The Times they are a Changing: How a rally with a robot opened my eyes.

In a rare moment with nothing to do, I decided to take a look at YouTube and came across a table tennis match between a robot and a human male. You would be wrong if you think this leads to a robotish joke. The robot won a lengthy and compelling rally, and my mind wandered into thoughts about the future.

If this robot could respond to every unpredictable shot of the human and then discern when to hit the winning shot, what else could it do? Of course, science is well ahead of my simple apprehensions, and I understand that we are in another technical revolution. It’s here, it’s now. It’s happening.

However, when I saw the robotic table tennis player, it was like the reality of the age had hit me. Of course, at nearly 83, it shouldn’t be of much concern. It is, but will it lead us, this artificial intelligence, to a better world?

Along with my awakening was the release of the Intergeneration Report that takes a peek into the next 40 years of our history and what it holds in store. It was released by Treasurer Jim Chalmers with all the guile of a man who knew his stuff. A treasurer who could hold the crying baby while drying the dishes. A big-picture treasurer in the mould of Keating.

In a sarcastic response, the Shadow Opposition Treasurer, Angus Taylor, suggested that Chalmers should be more concerned with the next 40 days, not the next 40 years.

His reply was that of the Conservative Luddite, who knew naught about the future and even less about the hurdles along the way.

Firstly, let’s look at the science that will guide the future, and here I’m drawing from the Accenture web page, which has much to say about the “digit years” or the world of digital technology that lies ahead.

“For digityears, the guiding pillar of enterprise innovation has been taking processes, even whole parts of the organisation, and digitising them. And while we’ve built a rich and meaningful digital world, we haven’t reconciled it with the physical one.”

The world conditioned itself to the Age of Enlightenment, where the world’s thinking was turned on its head. And secondly, the Industrial Revolution. Now, we are confronted by yet another step in our progress.

“Our Technology Vision last year called out the Metaverse Continuum as the next big step after digital transformation. The metaverse is a watershed moment for the convergence of atoms and bits, accelerating the path to a singular shared reality.”

“We’ve arrived at an exciting frontier of technology innovation for businesses, where we’re not just digitising but putting that digital foundation to work. But it’s also critical to realise that while metaverse, digital twins, augmented reality and robotics are potent ways to get started, they’re just the beginning.

Fusing digital and physical is not only generating new products and services; it’s the force behind a new era of scientific research. Leaders are creating the next set of tools and disruptions to rewrite how the world works. And what’s become clear is that when atoms and bits collide, truly new possibilities emerge.”

Our entry into this new world will carry challenges we have never faced before.

The Enlightenment advocated reason as:

“… a means to establish an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, and government, allowing human beings to obtain objective truth about the whole of reality.”

As we move into another period of significant change, we must ask ourselves what we take and leave behind. Should we make our ethics more robust? What political philosophy is best suited to instigate change? Many questions will arise.

The value of the Intergenerational Report is that it gives the government a view of the future. It tells us what we will face and what is necessary to coexist with a bigger, hotter Australia. The ticking time bomb of an ageing population. Will the young of the time have to pay more tax to accommodate them?

It raises the question of the purpose of tax and how it should be reformed. It questions other means of raising tax; perhaps it is our assets, not our earnings. Our productivity comes into question. Future migration. What we won’t be able to afford is the support we give to the rich now. Capital gains, for example.

Can the budget afford it? Spending increases in health, aged care, and the NDIS reflect the impact of the aging population on the economy. A more egalitarian society will have to evolve, or the less well-off will revolt. Will there be a fragmentation in the global order? Work will undergo fundamental change. Fertility rates will continue to fall.

Do we have plans to confront the fact that we have moved past the date for living safely with climate change? What about the next pandemic, global economic downturn or the current wave of mental illness? Driverless cars and a plethora of new technology, much of which has yet to be invented.

The Intergenerational Report should become a fixture now, with a department headed by a “Minister for the Future”. The fusion of the digital and physical world will happen, and our leaders must be a force behind these enormous technological advances.

