You are probably thinking, referring to the headline, that it is a stupid thing to say, and on the one hand, you might be right given the Government still has two years to serve. On the other, going early when your chances of winning are second to none is a good idea.

The Constitution provides that:

“… terms for the House of Representatives continue for a maximum of three years from the first meeting of the House after an election. This means that a Federal Election for the House of Representatives may be called at any time in the three years following the first sitting of the House. The Governor-General may also dissolve the House sooner than the three-year term.

The latest possible date of the next election is within 68 days from the expiry of the House. As the 47th Parliament first met on Tuesday, July 26 2022, it is due to expire on Friday, July 25 2025. The election for the House of Representatives must therefore be held by September 27 2025, the last Saturday within these 68 days. However, elections are generally called well before constitutionally or legally necessary.”

To make it clear, I support fixed election dates with 3-year terms, but in this instance, my support for an extended period of punishment for the conservative side of politics is as important to me as it is rising every day. And at my age, that is important.

Now, allow me to put this into perspective. After almost ten years of the worst kind of grossly offensive governance, the Liberal and National parties lost the 2022 election on May 21.

In the time that has elapsed since that date, not once have I heard from the lips of a conservative politician any form of regret or apology, even remorse or shame. On the contrary, we have been served a recipe of poached platitudes, banalities and lies.

To listen to them is like listening to those who cannot express themselves adequately and repetitively mumble, “but we were still born to rule.”

People will, over time, forget their crimes of corruption, the scandals and their men of mad, destructive political beliefs and decisions. Of inequality toward women and lacking equality of opportunity. All of which have been identified in various media over the years and will now be investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

We must do as I am now, reminding everyone of how foolish and rotten they were. Then repeating it repeatedly because another ten years would be unbearable and disastrous for our nation.

And this is why we must remind the electorate right up to the next election and beyond. Now you ask what would prevent another Luddite period of (mostly) men.

Going early is not uncommon. It allows you to govern for five straight years in circumstances primarily to your benefit. It will enable you to fulfil promises in an unfulfilled, more orderly manner.

An early election campaign creates the opportunity to remind the punters of just how deplorable the conservatives governed.

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 this would happen sometime, but the LNP did nothing about it. A note of caution is that the young are desperate for change. By that, I mean significant, meaningful change that excites and promotes new ways of doing things.

Women still feel ostracised by a party that showed them an indifference that harks from an Elizabethan period when women weren’t allowed to vote or inherit. Labor needs to remind women of the LNP’s misogyny and unrefined manners.

On 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 on the road to the latest election. I speak of Robodebt and the long list of severe misdemeanours that will be placed before the NACC in June. The Robodebt Royal Commission report will be handed to the Governor General in mid-July. The report is expected to be explosive.

Of course, the best thing Labor has going for it, is Peter Dutton himself. 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.

Having said all this, it must be noted that there is much to do. Labor’s first year has also seen many challenges.

Inflation is still high, as are interest rates, the cost of living is higher than it should be, and housing and rents are also high. Most of this mess the Government has inherited from the LNP. Much of it has come from events beyond Labor’s control, eg the war in Ukraine and the pandemic.

Then there is The Voice referendum. If it were to pass despite Peter Dutton’s hatchet job, it would give our First Nations people a voice in their future and allow Labor a free hand to complete its agenda. Dutton, in dismissing any form of bipartisanship, has played to form.

Labor has fulfilled 18 of its significant commitments, whilst others, like The Voice are a work in progress, and some are on hold pending the release of reports.

While writing, I also had Question Time playing on my iPad. The deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Susan Ley, asked the Prime Minister a question that she couldn’t seem to make coherent. The House burst into laughter at its stupidity. The Prime Minister admirably addressed it by calling it a salad, which I thought; “That the word salad sums up this Opposition.” It’s a combination of many ingredients. I’ll leave the dressing with you.

Later this year, Labor must announce significant changes leading into a fresh election. One that will cement the middle ground and a further three years.

Some people can easily remember what they were doing at the time of significant events. The shooting of John F Kennedy or John Lennon. Or The moon landing. Or what they were doing when the twin towers were attacked or the unlawful invasion of Iraq? There are others, of course.

The exactness of where l was and what l was doing at the time of any of the events mentioned above escapes me, but their importance doesn’t. In particular, l can vividly recollect 911 and its aftermath. On the Sunday morning following the horrific event, l was astonished when we attended our local church, and the youthful Pastor made scant mention of the shocking occurrence and the resulting lives lost.

When it became evident that the subject would be secondary to the Pastor’s prepared sermon, we left in disgust and went to another nearby church where we were confident the issue would get a fair airing.

We didn’t require an injection of American political propaganda or exceptionalism. We were more interested in the human aspects. Words that might provide some comfort together with our compassion for the lives lost and the families overwhelmed with shock and grief – words compelling us to think about the present and future consequences.

Take the following, for example:

“The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783), also known as the Revolutionary War or American War of Independence, was the military conflict of the American Revolution.

American Patriot forces under George Washington’s command defeated the British, establishing and securing the independence of the United States.”

History further tells us that since 1776 the U.S.A. has been at war for 93% of the time it has existed.

And that:

“Incomplete statistics show that from the end of World War II to 2001, among the 248 armed conflicts that occurred in 153 regions of the world, 201 were initiated by the United States.”

These include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Kosovo War, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, and the Syrian War.

“According to a report released in March 2021 by Code Pink, a U.S. anti-war group, the United States and its allies have consistently bombed other countries over the past 20 years, dropping an average of more than 40 bombs daily.

Statistics also show over the past two decades, the so-called anti-terror wars waged by the United States have cost more than 929,000 lives.”

It would be unfair to blame all these incursions on the U.S. alone. After World War 2, when the world was divided into East versus West, America became the cop on the beat or the policeman of the world, intervening in other country’s affairs when a threat of Communism loomed. Cuba is but one example, namely the Cuban missile crisis.

Often America has borne the cost in lives and money of these conflicts. However, with the demise of the USSR and the rise of China as a superpower to match the United States, we have a competition of philosophy.

American capitalistic democracy Vs Chinese capitalistic dictated Communism

In trying to determine right and wrong, two factors must be considered.

On the one hand, the erosion of western democracy has been deplorable since the end of the second world war. On the other, China’s rise (despite becoming a dictatorship) over the past 40 years has been extraordinarily impressive.

China has achieved this without significant conflict. So, China is planning to re-shape the international order resembling itself.

