General’s office. After all, you don’t want people looking over your shoulder when you are doing naughty things with public money.

Instead of governing with an open mind as to the integrity of climate change, Tony Abbott sought to use it as a political tool to gain Government. Peta Credlin, his chief of staff, later admitted the climate change policy under Julia Gillard’s Labor government was never a ‘carbon tax’. Still, Tony Abbott used that label to stir up trouble continuously. If he did not, Australia would be a leader instead of a nation lagging behind almost every other.

In 2013 and 2014, when Labor’s ‘carbon tax’ was still operating, Australia was significantly ahead of the target for those years.

In 2019, Angus Taylor gave an interview on ABC’s Insiders. He said that when the Coalition came to power, it inherited a 755 million tonne emissions “deficit” needed to reach Australia’s second Kyoto target because Labor “hadn’t done the hard work”.

“We have turned that around by 1.1 billion tonnes,” Mr Taylor said.

“They [Labor] hadn’t got to the point where we were going to meet Kyoto. We will reach Kyoto in a canter.”

So, the question begging to be answered was through its own “hard work”? Has the Coalition turned around an emissions deficit inherited from Labor? And is it correct to suggest emissions are heading down, or have they gone up?

He also claimed that emissions are “coming down right now”. They say they are protecting jobs, but the only threat to coal jobs comes from countries that will eventually stop buying it from us.

Mr Taylor’s claim is misleading, said the ABCs Fact Check:

“When the Coalition came to power in September 2013, the most up-to-date projections available were from a Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency report almost a year earlier. The figures Mr Taylor cites are consistent with forecasts contained in that report and another released in December last year.

However, Mr Taylor’s characterisation is problematic.

First, the 2012 emissions data used by Mr Taylor was superseded by a new report three months after the Coalition came to power. It found that actual emissions under Labor in 2013 were significantly lower than had been anticipated a year earlier.

Its forecasts also factored in estimates of abatement to be achieved by Labor’s carbon tax.

For this reason, Fact Check considers the 2013 report provides a more accurate and less pessimistic snapshot of the situation that the Coalition “inherited” from Labor.

In addition, the 2013 report accounted for a significant “carry-over” of emissions credits from Australia’s over-achievement of the first Kyoto period, which ended in June 2012. The inclusion of the carry-over, which was not factored into the 2012 estimate cited by Mr Taylor, reflects an accounting assumption rather than any “hard work” on the part of the Coalition in reducing emissions.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has further reduced emissions by shutting down whole industries. But in reality, where has this decade long lust for power over principle left us?

Our Prime Minister will go to Scotland for the COP26 with an agreement to cut our emissions to net-zero by 2050. The deal is only valid if the terms reached don’t vary from those agreed to between Joyce and Morrison.

The substance of which has not been revealed, or the cost, nor are they likely to be. Or it might be on a need to know basis. No plans are available outlining how we will reach net zero by 2050, but even more importantly, the conference will want to hear about what we are doing to improve our 2030 targets.

Morrison will have to tell the truth, which is always a delicate proposition, and he will have to say we will do our best, but because our coalition partners don’t want a target, there is “nothing” much we can do. It’s just the way we govern in Australia.

Fools rush in where wise men never go.

The first rule of politics is to attain power, and the second rule is to retain it. I have never known a political party to throw government away purposefully. Well, except for the ALP, who in 1955 split into two parties; the ALP and the DLP (the Democratic Labour Party) and gave up any hope of government for many years to come. They took the high road and found that it was all uphill.

Power itself is a mesmerising thing that, once won, isn’t easily forfeited. The last thing Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce want to do is give up this, born to rule, self-entitlement. Both in their political history have displayed a willingness to attain power that goes beyond a desire to create a better society.

Both carry the baggage of alleged corruption, and most of the world’s problems stem from the fact that men have never really grown up. Too many take the wrong road.

Political power for conservatives is the ability to control the behaviour of people through the passage, approval, and implementation of laws and regulations.

Others lust over power for the influence it gives them or the control over people that satisfies them. Rarely do they crave power simply to improve the common good.

Both Morrison and Joyce know that if they are to retain the power they so obviously relish, they must give our delegation something to take to the COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow, Scotland that will validate our intentions to net zero emissions by 2050. If they cannot, then their ability to retain power will be significantly diminished.

The conservative party and the party representing country people met last Sunday. The party led by Scott Morrison handed over its plan to achieve this to the party led by Barnaby Joyce for their consideration. Remember, this is only happening now because, to be truthful, these things take time, and in nearly nine years in power, they haven’t yet procured a policy to satisfy those who want a road less travelled.

The Prime Minister finally ended another bad period when he eventually confirmed he would be going to the COP26 in Glasgow. The fact is by the time the week ended, every Tom, Dick and Harry was telling him he should, and even the corgis in the palace were barking mad.

His admission suggested at the time that it might be a done deal. He wouldn’t dare go without a deal that would meet with the approval of other more concerned world leaders, would he? Even if it was conditional on the bush being shown a few 44gallon tanks full of hard cash in return for net-zero emissions.

Otherwise, why use up a few more gallons of aviation kerosene, destroying the environment if all you had to talk about was “technology not taxes.” Our Chief bullshit robot, Angus, could do that without us being there.

