You can be pretty sure that Michael Sukkar will never be homeless. That is because, as of May 2022, he owned three properties.

You might be interested to learn that he was, for several years, our man tasked with addressing homelessness in Australia.

He was appointed to the ministry in 2017, by Malcolm Turnbull. He was the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, with special responsibility for “addressing housing affordability”.

In February 2017 he was asked about his area of special responsibility, that being ‘housing affordability’. He responded this way:

“We’re also enabling young people to get highly paid jobs, which is the first step to buying a house,” he said.

There can be many ways to tackle housing affordability, but it would be difficult to find one which is more obfuscatory, or vague, or even misleading.

Here is a former assistant to the treasurer, a man with a commerce degree, and he thinks that increasing the income of potential buyers will address the problem of housing affordability.

A quick google search provides some alternatives, although he might not like the source. The Grattan Institute suggests some solutions:

“The Federal Government can improve housing affordability by reducing demand. It should reduce the capital gains tax discount from 50 per cent to 25 per cent; abolish negative gearing; and include owner-occupied housing in the Age Pension assets test. Housing will also become more affordable if more homes are built.”

Economics is often called the “dismal science”, but there are some maxims which have stood the test of time. “Supply and demand” in simple terms, means if you want to lower the price of an asset, increase the supply of the asset.

Far be it from me to tell a former assistant treasurer how to address housing affordability, but perhaps a small return to his old textbooks might serve to refresh his memory.

It would be useful to remember who he was assisting. Scott Morrison was the Treasurer at the time, and so it can be imagined that the pair of them often sat up, late into the night, discussing the best way to make homes more affordable to the common people.

It is difficult to know whether Scott Morrison’s belief in the prosperity gospel won out over economic orthodoxy, or was Michael Sukkar channeling Joe Hockey, who was famous for his own solution to the housing crisis.

You must remember that, when he advised first-home buyers to find a “good job that pays good money”. They must employ the same speech-writer.

So many mentors, so little actual sense.

Michael Sukkar eventually became a minister

In December 2020, Sukkar, who had earlier supported Peter Dutton against Malcolm Turnbull in their leadership tussle, was forgiven by Morrison, and promoted. His new roles included the roles of Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing.

This was a shock to many, because he had consistently voted against making life easier for those who were doing it tough.

This included voting against capping gas prices, federal action on public housing, increasing access to JobKeeper payments, increasing housing affordability, increasing the age pension, and he even voted against treating the Covid vaccine rollout as a matter of urgency.

As a matter of fact, he also voted for drug testing of welfare recipients.

What does he do now?

Should you, dear reader, take comfort from the fact that these people are no longer in power, remember this. Michael Sukkar is currently the shadow minister for these three portfolios.

Shadow Minister for Social Services
Shadow Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Shadow Minister for Housing and Homelessness.

So, notwithstanding Mr Sukkar’s voting record, and his extreme social conservatism, it is likely that he would retain these portfolios if the Coalition was to regain power. That should be enough to keep you up at night.

Now the police want to influence immigration policy. I blame it entirely on Peter Dutton, of course. For a retired policeman, he seems not to understand the most basic tenets of our legal system.

How Australian democracy works

Put simply, so that even coalition politicians can understand, the plan is that we, the people, elect parliaments. Once the parliament has been decided, the party with the greatest number of members forms government, and THEY MAKE LAWS.

Those parliamentarians then go through a type of cosplay, defined as the men dressing in suits and ties, and looking important, and serious. The women often wear red coats, as it signifies dressing for power.

If the men are feeling particularly performative, they wear ties which signify the tribe, or team they belong to. Tony Abbott liked to dress in blue ties, when he was not wearing bathers. This showed that he was conservative. Kevin Rudd favoured red ties, to signify that he was a member of the ‘social justice’ party, or the ‘socialists’, for short.

They then vote on whether laws are passed, and what those laws will regulate. This system works reasonably well, if you have people with brains getting elected, but this is not a foregone result.

Sometimes their dad was the last member, and there is something of a tradition of passing it on, down to the offspring, especially if you belong to the established parties.

This tends to dilute the quality of the representatives, but it is the closest they will ever get to an hereditary aristocracy, so we allow it.

Dutton is like a spear carrier for the resentful

He has emboldened Inspector Plods throughout our wide brown land to believe that they are the policy makers. Um, no, you enforce the law, as it is enacted by parliaments. A basic lesson in civics, really. Sadly, most of our citizens need it, because our education system is so appalling.