“China has broken new ground in its diplomatic endeavours amid profound global changes and turned crises into opportunities amid complex situations on the international stage. These efforts have resulted in a marked increase in China’s international influence, appeal, and power to shape.”

The decline in real American Democracy began with the emergence of the neo-cons and Ronald Reagan, which saw a rise in the influence of fundamentalist Christian religion. Reagan gave them a licence to become involved in politics, and a slow path toward Trumpism began.

The likes of Carle Rove influenced the born-again Christian George W Bush, who had a distorted view of American exceptionalism.

In Australia, the LNP under John Howard began to rip our Democracy asunder. When they got the chance after a short break with Labor, Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison completed the job. Howard’s action in joining America in Iraq relied entirely on their evidence that it had weapons of mass destruction. It did not, and Howard never asked the question; “Please double-check your information.”

So when debating the rights and wrongs of purchasing submarines and being aligned with the United States and England, the average Australian has much to chew over.

Are we safer with the involvement of America and England and with ANSUS but without guaranteeing they would support us in times of trouble, remembering they have an America First philosophy? Or would it have been better to develop our relationship with China while maintaining those with the U.S.?

In doing so, nobody should ignore the thoughts of Paul Keating. He at least has the guts to put forward views that, whilst they may irritate, are worthy of consideration.

For Australia to blindly align itself with the United States when the possibility that Donald Trump’s madness might again return to lead the conservative party is coloured red with danger.

America is a precarious democracy, hardly able to manage its affairs, let alone anyone else’s.

If we had been trying to enrich our thinking and diplomacy with China instead of pandering to the United States, we might have been in a better strategic position.

Moreover, we wouldn’t be facing the conundrum we now are.

For some reason, I find myself yet again writing about this referendum. Why can’t people comprehend the simplicity of it? Is it because Aboriginal people solely occupied Australia before white people came along? “They didn’t own the land: The land owned them” (as our editor would say).

Two contrasting Redfern occasions

On the occasion of the “International year for the world’s indigenous people,” Paul Keating delivered a speech that later became known as the “Redfern address” (delivered on 10 December 1992) and is considered one of the finest political addresses ever. It was 1992.

Here is a short extract:

“Isn’t it reasonable to say that if we can build a prosperous and remarkably harmonious multicultural society in Australia, surely, we can find just solutions to the problems which beset the first Australians, the people to whom the most injustice has been done.

And, as I say, the starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians.

It begins, I think, with that act of recognition, recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing.

We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life.

We brought the diseases – the alcohol.

We committed the murders.

We took the children from their mothers.

We practised discrimination and exclusion.

It was our ignorance and our prejudice.

And our failure to imagine these things being done to us.

With some noble exceptions, we failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds.

We failed to ask how would I feel if this were done to me?

As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us.

If we needed a reminder of this, we received it this year.

The Report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal -Deaths. in Custody showed with devastating clarity that the past lives on in inequality, racism and injustice.

In the prejudice and ignorance of non-Aboriginal Australians, and-in the demoralisation and desperation, the fractured identity, of so many Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

For all this, I do not believe that the Report should fill us with guilt. Down the years, there has been no shortage of guilt, but it has not produced the responses we need.

Guilt is not a very constructive emotion.

I think what we need to do is open our hearts a bit.

All of us.

Perhaps when we recognise what we have in common we will see the things which must be done, the practical things.

We have to give meaning to “justice” and “equity” and, as I have said several times this year, we will only give

them meaning when we commit ourselves to achieving concrete results.

The Mabo Judgement should be seen as one of these.

By doing away with the bizarre conceit that this continent had no owners prior to the settlement of Europeans, Maba establishes a fundamental truth and lays the basis for justice.”

Yes, it was delivered 31 years ago. It was Keating’s address, of course, but his speech writer Don Watson deserves credit for his finely attuned words that were so very much in tune with the truth.

That truth is as indisputable today as it was then. We have been trying to recognise that our First Nations people are just as good at sorting through problems as we are. We have failed because we have not grasped the thinking of the heart.

Some white people want Aboriginal people to live with us under our thinking without recognising that they, not us, are the rightful custodians of this land. They have life and death invested in it. We are but bystanders to their history.

All they desire is for their unique credentials to be recognised in our constitution. It is a cry from the heart for their own voice.

In practicable terms, we, the whites, have failed to improve their lot. For decade upon decade, we have imposed on them a philosophy of superiority. We know what is best for you. And we have spent billions on our “knowing best.”

Our First Nations folk want any opportunity to have a say in the future of any government decision that affects them or, indeed, to raise matters that do. To have a voice in their concerns is a paramount right for any First Nations people. So far, we have failed them and, in so doing, told them that we are righteous. Know your place.

Even though Aboriginal leaders are still finalising their crucial advice to the cabinet, the government plans to progress two bills to set up the Indigenous voice referendum in this two-week sitting:

“The referendum working group was expected to confirm its advice to government on the exact wording of the question and the constitutional amendment on Thursday. But a communique from its meeting in Adelaide, issued by Indigenous Australians minister Linda Burney’s office, said the process was still ongoing.”

And as is familiar with conservatives, minor issues are being raised to delay, frustrate and confuse humanely genuine people.

My concern, however, is related to the original headline of this piece:

“Denying our first nations folk a voice might bring about consequences of a new militancy that would worsen matters.”

I am concerned that saying no by a large majority or a small minority or one state voting no might open the door to a new militancy that might eclipse the 2004 Redfern riots in its fury.

Those who remember the “Redfern riots” will remember the thousands of people who assembled in Redfern, which was described by the Sapien website as an:

“… impoverished area, with a relatively high concentration of public housing, where the local Aboriginal community has been commonly associated with criminality and violence.”

The Redfern Riots began with the death of a teenage boy being pursued by police. His name was “T.J.” Hickey. He was riding his bike, being pursued by police, when he hit a gutter, was flung into the air and came down on a fence. Another view is that he was being followed. He was impaled on the fence, causing penetrating injuries to his neck and chest. He was a first nations lad of 17. The date was Saturday 14 February 2004.

Would a no-vote be accepted with calm indignation, or would the more militant show their rejection in an avalanche of unwelcomed rioting like Redfern? Only history knows.

No doubt our First Nations people will start with high expectations. Why shouldn’t they? They have a government that wants the yes vote to prevail as much as they do. Most people do, I think.

The thought of what the Leader of the Opposition might do leaves me looking for my Valium.

1 Whenever you think the political world has gone quiet, a bit of scratching on the surface reveals that the early frenetic pace set by the Albanese Government has kept up its earlier pace.