“Fusing digital and physical is not only generating new products and services; it’s the force behind a new era of scientific research. Leaders are creating the next set of tools and disruptions to rewrite how the world works.”

In another age of enlightenment, there is no place for negativity.

Continued next week: What should we take with us into this new world?

Rightly or wrongly, we expected the NACC to progress much faster than it has. After experiencing ten rotten years of scandal upon scandal, the National Anti-Corruption Commission was promoted as the fix-all solution to the problem. Remember the ineffective solutions the then Government came up with. Solutions that would do little about finding corruption but much to protect those politicians guilty of despicable deeds.

Former LNP Prime Minister Morrison quickly shelved or dispensed with those problems dressed in his naked lies. He had no intention of delivering a policy of any sort. At least not one that would throw any light on their collective premeditated guilt-laden consciousness.

In the end, the truth had a victory over all the rottenness of the LNP, some of which will come before the NACC, which brings me to my point.

Why is it taking so long?

The NACC regularly updates its website but keeps the referrals secret. They will only tell who they are investigating when it is in the public interest, like Robodebt for example. Otherwise, there is an FOI process you can go through.

Referrals

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has warned his Ministers to only make referrals supported with concrete facts. Even Government Services Minister Bill Shorten was loath to say Stuart Robert should be referred to the NACC. Even though he is convinced otherwise.

You can subscribe to NACC updates here.

How many?

The NACC) provides updates on the number of referrals received since commencing operations on July 1, 2023. And The Guardian reports that:

“At close of business Monday, July 17 2023, the Commission had received 437 referrals. Approximately 12% of the referrals relate to matters well publicised in the media.”

Albanese baited Coalition members

When in opposition, Labor frequently bated the Government with threats, including matters of little consequence in its referrals to the NACC. At the time, they were ahead of themselves because the composition of the proposed authority had yet to be decided. Nor had they won Government.

It was just stirring up a government in its last death throes that had used taxpayers’ money corruptly. The public had grown tired of this cavalier attitude. Albanese consistently reminded Morrison that he and his lying ministers would be the first on the gallows should Labor win the upcoming election.

John Button

That said, one must accept that 437 corruption referrals are astonishing. I recall some years ago when John Button was the Minister for Manufacturing in Bob Hawkes’s first Cabinet. Button possessed a head of silver hair and a voice of a dulcet tone that often accompanied the Sydney Sympathy Orchestra with various readings. Sorry, back to my point.

Button was the Minister responsible for turning around the Australian car industry which at the time was in turmoil. I distinctly remember him commenting in an interview about how long it took and how slowly the wheels of Government turned.

Albanese threatened to not only throw the book at Morrison over the $100 million outlandish “sports rorts” affair, the $660 million in “car park rorts“, and the Leppington Triangle land sale in western Sydney but filed under ‘C’ in his notebook were many other acts of corruption.

An example

An example of how long it takes to conclude corruption matters is that of former NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian, who was found to be “seriously corrupt” by the NSW ICAC. Still, it wasn’t “seriously corrupt” enough to warrant criminal proceedings. Not only was the conclusion unsatisfactory, but also was the length of time it took to arrive at it.

Work to be done

Time is of the essence. With 437 corruption referrals ahead of him, widely respected commissioner Paul Brereton has some work to do. The list was much higher, but it has been whittled down because many referrals need to fit the NACC criteria for investigation.

Even if the Commission only investigated, say 12%, it must look at around 43 referrals of significant corruption. It could take years to get through this list without ever having to report on its progress. In the case of Berejiklian, it took 20 Months.

The Government wants to avoid being seen as creating a NACC that could be labelled a “political weapon“. However, Albanese succumbed to public opinion when in opposition by raising public expectations of why we needed a commission.

Time needed

The Government realises it has a problem. This is why Bill Shorten seeks advice on which agency is best served to pursue matters allegedly undertaken by Stuart Robert.