Cartoon by Alan Moir (Moir.com.au)

As I write, the first of many meetings has been held, and Joyce’s crew are playing it tough. The Guardian reported that the Deputy Nationals leader, David Littleproud, walked out of the meeting and into the Sky News studio, saying there were more questions to be answered. “We are going to take our time to get it right,” he said. Yes, that’s what he said: “take our time.”

On reading the comments as reported in The Guardian, I must say I’m not imbued with any confidence that they are headed down the right path. The three-word slogan “technology not taxes” might sound trite in a marketing sense, but it only has currency if the technology is robust and proven.

The Coalition cannot do this, so after many years of deliberately barking up the wrong tree for nothing more than political advantage, the Coalition will be relying on carbon capture and storage together with whatever comes along with hydrogen. Sounds more like a wing and a prayer. Our taxes have been paying for the research into the technology for decades.

Littleproud went on to say:

“But from our perspective, we have already done much of the work. We are already on a trajectory of meeting much of our [national] commitments through technology.”

That to me sounds like a straight out lie, and it would not be so if one were to subtract the rebates from the Kyoto agreement and COVID-19 for shutting down industry.

My view is that both Morrison and Joyce will place the importance of the retention of power way ahead of any genuine concern for the environment.

What has happened so far gives me little confidence that (no matter what road we take) we will go to Glasgow with an ambitious 2030 target and a mid-century commitment. Nor will we have any sort of mechanism that ensures these commitments are actually met, let alone legislated.

I fear these meetings are less about saving the planet than how much money he might extract for regional revitalisation. That is their reputation; that is their history. Ask yourself what has the National Party ever done for its constituents.

This is a straightforward proposition as politics are played in Australia, but the Nats are hellbent on bleeding the conservatives for as much as they can get.

Some Nationals want Morrison’s to go to Glasgow with a worthwhile climate policy. However, most are conspiracy types who probably believe that climate change is a communist plot. Those types will expect a heavy price for Morrison’s anticipated capitulation, and if he wants to retain power, he will be generous.

The planning for Morrison’s trip to Bonnie Scotland and his surrender to a plan for 2050 has been meticulous. Murdoch came on board with the same comedians who promoted Abbott’s “axe the tax”, then Twiggy Forrest offered some excellent advice (really) and to top it off, the Royals gave their blessing. The only catch is the price; what is it worth to retain power.

To top it off, Barnaby Joyce sank a few with Twiggy Forrest, who then fronted up for breakfast with Bridget McKenzie. She then told the PM to put a bomb under them if he was fair dinkum about landing a net-zero agreement with a higher 2030 emissions reduction target.

Barrie Cassidy made an excellent point:

Hang on. Why has Joyce weakened Morrison? The PM overwhelmingly has the numbers in the parliament to go flat out on climate change. Why would he even contemplate using taxpayers money to buy Barnaby? https://t.co/8UNLEYZtTK

— Barrie Cassidy (@barriecassidy) October 17, 2021

And of course, as a further extension of this proposition, Morrison doesn’t need the Nationals. He has said all along that the Liberals, as the senior partner in the Coalition, has the “prerogative” to decide the policy. This is true, and the Cabinet can decide; no legislation is needed, and no one has to cross the floor.

Watching Twiggy Forrest at the National Press Club, one could only agree when he said:

“It is past time for any leader worthy of the title to consciously uncouple from the self-generated insanity of the climate wars.”

Isn’t it strange all this talk about who will represent us at November’s COP26 conference in Glasgow? On a matter of such international importance, one would have thought that we would be represented by our highest officeholder, the Prime Minister. At present, he is not showing any inclination to do for fear of being laughed out the front door.

Incidentally, I watching News 24 last Tuesday when Susan Ley’s head appeared and said in a very “she’ll be right” calm way; “Oh I think we can get there.” After a decade of argument, discussion, debate, destruction of a Labor policy that worked and Prime Ministers losing their jobs one after the other, I think to myself, is this the best they can do.

How is it possible that a few people of little scientific intellect can hold the country’s future in their hands while their leaders don’t have the will to confront them?

Tensions were so hot last Sunday that the significant protagonist within the junior Coalition, Matt Canavan, told Guardian Australia that he was just warming up with his opposition to net-zero by 2050. Senator Christensen didn’t even bother to turn up.

So, what could Morrison possibly tell them if he did go? He keeps talking about some plan or a plan to have a plan that no one has ever seen. He keeps “inching towards net-zero emissions by 2050” target but can’t give any guarantee because the Nationals cannot agree to it. Well, a couple anyway.

The Prime Minister should be aware that the member would win his seat in a canter if he stood as an independent.

After a decade of governing the country with this matter front and centre, you would think it would be done and dusted by now. But no, the junior member of the Coalition, the National Party, is in such disarray that members don’t know their right hand from their left.

The Member for Gippsland Darren Chester is so disgusted with his party’s leadership and lack of progression that he won’t even attend party meetings.

And now, at the 11th hour, Katherine Murphy of The Guardian tells us that some…

“Liberal MPs in metropolitan seats have declared the Morrison government needs to adopt both a net zero target, and a roadmap demonstrating how that commitment will be met, because one doesn’t work without the other.”

No wonder the Prime Minister is being cagy about attending the meeting. He has nothing to tell them, and how embarrassing that would be. It is better to have some junior minister tell them the bad news than for him to front up and tell them nothing.