Having said that, politics is unquestionably quieter now than during the Coalition years when a scandal seemed to foist itself on our lives daily, but the work is just as intense. Take this month, for example. Prime Minister Albanese has already spent four days in India. He and Prime Minister Modi received rapturous applause while doing a greeting lap at the beginning of the fourth test match in the 132,000-seat stadium in Ahmedabad.

It was as much incredible public relations as it was business between the two nations.

Some call it a defining month for Albanese. But with several overs left before the close of play, he has already put a big score on the board with some big decisions. As David Speers, writing for the ABC says:

“We’re in the midst of a defining month for the Albanese prime ministership. The announcements he makes and the decisions he takes over the coming weeks will shape the Government’s fortunes and Australia’s future.

Consider the various balls being juggled right now and what’s at stake.”

In three days, he left India after seven speeches in three cities; Ahmedabad, Mumbai and New Delhi, in which he put a valuable score on the board. Over twenty-five of Australia’s top businessmen were with him, intent on investing in India’s tech boom and trade with the world’s second-highest populated nation.

At the kind invitation of Prime Minister @narendramodi, we will be visiting Ahmedabad, Mumbai and New Delhi.

Trade with India presents Australian businesses and workers with tremendous opportunities for growth.

— Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) March 8, 2023

Albanese is undoubtedly unafraid to take on a long inning. Trade investments, collaboration on audio-visual, co-production of films, maritime cooperation, defence, renewable energy and education, and an intention to wrap up a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement before the end of the year.

Anthony Albanese is scoring at a brisk rate, and he needs to. But he could be forgiven for having a few things on his mind besides trade and investment with India.

Then before a ball had reached the boundary, he was off to the United States to announce the purchase of new submarines with President Biden and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. As part of the Aukus pact, it will likely cost more than 100 billion dollars, with South Australia featuring in the build.

As a nation with little security, Australia must spend big on our defence to gain the military capability it will need for the decades ahead. Nuclear-powered submarines are costly, but Albanese promises to reveal the cost in the May budget. Another problem is the question of our sovereignty.

This will upset China for obvious reasons, and the Opposition will prefer something other than a British submarine design, but they look to be onside now.

Last week, the Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles made this point in Parliament:

“Australia will become just the seventh country to have the ability to operate a nuclear-powered submarine. We have never operated a military capability at this level before.”

He is correct, of course. It is a new stage of our ability to defend ourselves against would-be aggressors. For Australia to have “at least eight nuclear-powered submarines” “by the mid 2030s” gives us much food for thought, and every Australian should see our ability to defend ourselves in a new light.

The Government, of course, makes the point that there is no difference between wanting the best available defence equipment possible and wanting a better relationship with China.

Beware the ides of March (to quote Shakespeare).

Ostensibly, March is shaping up as a vital month for decisions on defence, and our economic future, with so many demands for a slice of the pie that can only take so many bites. And let’s remember the trillion dollars of debt. Then there is “The Voice” question. The working group met last week to finalise its recommendations for the wording of the question to be put to the government. It is said that Albanese will be happy with whatever they come up with.

The other matter requiring urgent attention is the plan to strengthen the “Safeguards Mechanism for big emitters.” Minister for Climate change Chris Bowen and Greens leader Adam Bandt have been at loggerheads for weeks without compromise. With a deal that needs to be finalised within three weeks if the July deadline is to be reached, it’s time for the Prime Minister to step in.

“If the legislation fails to pass, it will be far easier for a future Coalition government to undo the Safeguards changes. The chance to give investors some certainty will be lost.”

2 Malfeasance: This word and its dictionary definition are for those who say there is nothing in civil law with which public servants and politicians can be charged. I refer to Robodebt and the evilness of the Liberal Party.

a) Misconduct or wrongdoing, especially by a public official.

b) Evil-doing; the doing of that which ought not to be done; wrongful conduct, especially official misconduct; violation of public trust or obligation; specifically, the doing of an act which is positively unlawful or wrongful, in contradistinction to misfeasance, or the doing of a lawful act in a wrongful manner. The term is often inappropriately used instead of misfeasance.

c) The doing of an act which a person ought not to do; evil conduct; an illegal deed.

3 Normally, after swimming laps, my ears are inclined to block. It occurs even when flying, and it has affected me since childhood. However, my ears refused to unblock this time, and I had it for a month or so. While watching Stuart Robert give evidence at the Robodebt Royal Commission, they finally popped. “Did he say what I think he said?” I asked my wife, who happened to be watching with me. “Yes, he did,” she answered.

“Robert was asked to explain why he had repeatedly defended the program – describing the ultimately successful class action as a “political stunt” and citing statistics pointing to a tiny error rate in debts raised against individuals.

“I had a massive personal misgiving, yes, but I’m still a cabinet minister,” Robert said.

[Catherine]Holmes replied: “Yes, but it doesn’t compel you to say things that you don’t believe to be true, surely? It’s one thing to stick to the policy and say this is how we do it and we are confident in the program but to actually give statistics which you couldn’t have believed to be accurate is another thing, isn’t it?”

Robert replied, ‘As a dutiful cabinet minister, ma’am, that’s what we do.’

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

How astonishing. Didn’t he know that the law required him to tell the truth? No wonder trust in Government is at such a low ebb. There was a time when ministers resigned over the simplest of immoderate acts.

Here we had a Minister openly admitting that he and his colleagues lied, as a matter of course, if cabinet solidarity was required. And saying so to a Royal Commissioner, no less.

All Prime Ministers have introduced codes of conduct to which they are expected to adhere. Stuart Robert apparently had no idea any existed.

Yet there he sits in Parliament House, displaying all the purity of a white dove when he should have been thrown out of the party by his leader but cannot because they all did it.

I will be anxiously waiting for the final Robodebt report in late June. Not for reasons of revenge, but for justice to be done.

It must be challenging for the Commissioner and Senior Counsel Assisting when critical witnesses at the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme either suffer from amnesia, compulsive lying, acquired memory loss, flippancy, no responsibility or even lousy hearing.

How on earth do they piece it all together? A better question is how all those involved live with the knowledge of the crime they committed and, worse still, the knowledge that it was illegal.

The symptoms seemed to worsen after taking an oath, to tell the truth. To state that it was the worst public policy disaster in Australian political history is to understate its death count.

Even on the evidence so far, it is enough to conclude that a crime of terrible proportion has been committed. It is not for me to pre-empt the Commission’s findings, but this goes beyond lawlessness and immorality.