He has been pursuing Robert for some time about how a Canberra consultancy, Synergy 360, run by friends and associates of Robert, scored hundreds of millions of dollars of government work with departments under Robert’s portfolios.

That the NACC could, in reality, investigate a person and then leave them like a shag on a rock for months or years is inappropriate. Particularly if the person is eventually cleared of any wrongdoing. It also raises issues of procedural fairness.

Other considerations

The considerations (above) are not the only ones. Recent revelations that Public Servant Kathryne Cambell is a friend of new NACC Commissioner Paul Brereton and Governor David Hurley is also a friend of Brereton is alarming. Undoubtedly, the GG and his $18 million gift from Morrison for a Future Leaders Fund would have been referred to the commission for evaluation.

Where is the transparency?

Will the NACC publish a list of all the referrals and the reasons for ongoing investigation? Or will they just lapse into a swamp of decaying accusations and expire because time is against them. Perhaps the only way we will find out who and what was referred is by the referrer disclosing the matter publicly.

The NACC could be a legacy alongside other outstanding Labor achievements in the future, but this will only happen with transparency that matches the reasons for its original intent. And, of course, the swiftness with which it applies justice.

As it stands, NACC will not be bound by timeframes; included in the legislation. Nor is there a provision for progress reports. (They can be requested.) The Government may therefore temper public anticipations over the next year or so.

Melting icebergs

The Conservative party has been fast out of the blocks declaring that the Brittany Higgins settlement would be its priority referral, whilst the Greens party have nominated their top ten, adding that they would just be the tip of the iceberg.

How far back the NACC allows referrals to go may very well decide when the war ends. All participants should recognise when the battle becomes meaningless and is replaced by good governance, which becomes the norm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In October 2020, I wrote the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After all the conniving corruption of the Coalition’s Luddite term of office, one might have reasonably concluded that they had drained the swamp of their own making. But more alleged corruption has surfaced from the residue left behind.

And before the Coalition can defend itself against a backlog of corruption allegations, new ones have surfaced from a seemingly bottomless pit of misdemeanours.

A. As of Monday, 24 July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) received 494 referrals:

“Approximately 13% of the referrals relate to matters well publicised in the media. This figure includes, but is not limited to, referrals relating to Robodebt.”

In other words, LNP scandals like car parks, sports rorts and land acquisitions might also be included.

The NACC will always have Coalition referrals, just as doctors always have patients.

B. Take this last month, for example. First, we had the revelation that the Morrison Government spent $20.8bn outsourcing more than a third of public service operations. An enquiry found the equivalent of nearly 54,000 full-time staff were employed as consultants or service providers for the Federal Government during the 2021-2022 financial year. This equates to one-third of the public service workforce. A Government de-facto workforce was doing work that the public service should have done.

C. Then we had the PwC scandal, where the tax practitioner’s board found that:

“… the former head of international tax for PwC Australia Peter-John Collins had been deregistered by the tax practitioners board for failing to act with integrity and for sharing confidential government briefings.”

The board of PwC has since confirmed that Collins had “made unauthorised disclosures” to partners and staff at PwC of confidential information.

The information concerned new rules to stop multinationals from avoiding tax.

D. This one occurred when Peter Dutton was Home Affairs Minister. The crux of the matter is that it has been alleged that Home Affairs gave a multimillion-dollar offshore detention contract to an Australian businessman only a month after federal police informed Dutton that the man, Mozammil Bhojani, was under investigation for bribery.

Indeed, Dutton would/should have passed on information of such importance to his department. Maybe he had a reason for not doing so. And why wasn’t he involved in the contract process? If he were on top of his portfolio, he would have passed on this vital information as a matter of course. Or so one would think.

And they say our international reputation has been damaged by the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games. What about all these allegations.

That’s not all.

We have the farcical situation where a businessman linked to Stuart Robert won’t face a parliamentary committee hearing because he has severed ties with Australia. Why is that do you think?