But seriously, what a bunch of pathetic fools Australia has to represent them!

Following on from Josh Frydenberg’s sudden realisation that the economy is also affected by the climate, Resources Minister Keith Pitt and Senator Matt Canavan spoke out against net zero over the weekend, then continued their campaigns on Monday. Canavan keeps calling to see the bill and tweeted that he is “dead set against” net zero. It, of course, has nothing to do with the cost, and he is just desperate to ensure that Australia keeps on digging up our coal deposits.

I am deadset against net zero emissions. Just look at the disaster the UK is living through. They're switching off their industry to keep their lights on, and they are struggling to feed themselves. Net zero emissions would just make us weaker.

— Senator Matt Canavan (@mattjcan) September 25, 2021

He appeared on 2GB to label net zero a; “utopian target… Before we blindly pursue something like this, surely someone would show us the bill,” he said. (Just like the NBN, l thought, or the NDIS.)

As l see it, Morrison can go to Glasgow with a plan to reduce our emissions to net-zero by 20/50 and risk being laughed at or stay at home with nothing and be shamed.

Joyce may be convinced to compromise, but Canavan won’t budge.

We have to phase out coal, and we have to do it by 2030. Blind Freddy would know that to do this, we need to stop using it by 2030. Then some inner-city seats will need to be saved in the next election. This won’t be done if there is no real climate action plan and one that would pass the pub test.

Tricky Scotty does have a way out, of course, and that is to get an agreement on a concrete action plan but don’t legislate it. That way, he doesn’t risk members crossing the floor. He gets all the initial accolades, and the spears aren’t thrown until after he has left the stage.

Australians no longer believe that climate change is “crap.” Tony Abbott admitted that he was using the statement as a political ploy to become Prime Minister. Good politics, perhaps, but the damage caused by his buffoonery has been enormous. The Australian public fell for it for a decade, and it speaks volumes for his and Morrison’s lying ability. But it says nothing about a desire to save the planet.

I find it impossible to imagine that the Australian people could be so gullible as to elect for a fourth term a government that has performed so miserably in the first three and has amongst its members some of the most devious, suspicious and corrupt men and women. But they might. That is what I fear.

The National Party has no environmental credibility whatsoever, so why do they act like they are the sole arbitrator of the process?

“For us to succeed as a party in the future, we need a credible policy on emissions reduction and broader environmental issues to engage with younger voters,” Darren Chester told Guardian Australia.

You might recall that Barnaby Joyce sacked Darren Chester when he recaptured the Leadership of the National Party. Chester is known throughout his seat of Gippsland for being a stoic sensible man who has won a Ministry portfolio a couple of times only to lose it as quickly on principle.

It seems sensible, and the National Party don’t mix. Why did Joyce sack him? Well, the Victorian National told Guardian Australia he supported the commitment by the National Farmers Federation to an economy-wide target of net carbon zero by 2050.

He characterised the NFF’s position as “eminently sensible“, as well as:

“… madness for regional communities and the agricultural sector to rule itself out of a [net zero] conversation prematurely when there could be opportunities for increasing sustainability by being part of the solution.”

With an equal dose of fault-finding, the former leader and Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack warned that a flat “no” to net-zero could threaten Australia’s trade relationships and export income.

The reader might recall that after spending some time in the sin bin of failed leaders for misconduct, Barnaby Joyce again agitated for his party’s leadership. Having attained authority over the party, he warned followers of the Nat’s that he was “unlikely to sign onto a net-zero commitment ahead of Glasgow.”

The mad hatters of the party were now satisfied that Joyce wouldn’t go against them. After all, he was one of them. And some of his most potent internal supporters oppose a net-zero commitment.

Is his position softening?

However, on Friday, 24 September, the Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, in a speech to a peak industry group, warned that Australia would pay an economic cost if it does not match other significant nations in reducing emissions to net-zero by 2050.

“Australia has a lot at stake. We cannot run the risk that markets falsely assume we are not transitioning in line with the rest of the world.”

He argues that we greatly rely on imported capital to fuel the economy. So there lays the answer to why the conservatives might yet agree to a net-zero target by 2050, and they have suddenly realised it’s about money – capitalism, in other words.

“Reduced access to these capital markets would increase borrowing costs impacting everything from interest rates on home loans and small business loans, to the financial viability of large-scale infrastructure projects.”

So, there we have it, folks. Australia will probably join the rest of the sane world, who are committing to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050.

The problem with reaching this decision is that we are yet to meet our Kyoto Protocol agreement (despite what Morrison says about reaching our targets in a canter) and deciding what to do about 2030. So, where is the credibility with any decision we arrive at the COP26 summit in Glasgow?

What Frydenberg’s speech does disclose is a truth hitherto unmentioned but well known. The Conservative’s reason for reducing our carbon emissions is that it might harm our economy and has nothing to do with saving the planet.

What fools the Australian electorate has been that they would so consistently re-elect these moronic people of such little intelligence.

Some of the Deputy Prime Minister’s most fervent supporters are climate change deniers, and they have told him that any decision on a net-zero future was a National Party one and not a captain’s call. Fancy leaving a decision such as this to the likes of Christensen and Cavanagh.