With the next round of hearings just around the corner, let’s look at the key moments that have transpired to date.

* * * * *

What was going on in these depraved minds that would render them impotent in the face of perverse Christian leadership?

It was revealed that:

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

What the Commission was asked to consider

The Robodebt Royal Commission was established on 18 August 2022 and will conclude in June 2023. It 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 implementation of the Robodebt scheme; and the intended or actual outcomes of the Robodebt scheme.”

I urge the reader to view the complete list here. The Government left nothing out. The Terms of Reference are wide-ranging and straightforward.

What we know so far

“Everybody says it was really somebody else’s doing, and it’s a bit hard to get to the bottom of whose doing it was.”

So said the head of the Commission, Catherine Holmes, after hearing the evidence of former Attorney General Christian Porter.

The latest hearings concentrated on the period between 2016 and early 2017. It was the period in which the full horror of the robodebt scheme came before the eyes of the Australian Public.

When asked if he accepted any responsibility for the scheme, Christian Porter, the former social services minister, without hesitation, said:

“I do. I look back on this, and I see myself through the correspondence getting quite close at points to taking the next step of inquiry. I didn’t do that. I wish now that I had, but I also see the reasons that I didn’t.”

So, he had the distinction of becoming the first minister to accept any responsibility for what occurred.

Without exception, the witnesses so far were evasive: Morrison, Tudge, and Payne either handballed, had a memory lapse, or straight-out lied.

Porter told the Commission:

“… he didn’t ask more questions about the scheme’s legality. In his recollection that in early 2017 ‘someone’ assured him it was legal. He said he couldn’t recall who told him but said it was a public servant.”

This elicited from Holmes a hard stony look, and she responded with:

“You don’t seem to have approached any of this from a lawyer’s point of view … You don’t seem to have at any stage said, well, by what authority do we send the letters?”

Alan Tudge, in his extended stay in the witness chair, also had a problem with the “l” word (legal).

According to the Minister, he was never informed regarding legal doubts officials in his department had about the robodebt scheme. In his view, it must have been legal because it had gone through the cabinet and, therefore, would have had legal analysis.

Of Tudge, Luke Henriques-Gomes wrote in the Guardian that he:

“… rejected the suggestion that if those public servants had not sought to clarify the law on robodebt (they did not), he was responsible as the minister. But, crucially, under questioning, he conceded he never suggested it be stopped either.”

When asked about income averaging, Tudge said:

“I’d understood that (income averaging) had always been used for decades and so it had not crossed my mind that it could possibly be unlawful.”

Commissioner Holmes responded:

“It seems a fairly blithe approach for a minister, particularly in the light of controversy, to assume that because it’s happened before for a long time it must be fine.”

Questions were asked about two suicides linked to the scheme and his handling of them, which he found difficult to answer. In particular, why he had not sought a probe into the second case or didn’t stop the program pending an investigation.

It was difficult not to conclude that Mr Tudge wasn’t bending the truth beyond breaking point about his alleged involvement in decisions to proceed regardless. He must have been hard of hearing.

The public service

Annette Musolino was chief counsel at the Department of Human Services while the scheme operated and was unmercifully drilled by counsel assisting.

She told the Commission she had known that the administrative appeals tribunal had ruled against the scheme on several occasions. Although she was responsible for:

“… a team of lawyers handling these decisions, but she did not act to clarify the law.

Musolino suggested she believed the legality of the robodebt scheme had been “sorted out”. But she had seen that the department of social services had conflicting advice on the program – including a damning opinion from 2014.

Holmes said: “You had done nothing to get it sorted it out. Not even gotten advice.”

Musolino deflected blame, saying she believed the department of social services had determined the scheme was legal. Musolino will face the royal commission again later this month.”

I shouldn’t be shocked at the lying and deceit. This Royal Commission is soliciting from its witnesses, even if, as Commissioner Holmes says, it is often challenging to specify blame.

Thus far, it tells me that the Commission is doing a splendid job revealing their ostrich-like defence.

Showing up both politicians and public servants for the treacherous gutless charlatans without apathy they are. Whereas the Commissioners must attribute blame with fact, l have the luxury of being able to venture between the lines and listen to what a lifetime of experience tells me.

From what l can tell, the ABC and The Guardian are the only media outlet covering the subject. It’s a pity because this is one of the worst political scandals in Australia’s history. The AIM Network also has a keen interest in reporting these events.

Next time I will review how the Government tried to assassinate the character of its many victims. Plus, more witnesses, including Tudge (again) and the entertaining (if nothing else) Malcolm Turnbull.

Know your place, you scum. Know your place!

I am furious with their treatment by the opposition and certain members of the fourth estate. To whom do I refer? Our First Nations folk and their treatment. A few years back, we lived in a house where my neighbour to the left and my neighbour to the right believed that Aboriginals took up too much space.

“Know your place” is a phrase used in the past by members of the Liberal Party when they observed, in their view, members of the Labor Party acting above their station.

It means to accept your position within society, an organisation, your family, etc. and not want to improve it:

“Know your place, Tanya.” The last time l recall that phrase so sarcastically being used was when Tanya Plibersek went to shake the hand of Governor General Cosgrove after he had shaken Bill Shorten’s hand at the reopening of Parliament in 2016. Plibersek’s shake was rejected, and a heckler is heard to say, “that says a lot. Know your place, Tanya.”

It continues to trouble me that the proposal for a First Nations voice is coming under such a sustained attack from the far right of the conservative side of politics and its supporters in the media.

The lessons of the last election should have left an indelible scar on those involved in the Luddite politics of the past decade. Have they not understood that the people, in their judgement, said they had had enough of their rancid unempathetic behaviour? Yet they go on unmoved as if nothing transpired while trying to give the Leader with a public image of a racist bigot a personality transplant. Queensland excepted.

But the attacks led by the Opposition leader Peter Dutton could have a fatal effect on the proposal. He knows that history tells us that without the support of the opposition, the referendum won’t pass. That is unless the people vote as they did in the election and decide to confirm their thoughts of May 21 2022, with a resounding yes vote that shatters conservative negativity for decades to come.

On the one hand, Dutton might pull the pin at the last moment and take the kudos for doing so. On the other, he might decide to kill the vote and accept the consequences of an outraged First Nations people.

Julian Leeser, the opposition spokesperson, has favoured a voice for Aboriginal folk for as long as I can remember. He is moderate, articulate and intelligent. He is also a tongue twister.