Last April The SMH reported that:

“Senior Liberal MP Stuart Robert stood to gain financially out of a consulting company called Synergy 360, which was part-owned by his business partner and chief political fundraiser and helped multinational companies win millions of dollar’s worth of government contracts.

The former Government services minister’s friend and co-owner of the controversial firm, John Margerison, gave evidence before a parliamentary committee inquiry that Robert was a part-owner of a company that Margerison nominated to receive funds from Synergy 360.”

(A joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) is looking into how the Government awards contracts.)

There are grave allegations:

“… which include suspect payments being made to senior politicians from Nauru and Papua New Guinea, requests for bribes, and complaints to Home Affairs falling on deaf ears.”

These allegations need to be seriously looked into.

Home Affairs and Peter Dutton gave out contracts without ministerial oversight. The question is why.

E. On a lesser note, we find that parliamentary expenses are in the spotlight again.

The expenses watchdog is chasing former Liberal politician Andrew Laming for a further “$8,000 over taxpayer-funded travel to Sydney and Melbourne.”

F. To finish, there is the matter of a $33 million grant to a company in 2017 without due process:

“The former government led by Malcolm Turnbull awarded a $33m grant to a company that was developing a mental health app after months of lobbying from one of its own mental health commissioners who was also a shareholder in the months-old startup.

The one-off grant was awarded in 2017 without a competitive tender to Innowell for a series of collaborative research trials into a digital mental health platform. Its shareholders include PwC, the University of Sydney and former mental health commissioner Prof Ian Hickie.”

There was no suggestion of wrongdoing by Hickie, who, together with PwC, were shareholders in the company Innowell.

All above board except for the non-competitive tender process.

Where does all this leave the average voter? The person who fronts up at every election thinking that the Government has been acting in their best interests only to find that they have been serving their own.

The answer to that question is like looking at a piece of art and finding that their opinion differs significantly from others.

However, their seriousness cannot be dismissed arbitrarily. That is due to the weight of the material; it must be that we investigate. To find the truth in all these accusations or alleged criminal activity. In all this, there is an unspoken suggestion that all is not right.

The Prime Minister has asked the Leader of the Opposition to explain why he didn’t tell his department that Brojani was under investigation (see D above). In doing so, Peter Dutton invoked the politician’s favourite defence of lousy memory on this week’s resumption of parliament.

Why did Home Affairs give out contracts without ministerial oversight? Is that normal?

In response:

“Labor has announced an independent review of the management of regional processing procurement by the Department of Home Affairs after revelations it granted contracts to a company linked to the subject of a bribery investigation.”

If deemed necessary, the inquiry can refer matters to the NACC. Undoubtedly, the Leader of the opposition’s memory will have declined even further by then.

A worry for the reader is whether the newly formed NACC can investigate all the referrals with any degree of urgency. And further, do the AFP and others have the capacity to prosecute? In other words, will law enforcement agencies be able to investigate the avalanche of suspected criminality?

If either of these assumptions is negative, nothing will have been gained. If the NACC decides not to investigate, the public will be none the wiser. In the words contained in the following sentences, there needs to be more for the general public. There needs to be more transparency of accountability. Who and what are the referrals about? What is the test for public hearings?

The only one l see making it to public hearings is Robodebt.

For me, you could drive a truck through the outs for politicians.

Note that the:

“NACC does not have to consider or respond to every referral it receives. The Commissioner can also decide not to take any action concerning a referral.”

And also that:

“A hearing must be held in private, unless the Commissioner decides to hold the hearing, or part of the hearing, in public. In deciding whether to hold a hearing in public, the Commissioner may consider:

• the extent to which the corruption issue could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic
• whether certain evidence is confidential, or relates to the commission (or alleged or suspected Commission) of an offence
• any unfair prejudice to a person’s reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that may be caused
• whether a person giving evidence has a particular vulnerability, such as working directly to someone in a position of power, and
• the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public.”