Even the hapless former leader Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack warned last week that a flat “no” to net-zero could threaten Australia’s trade relationships and export income.

With the so-called Liberal Party becoming more frequently dictated to by the National Party, Morrison should remind them that they are the junior party in the alliance.

The Nats should also realise that they get roughly half the votes as the Greens in a national election. If there is a surprise in the forthcoming one, they will suffer most so they should think carefully about it.

In a survey by the ABC before the last election more than 60% of Australians agreed that:

“Global warming is a serious and pressing problem. They also believed that we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant cost.”

And while a self-selecting sample, those filling out the ABC’s Vote Compass survey consistently emphasised climate change as a crucial issue also realise that they get roughly half the votes as the Greens.

The issue had escalated in terms of importance from 9% in 2016 to 29% in 2019. We all thought that 2019 would be the breakout year for the subject, and it is fair to hope that next year will be the one based on public opinion.

With as much knowledge as Tony Abbott in 2013, I began to write about this subject in earnest. I have quoted myself from it a few times since in my anger. Here are a few paragraphs from it. In all fairness, I have endured the lies and beliefs of people with crazed minds, sick thoughts and capitalistic yearnings. My trust is with science, and that’s precisely where it should be.

For my life, I cannot understand people who accept science in fact and use it every day (even for vaccines) somehow become brain-dead when it comes to climate science. However, laypeople like me who believe in climate change cannot honestly claim to know the integrity of the science for ourselves but are happy to delegate this task to climate scientists. Laypeople do not have the knowledge to adjudicate on the issue.

On the other hand, those who deny the overwhelming scientific consensus seek to justify their belief by attaching themselves to a minority of science sceptics with obscure qualifications or, worse, right-wing shock jocks and journalists with no scientific training whatsoever.

These people (like you and me) have no way of evaluating the volume of data produced by the various scientific institutions. One of the most outspoken sceptics (Andrew Bolt) has been found guilty of deceptive lying in that he defamed some white-skinned aboriginals. One has to wonder how many he has told when writing about his favourite topic, climate change.

If I do not support the 95% of scientists, every major scientific institution, and the constant peer evaluation

I am obliged to accept the alternative.

That is that I should take seriously the likes of Andrew Bolt (A journalist) Alan Jones, (I’m not sure how you would describe his contribution to society), Lord Monckton (A discredited something who was once a lobbyist for the tobacco companies) Nick Minchin, and Tony Abbott. (Both politicians).

Minchin is on the record as saying that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy to replace communism. None of these people has a background or expertise in climate science.

Now that’s not to say that they should not have a view, and that view should be respected, as should any laypersons if they are of that ilk.

But surely, we must respect the science otherwise; you put into question all science.

Come the next election, it’s a fair bet that Scott Morrison will use the pandemic as the reason he and his Coalition partner have been unable to deliver on anything or appropriately act on many unfinished reports, too numerous to mention. Such as how much the Prime Minister knew about Brittany Higgins’ rape allegations. Too busy on COVID will be the shrill word of the next campaign.

However, the Prime Minister and his government haven’t been too busy to play war games with the good old USA. In typical Coalition fashion, they have ditched an agreement with France to build submarines for our defence while at the same time destroying our international trust and reputation on matters of security. We have now dudded both Japan and France. Shameful on many levels.

It seems we have been leading France on for some time by disclosing nothing – the cost is around $2 billion dollars plus. They know how to waste a dollar or two, this mob.

The Prime Minister made his announcement with the usual scarcity of information. No detail, no costings. Not even some twaddle in the fine print to haggle over. It was all impressively incompetent diplomacy.

The decision’s intent is for Australia to plug a hole in America’s defence of the Pacific forty years down the track. And with nuclear technology supplied by the US and England.

We have to ask ourselves why we need to be in the pocket of the Yanks all the time when they don’t give us any guarantee or protection. They will always do what is in the best interests of America. And all we do is insult China, pretending we are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the US and the UK when it comes to military matters.

Then, after insulting our largest trading partner to the point of burying the word diplomacy, we pronounce them an existential threat?

Global warming is also an existential threat that requires global action, so why isn’t the Coalition spending with equal enthusiasm on this pending disaster.

As Katherine Murphy wrote in last Saturday’s edition of The Guardian.

” … a problem just as visible as the militarisation of the South China Sea – Australia can promise nothing unless Barnaby Joyce gets a spreadsheet identifying the precise costs of the transition for the average worker in Muswellbrook, and graciously grants his permission?

I mean, seriously. What a crock.”

All this is for a nation that seems to be perpetually at war with someone and who perceives China to be a threat to everyone’s security at the same time as climate change is readying itself for an event worse than war. An event that will require us to save ourselves from the emerging fires, drawn-out droughts, famines, conflicts over water and a refugee problem ten times worse than the one we have now.

I wish our government were as smart on these matters as they pretend to be at beating the drums of war.

So, in forty years, we will have built some nuclear-powered submarines to be used against China at a time when we will all be fighting to save the planet from overheating.

I hope I don’t sound flippant, but it doesn’t make much sense to me. I have always thought that men have never really grown up. Oh, and it is said that the subs will become obsolete when we have finished fighting.

I don’t know about you, but I think the Prime Minister is just trying to frighten people. At least those who will be alive in 40 years.