However, his following argument makes little sense:

“Shadow attorney-general Julian Leeser has crossed over to Peter Dutton’s side and is calling for Anthony Albanese to release more “detail.” He puts this view.

“It’s reasonable if you’re asking people to vote for an institution, that you explain to people how that institution is going to operate,” Leeser said.

Conversely, he adds:

“No one’s suggesting that the total detail of the Voice be outlined in the constitutional provisions.”

The point is, and he already knows, that whatever information and details Albanese gives them and in whatever form will only be backgrounding at best. And non-binding simply because it is the Parliament that decides the formal wording of the legislation, not the public, so the requests by them are nothing more than a political stunt.

And we all know that if the original owners of this great southern land are denied again, they will turn and turn hard after being told again to “know your place.”

The sewer-dwelling conservatives never explain why they oppose the original custodians having a say in their future. They fight and tell lies, never suggesting alternatives, never embracing a bold move forward.

The draft wording of the constitutional amendment to create a Voice says explicitly that it “may make representations” to Parliament and the government. “Parliament would remain sovereign.” The Voice would be advisory only. If people cannot understand that concept, they are guilty of being dumb and should abstain from voting.

That the masters of scare might win this debate is a reality.

When Australians in 50 years look back on us they’ll be astonished that we supported a national day that was an insult to the original occupants of the continent, did not mention them in our Constitution, had a British flag on our flag and had a head of state who was a foreigner.

— Craig Emerson (@DrCraigEmerson) January 27, 2023

They did it with the failed republican referendum in 2019. Then in 2017 – the marriage equality debate. And third was in 2009 – with the fight over a carbon tax.

All referendums were lost with lies, scare campaigns and misleading information. All is not lost, though.

Much water has flowed under the bridge since the last election. Recent polling tells us that the yes vote is at 30%, the no at 20%, and the undecided at 24%, meaning that the “No” vote has to pick up half of the 24% and win every state.

The much-respected George Megalognis, writing for the SMH, said:

“The conservative argument for the Voice understands the consequences of a No vote for social cohesion. The defeat of the referendum, by whatever margin, would split the country and damage the interests of Old Australians just as surely as it would crush the collective spirit of First Australians.”

And that is a fact. Dutton knows it and would revel in the slime he created. How would a man with his history know any better?

In an article for The Monthly on May 22, 2022, Rachael Withers described the Leader of the Opposition in this manner:

“It almost seems unnecessary to list it all, but Peter Dutton is the sort of politician who has done so many fucked-up things that it’s hard to remember them all (though perhaps that’s the point). He’s the man who walked out on Kevin Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations, one of the only MPs to do so. He was the minister caught on a hot mic joking about Pacific nations facing rising seas due to climate change, and who tore down Malcolm Turnbull for daring to do anything about it. He’s the guy – as Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews reminded us yesterday – who falsely claimed that Victorians were scared to go out due to “African gang violence”, and who incorrectly blamed teenager Laa Chol’s death on such gangs in a bid to score a point. He suggested that white South African visas should be “fast-tracked”, and described deporting a NZ minor as “taking the trash out”. He was slammed for accusing his Labor opponent of using her disability as an “excuse”, and had to apologise to journalist Samantha Maiden for labelling her “a mad fucking witch”, in a text message that he accidentally sent to Maiden herself.”

How do you rebrand a politician of Dutton’s ilk? Well, that’s a story for another day.

Postscript: The folk who are the original landowners of this great nation and those who took it from them need to come together to take a small opportunity that presents itself. Some say you cannot trust politicians; I say you can trust the Albanese government, and you must. There is too much at stake to say no. Only a small window opens. Say yes in good faith, and a meaningful voice awaits. It will listen and act.

Someday a conservative government will inevitably regain power. Be prepared. Don’t allow them to say, “know your place.”

Most people turn away from politics over the holiday period when the subject is off the front pages of mainstream media. But it isn’t for those of us who have a closer relationship with the issues. Come late January, the opposition is usually looking for a weakness in the government to attack. Unfortunately, it has chosen to denounce the government’s proposal for a referendum giving our First Nations people a voice. That is a voice, or a guiding say in their future.

1 In all of this, l am trying to figure out who Peter Dutton is representing. Is he representing the people, or is he just a wrecker in the Tony Abbott mould? With Liberalism now finished, is he a conservative stopgap Opposition leader of the far right filling a spot until a natural leader comes along, which may take forever?

Is he, in the absence of anything to attack, now looking for points of difference and is prepared to deploy negative, racist tactics of the sort rejected so emphatically by voters at the last federal election?

Barnaby Joyce is even suggesting we don’t know the referendum question. Lies die hard.

Dutton has an extremely long history of using whatever means his dirty hands can find to send messages of hate to damage any form of reconciliation. Dirty tricks, racist policies, dog whistling and many others, and remember his punitive measures against refugees.

With a record like Dutton’s, it is hard to imagine he could win back government in 2025 or ever, with the party already bleeding votes over its rightward lurch and toxic leadership.

And if you read between the lines, Dutton intends to muddy the waters of this referendum to the extent of withdrawing support. Then Albanese will have no choice but to ditch the referendum.

The federal opposition, mainly Peter Dutton, has almost daily been asking the government for the release of more detail, knowing full well that once the referendum is passed, the parliament then passes the detail. I find it difficult to see the Opposition leader standing in front of the cameras pretending to be a paragon of virtue whilst possessing a record of cruelty unmatched by any other politician.

Albanese should ask Dutton what level of information he requires to support it. Currently, he is showing a great need for knowledge of how referendums work. As for Julian Lesser, the opposition spokesperson on this matter – he should be made to swim in his hypocrisy:

“Even for people who want to explain the voice – it is very hard to explain how it will work when the government is not providing the detail… “

Dutton is again showing us more evidence of his political DNA. It is not a pretty sight but not unexpected. The information he requires is available. Please pick up the phone or Google it.

On top of that, in constitutional law expert Anne Twomey‘s opinion, it would not be appropriate for the government to release draft legislation ahead of the vote. Who would you trust?

Dutton should think about our First Nations people, whom he treats like political trash and seemingly doesn’t see their point of view. Or he wants to play politics disregarding the main objective, which is allocating a voice for our Indigenous folk.

In a Michael West Media email newsletter, Noel Pearson summed it up like this:

“The question that will be put is do we recognise Indigenous people in the constitution, and if we say no to that then I can’t see how the future will be anything other than protest,” he said.

“The Indigenous presence in this country will forever be associated with protest rather than a proper response by the Australian people to this call for recognition and the achievement of reconciliation.”