What we will eventually know about the crimes committed by those in power during the Abbott-Morrison years may be forever shrouded in mystery.

After the election of May 21 2022, I published a piece titled “Why the Conservatives cannot win the next election and why Labor will go early,” in which I wrote:

“Another reason the conservatives will be up against it in the next election is that many mature-aged voters dropped from the rolls and were replaced with a cohort of young folk seeking change. This is guaranteed to transpire again. Both parties knew it would happen sometime, but the LNP, with its born-to-rule attitude, did nothing about it.

A note of caution, though. The young are desperate for change. By that, I mean significant, meaningful transformation that excites and promotes new ways of doing things.”

Mainstream media has now also woken to this most obvious point. Historically when the polls are published, they show which age groups support whichever party; invariably, they demonstrated that older folk supported the Coalition and younger folk backed Labor and the Greens.

It meant that as older folk passed on, they would be replaced by a younger cohort more likely to support the left:

“A new analysis of voting trends by the Liberal-leaning Centre for Independent Studies has found that by the time people reached their early 50s, Baby Boomers (people born between 1946 and 1964) and Generation X (1965-1980) were more likely to vote for a conservative party than a progressive party.”

The paper’s research suggests my thinking on this subject has been validated. The reader should think of me as something other than a political genius. It was simple. If you looked at the polls for many years, as I have, you would conclude that the young voted left and the old voted right. And that, at some time, the old would progressively die off, and the young left voters would replace them.

An analysis of the report by James Massola and Paul Sakkal for the Sydney Morning Herald suggests that:

“The Coalition could lose the next six elections because Millennials and Generation Z voters aren’t shifting towards conservatives as they age.

“The report further states that that trend is not being repeated among voters who are Millennials (1981-1995) or Generation Z (1996-2009). The percentage of Millennials shifting their vote to the Coalition is only increasing by 0.6 per cent at each election – half the speed at which Boomers and Gen Xers are shifting – which means Millennials will be in their 80s rather than their 50s before they are more likely to vote for the Coalition.

And for Generation Z, who were first eligible to vote in a federal election from 2014, support for the Coalition is falling, rather than increasing. This group is the least likely of any post-war generation to support the Coalition.”

All this analysis indicates that the Coalition could lose another 35 seats. The paper reveals that by 2040 – 70 per cent of voters will be from post-1980 generations.

The Australian Election Study proclaim to be the leading study of political attitudes and voting behaviour in Australia. Their paper examined the average primary vote for the Coalition in elections held in 1966, 1969, 1980 and from 1987 to 2022.

According to the paper’s author Matthew Taylor support for the Coalition among Millennials was increasing at a glacial rate compared to Baby Boomers and Gen X.

“If Gen Z support for the Coalition stays where it is and the generation that comes after has similarly low support, then even if Boomers, Gen X and Millennials keep shifting towards the Coalition at the rates we have seen in the past, that still isn’t enough for the Coalition to return to government in the next six elections,” he said.

After studying the report, I concluded that the Coalition has a rough sea to navigate before having any success in future elections.

Liberal Frontbencher Dan Tehan has called for a significant review of his party’s policies, saying the party needed to find better ways to prove that Liberal values were core Australian values.

They would have to do more than that, like getting rid of the blatant corruption that insinuates itself like rust throughout the party.

The Liberal Party has survived on policies aimed directly at the cohort that is now on its way to the long sleep, and those replacing them want other things from their government, like a revival of the fair go.

Added to their already substantial problems, I find it impossible to imagine that the Australian people would be so gullible as to elect a government that performed so miserably for a decade.

Along the road to a new election, events will emerge to focus on the former Government’s corruption. A steady stream of bad news will be revealed before the next election. I speak of Robodebt and the long list of severe misdemeanours that will be placed before the National Anti-Corruption Commission in June. The Robodebt Royal Commission report which was handed to the Governor General yesterday is expected to be explosive (if it hasn’t been already). This can’t be good for the opposition, no matter what they say.