Re-punishing immigration detainees

This is a particularly stupid and wrong-headed attempt to prove how hairy chested we can be. The detainees Mr Dutton is so concerned about have ALREADY done their time, meaning that their debt to society has been paid. I know, they are foreigners, but still, if you have served your sentence, that is considered enough.

Australia does not (we hope) run parallel legal systems. If you are convicted and you serve your sentence, then you are free to go after you are released. Even if you are a foreigner.

Mr Dutton wants them to be re-detained. He appears to not know that the High Court of Australia has ruled that further detention is unlawful. That means that the government has no choice but to release them, because the High Court said so.

Instead of being locked up again, they should be compensated. Their indefinite detention was unlawful, and the reason they were still in detention is because successive governments ignored the fact that many had nowhere else to go, through statelessness, or because if sent back to their home country, they would have been subjected to draconian punishment, sometimes including death.

What is particularly disappointing is the way the Albanese Government has so abjectly accepted Dutton’s scare mongering and confected moral panic. Rapists and murderers exist within Australia’s population. If they have served their sentences, they are free to re-join society. But not if they are on a visa, or stateless.

That is the ridiculous position Dutton has put us in. Squawk loud enough, and Albanese and his government will break with judicial sense, and cave in to the populists.

And now police department heads are adding their voices to the squawking. Highly inappropriate, and again, led by a crass opportunist, looking to lead the disaffected and those who still cling to Australia’s outdated and embarrassing past mistakes, regarding immigration and race.

In breaking news, apparently even those detainees without criminal convictions will be fitted with ankle bracelets. You can’t be too careful.

The Attorney General appears to have no opinion. He must know the matter will end up in the High Court again, and yet he does not provide sensible counsel. So we will have a re-run of a High Court decision, and Dutton squawking again, and then another round of appeasement.

Do not think voting Morrison and his ilk out of office has saved us. We are still led by donkeys.

From the moment the Liberals lost Aston in a by-election, Peter Dutton had to find a way to keep his job. Why not try and ruin Albanese’s simple plan for a better Australia, by doing what every other lazy wrecker has done? Make it all about race.

Albanese thought the Voice would be uncontroversial, symbolic, and a natural extension of the hand of friendship, from us to the original inhabitants. He failed to understand that Dutton was drowning, and he would be desperate to find a lifebelt. Defeating the Voice was that lifebelt.

Dutton took a while to get around to it, but his statement that the referendum would “re-racialise the country” set it up to fail. Because his statement did exactly what he was pretending to warn us against.

It introduced race to a discussion about disadvantage, and it brought out all the buried resentment and ‘what about me-ism’ inherent in rural and regional Australia.

He was channelling vintage John Howard, the bit where the Mabo and Wik decisions opened the way for ‘the Aborigines’ to swoop in and claim ownership of your house. It is crude, and simple, but it works every time.

Throw in a bit of class envy by talking about ‘the elites’, and the latte sippers, and you will create a tsunami of fear and doubt. How a bunch of Coalition politicians are able to characterise middle class urban Australians as elite is beyond understanding.

Maybe they should try explaining where Gina Rinehart sits in the class structure, or bankers and miners. I occasionally partake of a latte, but no-one has ever invited me to Anthony Pratt’s mansion in Kew.

If Dutton does not survive for long as leader, he could always move to America, where his shamelessness could prove handy in getting Trump re-elected. The recruitment of Jacinta Price and Warren Mundine was relatively simple. Getting Lydia Thorpe on board was pure luck. Who knew she would be against the proposal for a Voice? It turned out she sacrificed ‘the good’ in pursuit of her vision of ‘the perfect’.

Forget that they all seemed to have different agendas, and were individually not electorally potent, but they were all indigenous, and they were against the Voice.

This was probably the most effective tool the No side had. If the very people we were trying to help could not agree, then what was the point? Just another Black squabble, while we are all trying to put food on the table, and pay the mortgage, or the rent. The cynical use of these individuals will reverberate throughout their lives.

Their own people must be, in the main, confused. It is difficult to see their reasoning. Whatever it was, it was devilishly effective.

Analysis will decide what was the greatest factor in the defeat of the referendum, but Black on Black was catastrophic. Everyone I spoke to about the question mentioned it. And it gave otherwise well-meaning voters an easy way out. They could comfortably vote NO without appearing to be racist, even to themselves.

Of course, Dutton was unrelenting. He needed a win, any sort of win, and presumably to protect himself from questions he could not answer, he stopped holding press conferences.