I asked my Facebook friend John Amadio, who is generally on top of these matters, just what he thought. He answered:

“Unless, of course, it’s a play to the domestic political scene to divert attention away from Morrison and paint another ‘boogie man’ such as terrorism or asylum seekers.

Maybe it’s to instil some good old fear into the general public so that the government can project and ‘look strong’ on protecting Australia.

And, of course, wedge the ALP into a corner. I think it is a shameless political stunt to hang onto power but also potentially a dangerous one. It’s not a significant step from being nuclear powered to nuclear-armed.”

In my state of insinuation, some things become abundantly clear to me:

• That we have pissed off China.
• That we have angered the French.
• That we have wasted a few billion dollars of taxpayers money.
• We have now dudded both Japan and France who has withdrawn its ambassador.
• Paul Keating was so upset he couldn’t tell the time on one of his French clocks.
• And the Greens were nonplussed.
• ANU strategic policy expert Hugh White and independent senator/former Navy submariner has called it a “new Cold War.”
• Rex Patrick raised questions that should have occurred to Morrison.
• News Corp commentators had little hesitation in describing the decision as a “historic defence of democracy.” One that will be well regarded by history.

We may very well now face a khaki election where the focus is on who has the best security policy to protect the people from external threats, real or perceived.

Three certainties arise from this poorly thought-through decision.

The first is that the Coalition will dust off all their very best scare campaigns and attack Labor like the crazed do-nothing party they are.

The second is that it will see over 40 years many changes, reviews, and updates because it is so poorly thought through. And as is the reality in builds of this nature, you can add another ten years onto the completion date. And of course, the time lost already. What a stuff up.

Thirdly, trust in Australia will be significantly diminished as a global citizen.

And, of course, the language of diplomacy will have been lost.

Tom Tesoro writing on Facebook, said:

“They all sense their economic destiny, their power to shape their society to suit the elite they believe to be the superior class. They adhere to the ancient principle of the aristocracy, the ‘betters’, natural leaders, and those best suited to rule. They must accrue all the benefits that society creates as a reward for their superiority.”

I hesitate to say that Australia has a fascist Government only because it has so many entities. However, there is some form of it in Australia’s governance.

The way countries are currently being governed or taken over, for that matter, one couldn’t but agree that nationalism, dictatorship or a mode of fascism is prevalent.

That Australia needs a change in government is becoming more apparent by the day. The current one has all the ingredients of a recipe for disaster – corruption, dictatorship, secrecy; if it governs for much longer, and should it win another term, I fear change might become less likely over time.

Indeed, if Morrison and his corrupt band of Ministers win the next election, they will become emboldened to shift the balance of power further to the far right.

If we acknowledge that we live in a world that is more complex, more scientifically advanced than at any other time in the history of the world, it then brings on a moral and ethical dilemma that we are at a loss to explain or cope with.

Change can be so rapid that we can barely keep up with all its complexities. It is often ahead of the game, sometimes disregarding opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making, with Its own inevitability.

Older people have not coped well with it and still think the right will prevent it or slow it down, but all manner of things are being changed to the right’s advantage.

Whereas the young have grown up with technological change and are disadvantaged with a lack of political education. The old fight to remain in a world of sameness and never see other ways of doing things. It is a conservative value. The young see change as a process; the old see it as an unwanted intrusion on their conservative principles.

They dislike and resist change in the foolish assumption that we can permanently be made to feel secure. Yet change is, in fact, part of the very fabric of our existence.

There is not an area of our existence that has not been dramatically changed by technology. Medicine, weaponry, communications, education, economics and many others.

The Internet has changed the lives of hundreds of millions of people. It is rapidly changing how we do many things, including entertainment, commerce, global trade, health care, transport, international, national news, world financial services and so on.

Globalisation is gradually framing a world without national borders with a cross-pollination of ethnicity.

Many countries successfully embrace multiculturalism but are consistently incapable of accepting change because Nationalism clouds many eyes.

Out of the necessity of survival, future generations will have to embrace change not by fighting old ideas but by building on the new.

Today I thought I would canvass the failure of Australian politics to embrace change.

Political change is everywhere – Brexit, the last British election result, and the Australian election result reflected dissatisfaction with traditional politics. The emergence of Trump and the resurgence of extremism in France, Brazil, political insurgency in the Middle East is evidence of global political change everywhere.

It is interesting how Australia, or more importantly, our politicians, has adapted to a transforming world where those on the left find difficulty understanding why the world has so empathetically turned to the right. But those on the “extreme” right have not only understood but implemented it. They have all but taken our democracy from us. All we have left is the power to dismiss them, but we are reluctant to do so.

The indoctrination of society began under Ronald Reagan and Margret Thatcher.

Rapid change brings with it the need for new rules and regulations that question traditional values and concepts. People accept those changes that benefit them but don’t like the necessity for regulation that often comes with it. Yet, they continue to vote for the extremity of the right in believing that things might be better for them. However, the truth is that the right are the ones less likely to do anything for them.

If nothing else they are very skilled at political propaganda.

So, I ask myself; which major political party is more qualified to embrace urgent change, implement it and legislate it for the common good?

Before answering that, firstly, let us appraise the ideological political philosophy of the left and right in Australia to appreciate what they stand for.

What is a conservative?