Of course, the best thing Labor has going for it is Peter Dutton himself. As I previously wrote, and still maintain:

“On all accounts, he thinks there is nothing wrong with the party he leads: Its philosophy, its morality, its trust, its economic credentials and its equality.

Peter Dutton is so disliked by all and Sundry that he couldn’t win an election if he started now.”

I have read and watched the evidence of those involved in this sordid tale of political skulduggery, and I dread to think about what lay ahead for the chief protagonists.

In my email inbox sits the latest newsletter from the Robodebt Royal Commission. It reads as follows.

23 June 2023

“The Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme has updated a Do Not Publish order.

DNP-0022 has been updated further to include an additional exception on point (c) and (d) of page one.

The truth shall set you free, or will it?

That is a week from now, but those like me who want justice done must wait until the Parliament sits again on Monday, 3 July. It will receive the report then and release it soon afterwards. Well, that’s what I expect to happen. A statement as inflammable as this will require the Government’s immediate attention.

The report promises to be highly explosive, with former Prime Minister Morrison, Attorney General Porter, Minister Tudge, Minister Robert, and Minister Payne facing an uncertain future. It is plain to all and sundry that some or possibly all of those mentioned will face further investigation by the Federal Police. And you can add to that a culpable public service.

Finally, the truth will emerge from an exhaustive Royal Commission by the Commissioner Catherine Holmes AC SC.

The Royal Commission was established to:

“… enquire into the establishment, design and implementation of the Robodebt scheme; the use of third-party debt collectors under the Robodebt scheme; concerns raised following the performance of the Robodebt scheme; and the intended or actual outcomes of the Robodebt scheme.”

The cruelty of the scheme, as has been widely reported:

“More than 2030 people died after receiving a Centrelink debt notice, also known as robo-debt, according to data released by the Department of Human Services.”

The Royal Commission spent over nine weeks in a Brisbane hotel ballroom cross-examining one hundred witnesses, including three former Prime Ministers. They were all sworn to tell the truth. Sometimes a little blood fell onto the dance floor.

Hours passed, and sometimes hours bled into days as public servants waited to give evidence. Politicians were forensically asked questions by a King’s Council and a former Queensland chief justice about one of the country’s most egregious failures of public administration. Arguably the worst failure in public policy in Australian political history.

The witnesses in this sordid affair were taken as far back as 2014 and questioned about emails, conversations, and even scribbled notes. In doing so, it found the origin of a government program that would unleash misery on the country’s most vulnerable.

A woman with extraordinary deftness led the Royal Commission and did what a court probably couldn’t. She wrenched open the iron gates of legal professional privilege and cabinet confidentiality to expose the passageways of power.

Why did the Government proceed with the scheme after finding it illegal? That is the big question. Who was responsible? Let’s hope Catherine Ena Holmes, AC SC, will provide the answers.

One of the promises made by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was that he would clean up the Parliament and make it more trustworthy. Events of the past fortnight suggest that he has so far failed abysmally. Is it his fault? No, it is not.

Well, whose then?

Firstly, it is the fault of the system and its rules. The failure to obey them is mainly the failure of men to grow up. Some of us have no control over what are, to some, men’s daily predilections: that of womanising. But some seem to have no control over that either. Sex is like a drug to some men who have trouble keeping their zippers done up.

Some seem to think flirting or an affair when away from home is a substitute, but some men become more lustful than others, forgetting that it isn’t on if it isn’t consensual. Some beautiful women are in the Houses of Parliament, but that is their luck, not the MPs.

Is it an excuse? No, it’s not. Whoever wrote the rules had better take another look and consider the examples of other organisations. Thank goodness Parliament only meets periodically, or you can imagine the problems.

I’m not trying to be flippant here because this problem has become an unbearable and often heartbreaking problem. Especially when politics are intertwined.