“What is at stake is the chance for reconciliation,” he said.

“If this referendum is kiboshed through game play and a spoiling game by the opposition we will lose the opportunity, I think, forever.”

Mr Dutton should reflect on that.

2 As reported by The Poll Bludger, the Liberal Party review of election 2022 concludes that “perceived unresponsiveness to issues important to women was ‘not sufficiently and effectively addressed’.”

It also tells us that the review acknowledges the problem it has with women, rejects Labors quota system and only calls for targets. It also notes that the difficulty of “a membership becoming ever less representative of the electorate as it declines in numbers.”

The report to some degree, paints the government “as a victim of the pandemic.” It lists many problems but is short on solutions. Morrison is mentioned, but the report is primarily uncritical of him.

One can only conclude that the report was as dismal as its performance.

3 Now Liberal Party moderates want former foreign affairs minister Marise Payne to retire (firewall) “from politics soon after the NSW state election.” With the death of Jim Moylan, this would make room for two women. If indeed they have two female candidates.

4 Attorney General Mark Dreyfus continues his tireless work updating and revising many aspects of Australian law to make it fairer and more aligned with community standards. This time as reported in The Guardian after:

“… receiving a review of the Privacy Act conducted by the Attorney General’s Department, Dreyfus said in December that the former Coalition government had left it ‘out of date and not fit-for-purpose in our digital age’. Dreyfus has indicated that there would be a “whole range of … modernisations of the Privacy Act.”

5 Two former ministers will soon appear before the Robodebt Royal Commission. What exciting tales of deceit will Alan Tudge and Christian Porter have to tell?

6 Tony Abbott can’t keep his nose out of it. This time, he is said to be advising the far-right group Advance Australia, who:

“… published false information about the Voice to Parliament proposal in Facebook ads last December.”

“… the group was Founded in 2018 and backed by wealthy donors. Advance Australia has twice been found to have breached electoral laws with misleading or false political advertising.”

7 In December, Resolve Political Monitor reported what I have been spruiking for years. Eventually, the traditional rights source of votes, our older folk, would die off, and Labor’s natural constituency would come to the fore.

Well, now it has happened. According to Resolve:

“… just 21 per cent of voters aged 18 to 34 would vote for the Coalition, down from 27 per cent at the May federal election. Young people don’t want a bar of conservatives.”

Roy Morgan has support for the government at 59.5% and the LNP at 40.5%

8 As is the custom after twenty years, the cabinet papers for the year 2002 were released by the National Archives of Australia. They reveal that the government was about to send troops to Afghanistan but was strangely quiet about joining the United States-led invasion of Iraq.

The year was overwhelmingly dominated by national security, asylum seeker policy, and many matters that prevail in politics today, including climate change and Indigenous constitutional recognition. One document reads:

“The cabinet noted an oral report by the prime minister on his discussion with the president of the United States on the American position in relation to efforts by Iraq to secure and maintain weapons of mass destruction.”

In other words, they never existed, and Howard just believed President Bush’s assertion that they did.

9 I’m currently reading Nikki Savva’s account of Morrison’s style of governance. Every page of Bulldozed reveals why he was so unfit to govern. Just a motormouth with an “I know all” attitude.

Our Constitution is the:

“Commonwealth of Australia founding document. After many years of debate and drafting, it was passed by the British Parliament and given royal assent (approval by the Queen) in July 1900. Australia’s 6 British colonies became one nation on 1 January 1901.”

Australians are sticklers for tradition when it comes to our Constitution. Despite 44 proposed changes, only eight have ever been successful.

Change has been an aversion to Australians for a long time, with dozens of proposed changes meeting with a very public flogging. Two proposals to change the Constitution will soon be placed before the Australian people. This year Labor plans a bid to give a Voice to Parliament for our First Nations people and will be placed before the people. At face value, it would seem harsh not to give our First Nation’s folk a voice in their destiny.

Our Constitution is “silent on the histories of the people who inhabited this continent before European settlement.” Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to correct this ascetic anomaly. It may, however, be the voice of the Opposition leader Peter Dutton that determines the outcome. If he decides his party will vote against it, it would only be for political reasons, and his party would be a national disgrace – an assassination of the referendum.

The second referendum being considered will be a bid to change the Constitution so that we can have an Australian as our head of State.

Both are worthwhile propositions of long-standing and deserve to be supported by a majority of citizens in a majority of states. The time is ripe for change. Sure, this would be a symbolic change. It will not improve our exports or our world standing on many things, but it will provide us with a new maturity commensurate with our standing in the world.

We have too many cultural concepts that speak of our past and not our future.

But are they the only proposals worthy of our earnestness consideration? Here is my list. You may have others, so please note yours in the comments section. Some might only require legislation; others may need referenda:

1 Change the Constitution to make change easier.

2 Create new ways of purposeful participation in the body politic for Australians wanting to be involved and enshrine the positions in the Constitution.

3 A two-year constitutional review ending with the appointment of a full-time sitting committee. They would review, make recommendations and advise the Government of the day.

4 Outline the standards required to become an MP or Senator in the Constitution. A suitability test for prospective MPs.

5 Appointment of an independent Speaker heading an Independent Speaker’s Office with a broader range of responsibilities.

6 An independent review of Australia’s voting system to eliminate any anomalies and to teach politics in year 12 and the possibility of allowing 16-year-olds to vote if registered at high school and completing the politics course.

7 A review to redefine free speech and what it means in an enlightened society.

8 Find a place in our Constitution that guarantees a Department of the Future in the cabinet.

9 A guarantee of affordable health care for all citizens.

10 A 10-point “common good” caveat for all proposed legislation.

11 Describe in our Constitution the place or purpose of the government, the judicial system, business, religion, the law and the media.

12 Major appointments to government agencies be considered by a joint parliamentary committee to discourage stacking agencies with partisans.

13 A bill of rights be looked into by a group of retired judges appointed by the government.

14 Consider some form of yearly citizen-initiated referenda.

15 Reinforce secularity concerning religion.

16 One item I feel is missing, and I am not sure how to phrase it, is to restore science to its proper place.

17 Lock in fixed four-year terms in the Constitution with a specified date.

18 A guarantee of affordable health care for all be enshrined in the Constitution.

19 Re-instate our public broadcasters’ autonomy, financial, programming and management independence with a charter that explicitly requires no government, corporate or religious interference.

As I said at the start, I am asking for general comments on my piece and any new ideas that could be included in our Constitution.