I know I have put the same question before, but I have expanded a little more here:

“Conservatives believe in free markets, individual liberty and traditional values. They believe the role of the Government should be to provide people with the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.”

They also believe that change should be incremental.

Note: Contrary to what they believe, they, the far-right, now seek to control us.

Conservative policies generally emphasise the empowerment of the individual to solve problems. And they are cautious about change or innovation, typically in science, politics, or religion.

They believe that free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs, and higher living standards than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.

The right supports the separation of church and state, but it allows its conservative views to affect its legislation in practice.

Note the Prime Minister’s confusing allegiance to his religion, one that he never seems to practice when he is doing politics.

What is a neo-conservative?

Neo-conservatism goes back to the 1930s; however, it is identified with George W Bush in its modern form.

Bush embraced unbridled Capitalism, corporate greed together with literalist Christianity to form modern-day neoconservatism.

Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and others added global superiority to the mix, believing that American exceptionalism in all aspects was above the rest of the world.

What is a social progressive?

Social democrats (the left) believe in:

“… government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. The Government must alleviate social ills, protect civil liberties provide health services and individual human rights, thus believing the role of the Government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.”

And that:

“Government must protect citizens from the greed of big business. Progressive policies generally emphasise the need for the Government to solve problems.”

Social progressive democrats believe that a market system in which Government regulates the economy is best. Unlike the private sector, the Government is motivated by public interest. Government regulation in all areas of the economy is needed to level the playing field.

The left also supports the separation of church and state.

The answer to my question is that the left of politics is best qualified to handle rapid change generally and the changes brought about by climate change and COVID-19.

I am explicitly talking about Australia’s two-party system here, and the answer lies in comparative political history.

The Greens and others of English Liberal philosophy might argue their case for inclusion, but at present, we only have two possibilities.

By scrutinising the historic social reforms of Australia’s major parties and comparing them, we can determine who is best qualified to take us through this ongoing period of change and the necessary political, social and economic reforms.

The left side of Australian politics has, until now:

“… implemented the following reforms or policies that have directly contributed to change for the better.

A National Health Scheme, a National Disability scheme, compulsory superannuation, a National Broadband Network, Paid Parental leave, major educational reforms, a price on carbon, equal pay for women, the Aged Pension, Mabo and the Apology to the Stolen Generations, and of course the Hawke – Keating major economic reforms that have given the country 25 years of continuous growth.” (Refer to comment from ‘jim’ in the above link).

The ‘right side of politics has implemented the following; Howard gun buyback, the GST that benefited the rich, an increase in immigration after the Second World War, and Harold Holt introduced a bi-partisan referendum that gave Indigenous people the right to vote in 1967.

And there, I have to stop. The Liberal Party website provides a comprehensive list of achievements in Government as distinct from significant policy reforms. Here is the list for you to judge for yourself. If I have missed a considerable reform, please correct me.

In a world where science, technology, and information progress quickly, change sometimes disregards opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making. With its own inevitability.

Conservatives oppose change and are wary of science and intellectualism, as was demonstrated by the Abbott Government.

They seem locked in a world that no longer exists without comprehending how much the world has progressed. Remember, Abbott wanted to destroy the Internet.

They believe in traditional values (whatever they are) without recognising the historical elasticity of society. That change is inevitable.

We need to be governed by rules and regulations. It is the only way change can be civilised and cohesive.

Leaving individuals to pursue their goals without the infrastructure society provides and allowing Capitalism (the GFC) to go on unregulated can only lead to disaster.

A society that has change for the common good at its heart can only be attained with conventions, guidelines, systems, laws, policies, instructions and procedures.

While the central argument of conservative philosophy empathises and overtly supports the individual’s rights, it can never initiate the reformist zeal for change like the left.

I have concluded that a society facing the changes confronting us can only achieve worthwhile change under the umbrella of social democratic philosophy.

An ideology that believes in equality of opportunity, an equitable share of the country’s wealth, maintains individual rights and liberties within a societal framework is best equipped to bring about change. It would also guarantee that no one is left in need.

A government that solves the problems of change together with all who have a vested interest in it.

Change that only serves the secular interests of the wealthy and privileged is change doomed to fail.

Every facet of society, including the democratic process, needs constant and thoughtful renewal and change. Otherwise, we become so trapped in the longevity of sameness that we never see better ways of doing things.

1 On Twitter last week, a comment suggested that my constant blame laying of an initial vaccine supply lacked evidence.

I thought I would write an entire piece on the subject, but when I started researching stuff that might satisfy this person who goes by the name of ‘Arabeing’, I thought to myself; “No, if Arabeing wants to know these things, then he can find out for himself.”

Just saying! I’m not taking sides or defending the PM.
I remember news that he ordered heaps of Pfizer early but it was held back Europe needed it more. We’re told that we have lots of AZ here, at one point they were going to ship some out to those that needed and wanted it🤔🤷‍♀️

— Arabeing☀️🐑😊 (@arabeingicloud1) September 2, 2021

Sorry, I’m in a grumpy mood today. I need to get a few things off my chest.

The truth of the matter is this: In August 2020, Opposition Health spokesperson Chris Bowen was already on the warpath about us not doing enough to develop a coronavirus vaccine.

In an interview with Sky News, he said:

Australia was “way behind in the queue” for a vaccine.