Such was the case when the Liberals thought they could take the head of Finance Minister Katy Gallagher over the suggestion she had known weeks before about the Brittany Higgins allegations and had encouraged the complaint.

The ugly side of politics was about to rear its head again.

The mud-slinging began on the weekend of June 10, and debate in the House of Representatives and Senate question times over three days, amounting to nothing.

The Liberal Party had set out to prove that Gallagher had misled the Senate. They failed to prove their case, and all the old anti-women accusations came back to haunt them. The further it went, the deeper the mud became, and for the dignity of the House, Peter Dutton should have backed off. Foolishly he didn’t; Lidia Thorpe fearlessly spoke her mind in the Senate, and all hell broke loose.

Then on Wednesday, Senator Thorpe used parliamentary privilege to constantly interrupt Victorian Senator (while speaking about the Higgins accusations of all things) David Van to allege that he had sexually assaulted her in a stairwell at Parliament House. He, of course, denied the charge. She later withdrew under Senate rules but returned later to hone in on her indictment, giving Senator Van a decent tongue-lashing.

Not long after, former Senator Amanda Stoker calls Dutton to tell him that the same Senator Van had “inappropriately touched” her at a social function in 2020. It was then he made the decision to expel Van from the federal Liberal party room.

Dutton said another person had complained about the Senator, but he couldn’t disclose any details. Sounds rather convenient, but let’s move on.

Then Senator Van decides that he will sit as an independent now that he, as a consequence of those events mentioned earlier, had been dismissed from the party.

On the Sunday following all this Liberal Party head-hunting and shame, National Party Deputy Leader Bridget McKenzie appears on ABC Insiders to tell David Speers what a wonderful thing it is to have such a strong and concerned leader.

“We know that both the Labor party, One Nation, the Greens, the Liberal party, all political parties have faced these type of internal challenges over the recent past and for a leader to be so decisive, I think was a testament to his strength of feeling around these matters, though.”

I think there was a lot of cheers silently across parliamentary offices with such decisive action being taken by a leader.”

Memories of how decisively brutish Mr Dutton had been in his former portfolios and his capriciousness in never displaying empathy toward others came to mind.

That wasn’t all. Bridget also indicated during the interview that people in her electorate had come forward and highlighted instances of sexual harassment or abuse, but she always kept them confidential.

Now, isn’t that what they were accusing Gallagher of?

On Tuesday, June 20, the Prime Minister suggested that the newspapers that published the original text messages in the Brittany Higgins case may have broken the law.

The Opposition Leader, his party and the gutter media had set out to take Gallagher’s head, but instead, they lost one of their own. In doing so, they had once again displayed that when it comes to women, the Liberal Party is nothing but a bunch of conservative middle-aged males who have an incubus attitude toward women.

I’m sure all parties would have found it restorative when the Prime Minister announced his intention to cleanse the Parliament of its Abbott/Morrison disregard for rules and conventions.

I even naively thought that the Liberal and National parties would take to heart their May 21, 2022, defeat and reform. After all, the Opposition leader had indicated his desire to become softer and more gentle.

However, I recall Dutton saying nothing was wrong with Liberal philosophy, manners and culture. And so, life goes on in the Liberal Party room. Nothing has changed. Nothing will. If he isn’t some “extreme right-wing person,” what is he, and who does he represent?

Here is an example of a promise too hard to keep:

Question Time continues to be the bear pit it has always been. It is devoid of wit, humour, words of intelligence and those with the eloquence and debating skills to give them meaning. Mainly it embraces maleness that believes in conflict as a means of political supremacy over and above the pursuit of excellence in an argument.

It certainly is one of the ugly sides of politics.

Continued from Part 1

Peter Dutton’s motives for supporting the No vote are questionable. I devoted most of part one to the character of the man who will lead the No vote. I did so because it is essential to question the motives of those who lead Conservative parties. I have concluded that (as part one shows) Peter Dutton has no moral ethics and that, in their absence, he is saying No for purely political reasons.