Now allow me to quote from an essay by Dr Venturini written around the same time as my original piece. His 5-part essay is informative in underlining the intent of the Constitution as, basically, enshrining the rights of the states as sovereign entities within a sovereign commonwealth. They were never about ‘we, the people’. So much is left to conventions, and we know how much those have been shunned over the last decade.

“A quick look of the Australian Constitution reveals that it is technically an act of the British Parliament passed in 1900, the last vestiges of British legislative influence in Australia to be eliminated with the passage of the Australia Act in 1986.

The Constitution is interpreted and operates in two ways: literally – some sections of the Constitution are taken literally and followed to the letter; conventionally – other sections operate through a series of ‘constitutional conventions’ which vest real power in the hands of elected politicians.

Alongside the text of the Constitution, and Letters of Patent issued by the Crown, such Conventions are an important aspect of the Constitution; they have evolved over the decades and define how various constitutional mechanisms operate in practice.

Conventions are unwritten rules, not laws. They express an accepted way of doing something. The ‘Westminster parliamentary system’ is built around these kinds of unwritten rules. They presume that people of good reputation and character behave in an honourable way. By and large Australian ‘conservatives’ do not respect ‘Labor people’ as persons of honour. This is one of the reasons why ‘conservatives’ have been preferred to ‘Labor people’ = rabble on a three/fourth basis since federation.”

So, there you have it. What else would you like to see written into our Constitution, or how might we improve it?

The year 2023 will be a hard slog for the government. Perhaps a momentous one in terms of urgency and necessity. There is no point in prioritising one over the other because they are all critical.

It seems incredibly unfair that many in the mainstream media refuse even the slightest praise for a government that has performed exceptionally well, given the wreckage they confronted when acquiring office. But with the number of campaign promises it has ticked off, its popularity has increased.

But according to the mainstream media, newlyweds have no honeymoon anymore.

Therefore, before addressing 2023, I need to acknowledge just a few triumphs made in the government’s first six months in office.

Even though Labor has created a National Anti-Corruption Commission and taken meaningful action on climate change, sections of the MSM seem reluctant to express any kudos.

They have endorsed pay rises for aged care workers, and work on a voice to Parliament for First Nations people is well underway.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong has re-established Australia’s relations with China after the Damage Morrison and Dutton did.

Now for 2023. Albanese and his ministers face the most indulgent of problems, both domestic and international.

Indigenous voice to Parliament

When he won government, Albanese promised to enshrine a voice for our First Nations people in our constitution. A large proportion of Australians agree with this.

The referendum on this is due to be held later in the year, with Minister Linda Burney saying it may be as early as August. It is only possible (historically at least) for a referendum to be won with the support of the opposition. The ultra-conservative Nationals have already given it a big No without even waiting for the detail. I am concerned that the other half of the LNP will only lend its support if they perceive it as political gain.

Many protractors claim there is not enough detail, but this is patently untrue. Seek, and thou shall find.

Even Ken Wyatt has strongly refuted suggestions from his side of politics about a lack of detail. Any successful referendum:

“… requires a double majority – an overall majority of voters plus a majority of voters in at least four states.”

Needless to say, Labor has a ton of work in front of it.

Energy

Energy costs will dominate the political conversation in 2023. The opposition needs more to discuss (it cannot talk about itself) so that it will target anything and everything. If you remember, Parliament was recalled for an extraordinary sitting in December to pass the energy relief package.

Facing international markets that have given the energy sector huge profits, the government has to make this work. It all comes in a year wherein Labor is expected to make further announcements about its climate policy. The May budget will include some aspects.

There is also an electrification package Labor is working on, which is part of a deal with the Greens, on energy subsidy plans for low and middle-income earners on the east coast.

And it all has to be done while appeasing the gas industry and toiling over a code of conduct. Oh, then there is the plan to “rewire the nation.”

I hope Chris Bowen is wired up for the year ahead.

The cost of living

We repeatedly heard, “Everything is going up except your wages” during the May 21 election campaign. But the reality is that there is little the government can do about the cost of living.

With real wages falling faster than ever since 1997, living costs have become a nightmare for low and middle-income earners. We have a cost problem. The cost of housing, energy, food and rent are at a crisis point. My observation tells me that many companies are taking advantage of a bad situation. Even full-time workers are still looking for housing.

It will be touch and go if Australia avoids a recession. But that doesn’t mean it won’t be tough. It will be a walk down a street in darkness. As is usual, it will be the poor who will take the brunt of it.

Inflation and the global landscape

“Inflation is the enemy of any economy.” It was expected to rise to 8% and gradually decrease this year. The RBA has signaled that it will continue to raise interest rates until it defeats the enemy. It is the only firepower it has.

The latest report from the IMF shows that Australians are dishing out 40% of their income on housing. One of the highest in the OEDC. At that rate, it raises questions about whether we are close to experiencing a bust in the housing market.

Because we are at the mercy of global inflation, there needs to be more the government can do domestically, but there isn’t. The US, UK, Europe, and China face trickier situations. Australia is vitally linked to these economies and requires them to perform well to combat its own inflationary issues.

Stage-three tax cuts

I have covered this elsewhere, however, it needs repeating:

“Since the election and the disclosure of Australia’s authentic debt, with the enormous amounts required to finance campaign commitments, repair the NDIS, and care for the elderly, the imperative for the cuts is now unwarranted.

The Stage Three Tax Cuts will overwhelmingly benefit the rich, but will they help the economy? The short answer is “no.” Those who benefit from the reductions won’t spend it and will probably invest it in accumulating more wealth. Nor would it encourage them to work any harder.

Given there are so many justifications for cancelling the cuts, Labor is allowed to demonstrate the philosophy they talked about before and during the election campaigns. That being equality and a fairer society.”

The tax cuts defy logic when stacked against the reasons not to. They will not improve equality.

Albanese will build up enough public goodwill to get away with their cancellation. That’s my view.

Social security and JobSeeker

As part of a deal, he struck with Labor to pass its industrial relations legislation through the senate, ACT senator David Pocock negotiated a yearly review of the adequacy of jobseeker and associated social security payments. Australia has around 13.4% (or 3.3 million) of its population living below the poverty line. While the government isn’t under any obligation to increase these payments, there is an expectation that it will.

The second round of IR changes

Then comes the battle over the second round of changes and the commitment to a broader industrial relations overhaul. These include tackling “same job, same pay” arrangements and an extension of minimum conditions to employment-like work conditions.