He said other countries, including Japan, had already signed multiple supply agreements for vaccines that might work.

“We haven’t signed one,” Mr Bowen said.

Anyway, Arabeing should read this ABC fact check. It finds that Bowen’s claim that a suggested tally of 1 billion doses would only be reached if so-called “optional” doses were included, as well as the deal with the European Union for 200 million pre-purchased doses and 100 million optional doses, is drawing a longbow.

However, the fact check added that:

“On November 5, 2020, the Government announced it had reached a deal with Pfizer/BioNTech for the supply of 10 million doses of its vaccine to Australia, subject to regulatory approval.

As previously mentioned, the vaccine requires two doses, spread out over a number of weeks, to be effective, meaning the deal would provide enough vaccine to inoculate 5 million Australians.

At the time of the deal, no mention was made of any option being included in the contract to purchase further doses.”

This is where Scott Morrison stuffed up. With a population of 25 million, including children, the amount ordered was totally inadequate. Other points of interest are covered here, here, and here.

The evidence of what I have written is supported by the fact that the Government is crisscrossing the world, borrowing as much Pfizer vaccine as it possibly can when it could have placed an order last November.

Greg Hunt, the Minister for Health, said at the time:

“We have enough vaccines to meet a population of 67.5 million, and we will address all priorities identified by The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI).”

2 I was watching ABC Insiders on Sunday morning, and several things commanded my attention, some trivial, some not so.

Firstly, why on earth does David Speers never draw a relationship between what is being discussed and what it might mean in a general election? With but six months in front of us, I think it’s time they opined on the subject.

3 I have become used to Speers trying for a “gotcha moment” every week. It is a little tiresome, but I thought he went close with Stuart Robert on paying back the JobKeeper money. Robert may have been correct in that according to the legislation, companies aren’t obliged to pay it back, but I couldn’t help but remember that line of Tony Abbott when repealing the carbon price:

“After all, what is done by legislation can be undone by legislation.”

In Liberal land, it seems that real anger has arisen from small businesses that didn’t receive the job keeper payments. As much as they try to brush it off with a “the law is the law commentary,” the morality of it is dreadful. It was nothing more than a taxpayer-funded transfer of money. At least Rex Patrick and Jackie Lambie are standing firm on their demand that a list of companies is published. This one is likely to grow some legs.

I received a message from a friend after watching 60 Minutes last Sunday, saying that after seeing the programme Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg should be hung and quartered over the JobKeeper payments scandal.

Anyway, Stuart added that “the plan” that we are all supposed to stick to could change at any moment if you get what l mean. Well, according to Stuart, who seemed to be trying overly hard to know everything.

4 Murdoch’s journalists are advised by The Guardian’s Nick Cohen that:

“If someone says it is raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the window and find out which is true.” The world only had to look at the weather outside to know who was trying to fool it.

5 I’m quoting from Peter Fitzsimon’s interview of Grace Tame for the Sydney Morning Herald:

Fitz: Has Scott Morrison failed here?

Tame: Yes.

Fitz: How?

Tame: There are many examples, but let’s go with the obvious. There is his blatant refusal to take any accountability for anything, which we all saw so clearly in his failure to swiftly address the situation with Brittany Higgins. He had the Respect at Work report gathering dust on his desk for a year, with its 55 recommendations that could have been applied to workplace culture, but he did nothing until Brittany’s story made headlines, which made him do something.

Together with One Nation, the Government combined to defeat Labor amendments that protected women from workplace sexual harassment. The Government is forging ahead with a hopelessly weak response to the landmark “Respect@Work report – adopting just six of the 55 recommendations.” However, that is a little misleading because some don’t need legislation. Labor tried to make it better by putting a positive duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent workplace sexual harassment so that harassment is stopped. But when it comes to abandoning women and workers – the Government can always rely on Pauline Hanson.

I agree. In a speech on Monday morning, September 6, to the National Women’s Health Conference, the Prime Minister advocated a culture change. He should start with his party’s attitude toward women.

Hypocrisy, anyone?

6 Which reminds me that the Gaetjens Report into what the PM knew about the Brittany Higgins rape seems to have been successfully buried in the ‘never to be revealed’ file.

7 “Ultimately everything is a state matter,” the Prime Minister said in Parliament last Tuesday. Did that make him redundant? One would hope so.

8 This week will mark 1000 days since Mr Morrison promised to establish a national anti-corruption commission.

9 In Parliament, Josh Frydenberg declared, “JobKeeper was well targeted.” Terri Butler interjected: “If that’s well targeted I’d love to play darts with you!”

10 The Parliament returns in November when the Glasgow Climate Change Conference will be front and centre. Will we have the courage to change tact, or will we continue to be the international embarrassment we are?

11 The Poll Bludger reports that Roy Morgan published its regular fortnightly (for so it now seems) federal voting intention poll on Wednesday, which recorded an incremental improvement for Labor on their already previous solid result:

Labor was credited with a lead of 54.5-45.5 on two-party preferred, out from 54-46 last time, from primary votes of Coalition 37.5% (steady), Labor 38.5% (up one), Greens 11.5% (down one) and One Nation 3% (down half).

Well, now that I have that off my chest, I can get back to my next post for The AIMN. Part 2 of “Why are you so concerned, Poppa?”