He and his Coalition partner, the Nationals, stand between justice for our First Nations people and continuing the status quo. As is usual in these circumstances, they offer no alternatives to what they oppose.

It is fair to say that in my lifetime, governments of both shades spent many billions of dollars seeking to improve the lives of Aboriginal folk. However, the programmes were devised by whites and implemented by them. It is also fair to say that many programmes failed for that reason.

Our First Nations people are asking first that they are recognised for what they are; the descendants of those who inhabited the lands for thousands of years. They would expect this be noted in our Constitution. Most of us, those who believe in a fair go, would agree.

Those who don’t are throwing spurious objections that are false or fake and intended to confuse the listener or reader.

Secondly, they ask that they be given a ‘voice’: One that will go directly to Parliament and be heard by those who make decisions. Parliament would not tolerate frivolous propositions and ambient claims. Thought-through proposals would be considered on merit, accepted or rejected.

It is a simple request for the First Nations people. There is nothing sinister to read into it. After long and thoughtful consideration, they have requested that they have a say in their future and be recognised in our Constitution.

Adding logic to the debate, Mark Kenny recently wrote that:

“It was not right-wing cowardice that defeated apartheid but moral clarity and fierce purpose. It came from Nelson Mandella, Steve and Ntsiki Biko, and countless others.”

Let us take a little time to examine what is meant by “moral clarity and fierce purpose” Kenny wrote (above) concerning the Voice.

We’ll start at the explanation of the referendum question and constitutional amendment:

On referendum day, voters will be asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on a single question. Subject to the Parliament’s approval, the question on the ballot paper will be:

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

Constitutional amendment

The proposed law that Australians are being asked to approve at the referendum would insert the following lines into the Constitution:

“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

Constitution Alteration Bill

The Government has introduced the Constitution Alteration Bill into Parliament. The Bill sets the question that will be put to the Australian people later this year and includes the proposed alteration to the Constitution.

A Joint Parliamentary Committee will consider the Bill and report by 15 May 2023. Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s website.

You can follow the progress on the Constitution Alteration Bill on the Parliament of Australia website.

Referendum 2023

• Referendum question and constitutional amendment
• How a referendum works

Conclusion

There it is. It’s so clear-cut and easy to follow that blind Freddy could understand it. So why is Peter Dutton so intent on wrecking something that should have been done and dusted twenty years ago?

In his unwarranted attacks on the Voice, the Opposition Leader suggested it would re-racialise Australia. I must admit I hadn’t come across the phrase before. However, it may confirm thoughts he may have had when he so shamefully turned his back and walked out on the National Apology in 2008.

The concept of a Voice is but a step away from a treaty, so Dutton would also take down any hope of an accord or a republic.

Many in his party agree with Dutton’s sentiments, but they are from the Trumpish, brutal right flank of conservatives. Others ostensibly can see that the Voice is an opportunity to heal the divisions of the past.

It is also about truth-telling, recognising, listening and talking. If Dutton cannot identify those virtues, he has no place in Parliament, now or in the future.

It worries me; no, it disturbs me that now a little over a year since Labor won the election, no word of regret for their many failures (those who committed suicide or others hurt by their lack of empathy) has been uttered by anyone in the Opposition. Instead, its leader has indicated that he intends to take his party further right.

Admitting that you are wrong is an absolute prerequisite to starting anew, redefining who you are and what you and your party stand for. Dutton has yet to do this. Instead, he has opted to sabotage an idea put forward in good faith. One that would resolve generations of angst. After scaring the life out of decent people, will he drive them six miles out of town and let them find their way back.

Journo stumps Peter Dutton by asking why he hasn’t bothered to meet with the CEO of the Alice Springs Traditional Owners’ organisation Lhere Artepe, while he is there in Alice Springs.
Peter Dutton says he’d rather speak to “shoppers in shopping centres” 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/RiuROo9mfI

— stranger (@strangerous10) April 12, 2023