* * * * *

And if that’s not enough work that needs to be done, Labor has committed to implementing all 55 recommendations of the sex discrimination commissioner Kate Jenkins’ Respect@Work report. Then it needs to do something about the country’s debt. Let’s remember the jobs market.

After that, there are day-to-day emergencies that come out of nowhere.

The first thing I asked myself before commencing this piece was, does conservatism have a future? By conservatism, in this instance, I refer to the philosophy practised by the LNP over the last decade or so.

l have deliberately jumped over the Liberal Party, assuming in my thinking that Scott Morrison and others are responsible for its destruction. Or perhaps its murder might be blunter. If one were writing a political thriller, the three suspects would be Howard, Abbott and Morrison.

Liberalism no longer exists. The party of the people for the people, as envisaged by its founder Robert Menzies is long gone, ruined and wrecked by vandals of its political philosophy.

Those followers with twisted minds and duplicitous thoughts have to decide what it is they want to be. They can choose to continue as the Conservative party they have become with the leader they have acting as if an evil thought never entered his head or under the same leader, leading a far-right party and being who he really is. A woeful man without an empathetic thought. That is his history, his record.

Albanese won the election because he concentrated on two issues. The first was to focus enormously on a failed leader who had become deeply unpopular and consistently lied. The second was his failure to come up with profound solutions to Australia’s significant challenges.

The chronology shows that its leaders are attracted to the same disposition. Look at Tony Abbott; he was so diabolically bad at being prime minister and was of the same personality traits.

When Tourism Minister Fran Bailey sacked Scott Morrison as CEO of Tourism Australia in 2006, she said of him that he was “missing that part of the brain that controls empathy.” (From the Niki Savva book, Bulldozed: Scott Morrison’s Fall and Anthony Albanese’s Rise, and reviewed on The Conversation).

I’m currently reading her book, and whilst it lambasts Morrison and the conservatives, it isn’t without humour:

Barnaby Joyce being “to Liberal voters what Roundup was to weeds.”

“Often, he would screw his friends” (speaking about the former Prime Minister).

Voters “grew sick and tired of his weaving, wedging, dodging, fibbing, and fudging,” Savva judges. He was “Boris Johnson without the hair or the humour.”

He was “messianic, megalomaniacal, and plain mad.”

“He was woeful,” says Savva, “the worst prime minister I have covered … He simply wasn’t up to the job.”

The Coalition, it would seem, attracts, for whatever reason, the racist, the conspiracy theorist, strange people, science deniers, the misogynist, the anti-gay and a media led by a much louder man than the voice of reason. Then, of course, some are of dubious intellect.

Christensen, Paterson, Abetz, Joyce, Dutton, Cash, Hastie, Littleproud, Stuart, Sukkar, Taylor, Ley, Porter, Abbott and Canavan. And others are of that ilk.

In their Newspoll quarterly aggregates: July to December, The Poll Bludger reports that:

As it usually does on Boxing Day, The Australian has published quarterly aggregates of Newspoll with state and demographic breakdowns, on this occasion casting an unusually wide net from its polling all the way back to July to early this month, reflecting the relative infrequency of its results over this time. The result is a combined survey of 5771 respondents that finds Labor leading 55-45 in New South Wales (a swing of about 3.5% to Labor compared with the election), 57-43 in Victoria (about 2%), 55-45 in Western Australia (no change) and 57-43 in South Australia (a 4.0% swing), while trailing 51-49 in Queensland a 3% swing).

Further analysis by The Poll Bludger would suggest that if an election were held now, Labor would win another six seats.

So, it all looks rather bleak for the conservative side of politics, and it all comes back to reading community attitudes. It had been self-evident for some time that the people had become disenchanted with how the body politic was being torn asunder in Australia. Scandals had become commonplace, and corruption was rife.

On May 21, the Australian people let their opinions be known. The new leader of the Conservative Party, Peter Dutton, is busy in this new world trying to convince a rapidly declining audience that he is different from the person we have known for the past decade.

I have not yet known a politician who has successfully changed his image from somewhere near subhuman to a nice guy. Abbott tried and found a bridge too far. The senior conservative party thinks this leopard can change its spots into love hearts.

Cartoon by Alan Moir (moir.com.au)

Now the National Party is falsely claiming it had a good election (it kept its seats but had swings against it in each). Its leader David Littleproud is prancing around as though he is the de facto leader of the Coalition and would be happy with a divorce. His decision not to support the Indigenous Voice to Parliament is appalling and has cost him one member in Andrew Gee.

Both parties are performing poorly in the parliament, asking questions that reflect badly on themselves. And Paul Fletcher is deplorable as Shadow House Leader.

Writing for The Spectator, Michael Sexton reports says that:

“Demography is moving against the Liberals in a number of electoral groups. This is particularly true among young people who are often attracted to the Greens. They have no fear of the Greens’ irrational economic policies because they have never experienced anything in their lives other than continuing periods of stable economic growth and assume that this cannot ever be disrupted. Moreover, they have grown up in a society where many members of the community make no connection between a government’s revenue and its expenditure so that it is simply assumed that any problem that arises in the community can be addressed by increased government spending without any corresponding increase in taxation.”

Other factors that point to a problematic future are that, based on the previous history, the independents are likely to keep their seats. And a demographic missed by most scribes is the dying off of Conservative baby boomer supporters and the emergence of young Labor and Greens voters.

The Liberal Party as we know it was well and genuinely outspent by Labor, the Teal independents in those seats captured by the Teals. Large companies so concerned about projecting a clean image have stopped donating to a party with an embodiment of buffoonery.

Unions, as is their right, donate heartily to Labor whilst business is reluctant to do so with the LNP, fearing a backlash. It is unlikely to change, so the Liberal Party will continue under-financed into the future.

Again quoting Michael Sexton:

“To all this can be added the fact that the Liberals have comprehensively lost the culture wars. They are the subject of mockery in schools and universities, by the ABC and at artistic and literary festivals. And, as already noted, even in many corporate boardrooms their policies in such areas as climate change, border protection, freedom of speech and religious rights are the subject of deep hostility. These views are not necessarily reflected in the general community but the relentless denigration by these opinion-making groups in Australian society has inevitably taken some toll in the electorate. In the 1950s and the 1960s the Liberals were the respectable party of the establishment and Labor the slightly disreputable alternative.”

At the risk of repeating myself, under its current leadership and personnel, the Liberal Party is finished and has been dead, buried and cremated for some time.

Under a leader as unpopular as the previous one, the party needs somewhere to go. It can remain right of centre, which Labor now occupies or move more to the right, which would be more their actual position.

There is no future in whatever they do.