It started with the prime minister appearing on the morning television programme; The Today Show. He was making comments about Australia opening up.

Morrison was making comments about the possibility of the country opening up. You see, he has this plan put together by the Doherty Institute:

“Now, it’s like that movie – in The Croods, people wanted to stay in the cave … and that young girl, she wanted to go out and live again and deal with the challenges of living in a different world,” Mr Morrison said.

Now I’m sure Mr Morrison, like me, has never seen the movie, and someone has suggested that it would make a good metaphor for devious utterings.

When he took to Facebook overnight, WA premier McGowan replied to the Croods reference, saying it was “an odd thing to say.”

“It was an odd thing to say. I think everyone would rather just see the Commonwealth look beyond New South Wales and actually appreciate what life is like here in WA.”

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister went on to say that:

“COVID is a new, different world, and we need to get out there and live in it. We can’t stay in the cave, and we can get out of it safely.”

Outside Parliament House, he used the safe word repeatedly.

“It’s the safe plan to ensure that Australia can open up again with confidence.”

So, there’s the rub or the con, to put it another way. Yes, the Prime Minister is trying to con us into the plan the government had briefed the Doherty Institute on.

The brief put to Doherty was squarely aimed at winning an election, not the safety of our citizens. Not only that, the period they were asked to look at was the end of October to the beginning of May. Draw your own conclusions.

The procedure also requires only rudimentary measuring of half the population, which might fit into the Prime Minister’s plan for winning the next election, but it is by no means safe.

No one doubts that we will have to end the shutdowns and learn to live in the real world at some time. Has anyone ever suggested we shouldn’t? To say we can do it safely is another matter. It is a world in which the Delta strain of the coronavirus virus prevails.

Writing in The New Daily, Richard Dennis suggested that:

“The only fight the Prime Minister thinks he has a chance of winning against the premiers is that their people are tired of lockdowns (of course they are) and that we shouldn’t stay in lockdown forever.” (?) [That will not be safe. But in his mind, he needs to act urgently].

I’m no scientist, and I have little knowledge of epidemiology. Still, I know that keeping Australia safe from this monster requires high vaccination rates and measures of certainty on what percentage is the safe one. At the same time, there is the need to keep people away from each other while potentially infectious. Doing so requires science to dictate societal needs and not the timing of a federal election.

Allow me to put it another way: As I understand it, the Doherty modelling does not say it is safe to end lockdowns once the vaccination rate hits 70 or 80 per cent.

In a piece for The Australia Institute, Richard Dennis reasonably argues that it is:

“An inconvenient truth, perhaps, but no matter how many times the PM quotes the Doherty modelling, his false distinction between vaccines or lockdowns is all about messaging, not medicine.”

“Indeed, according to the Doherty modelling, we could spend up to 39 per cent of our time in lockdown if we begin to open up when vaccination hits 70 per cent.

Regardless of what the PM says, temporary city-wide lockdowns will be a near certainty for Australians over the next 12 months, regardless of when we open up.”

No matter how well Scott Morrison spins a safe opening up of society, there will still be limitations on our play, production, movements, and mingling.

The politics of it are this: Simply put, The Prime Minister stuffed up the purchase of vaccines, and before a rock-solid judgement by the Australian people that it is all his fault sets in (if it hasn’t already). He wants to be the Prime Minister who gave us our freedom and in so doing set up a win in the next election.

He is desperate to move the debate away from the fact that we wouldn’t have the current problem had he acquired enough vaccine when he should have.

Because of Morrison’s stupidity, the Australian people now face the unenviable position of:

“… letting COVID-19 have its way with more than eight million people – most of whom are children – who will still be unvaccinated when we hit the 80 per cent vaccination threshold that Scott Morrison is so focused on.”

His bad decisions have been numerous this year, and to place winning an election before the welfare of the people speaks more of his miserable leadership than anything else.

But while lockdowns will, over time, inevitably be lifted, whether partially or entirely, huge case numbers and high mortality rates are still forecast.

If we wait until vaccination rates are high and uncontrolled outbreaks in states like NSW are controlled, the number of deaths will be much lower than if we let the virus rip after giving it a running start. So, we have to face the inevitable question…

How many deaths are acceptable?

It is not at all clear if the contact tracers will be able to cope. So, Morrison should not be shoving all this safe talk into unwitting ears when Doherty itself points out that even if the virus is raging, the assumptions it makes about the effectiveness of tracing once there are thousands of cases in the community are at best an even bet.

A point on contact tracing: Without it, “Australia would have looked more like the UK last year than New Zealand.”

Safe be buggered, I say. Without a fully supported hospital system together with the best possible tracing, any plan is futile.

Morrison’s words and actions bring into question the very essence of the word truth. Or he has at least devalued them to the point of obsolescence. Power is a malevolent possession when you are prepared to forgo your principles and your country’s wellbeing for the sake of it.

To pretend that it is safe under any circumstances to venture into a new world with COVID-19 is the most exceptional con of all.

Given all the mistakes he has made, he cannot afford another one going into another one. Watching Insiders on Sunday, I was surprised that none of the panellists could make a connection between Morrison’s plan and the next election. In fact, the upcoming election didn’t rate a mention.

Perhaps Speersy was too busy doing what he usually does.