Ken Wyatt has explained several times over the last couple of years, and memorably on the ABC’s Radio National program, that he took a detailed plan for the voice to the Coalition cabinet – twice. Remember he was a minister. So, unbelievably, was Dutton.

So they had it supplied to them, and Ken Wyatt even highlighted the actual pages to read. Apparently Dutton does not read, or he chose to forget. As for the Nationals, what seemed a bad early bet on No turned up trumps. Clearly they knew the well of racism and ignorance in their heartland.

I know this, because I live in a National seat, and the arguments against ranged from the nonsensical (the United Nations will set up homelands, which will be hived off from Australia, and set up as independent republics), to the more nonsensical (they will abolish Australia Day).

Some might have questioned Jacinta Price’s stance on black disadvantage. You know the one, where the ‘blackfellas’ have actually done all right from invasion and dispossession, because they have running water? Don’t forget her statement that “she [Burney] might be able to take a private jet out into a remote community, dripping with Gucci, and tell people in the dirt what’s good for them – but they are in the dark,” Price said. Apparently Linda Burney owns no Gucci clothing.

As for Warren Mundine, he has managed to move from once being president of the ALP, to being the Liberals’ star (unsuccessful) candidate for the seat of Gilmore, in 2019. It seems he left Labor years earlier, when Bob Carr was selected instead of him, to replace Mark Arbib in the Senate.

The unlikely pairing of Dutton and Thorpe is just that, unlikely. Apparently they have never met, and Thorpe has stated he avoids her, if he can. That did not stop the public seeing her as one of the No side’s greatest assets, and Dutton certainly did not continue to discredit her once she became useful to the No side. Her musing about ‘our Albo’ wanting her assassinated was fairly ‘out-there’, but she was useful.

Dutton didn’t have to field many questions on the sheer stupidity of his “if you don’t know, vote No” slogan, although Ray Martin did give him something of a ‘touch-up’. If analysed, it feeds the type of stupidity some in the backblocks suffer from.

I was told to take my own pen into the polling booth, as there was a good chance the Electoral Commission would use an eraser on my vote and change it, if I voted the ‘wrong’ way.

Every question time, there they were, the Liberals’ chorus asking for more detail, for more legal opinions, dividing the country by endlessly referring to the “divisive Canberra Voice”, from the parliament, which is, incidentally, in Canberra.

Nothing about closing the gap. Not much about the fact that it was a body which would be limited to an “advisory” role only. No mention of Howard abolishing ATSIC, or the Northern Territory intervention.

From the sidelines it looked like Albanese ran a terrible campaign. Perhaps he thought that, by being on the side of the angels, the Australian people would open their hearts, sort of like they did for the Matildas, but they didn’t.

Opposition Leader is a thankless task, but for some who think they have a destiny to lead, it is the best place to start.

Peter Dutton appears to be a person who has no idea of how people feel about him. This might be a blessing, because even amongst rusted-on Liberals, I have yet to encounter a Liberal voter who likes Dutton.

As for the other side, the result merely reinforced our perception of the man. So much time in the spotlight, so many terrible causes, so many blunders, so many potshots at his fellow citizens for being ‘woke’.

It now seems clear he has given up on winning back the Teal seats. That means his only path to power is a swing to the right, an appeal to the outer suburbs and the regions, where he hopes he can ride a wave of resentment and anger against the cities, and those ‘elites’.

One can only hope his dance with Trumpism is unsuccessful, because it would import even more racism and ignorance, more disrespect for science and experts, and angry old white men running the place.

Cartoon by Alan Moir (moir.com.au)

Four years ago I wrote the following article. I have released it again, because it shows us the timeless nature of politicians. If it was not so disappointing, it would be funny. Enjoy!

When you buy a television you have an expectation that the thing will work, and that it will fulfil the purpose for which you bought it. In Australia we have a robust Consumer Law, which is quite exemplary, and quite differently from many of our human rights practices, it actually elicits praise internationally. There is one ‘product class’ excluded from its coverage, sadly – politicians, and all their works.

We do not have any laws which stop political parties from peddling untruths, such as the existence of death taxes in the most recent federal election. We do not have any laws which protect us from ignoramuses, or bigots. We are not in a position to ask for a type of warranty, a sort of guarantee that we are not being ‘sold a pup’.

This is surprising, if one thinks about the investment we make in each and every politician who crosses our path. There is the cost to our mental health when we discover that we have someone in the parliament who is not very clever, or honest, or as we have recently discovered, even eligible to be elected.

Then there is the actual financial cost to our taxpayer funds, where some expense claims are truly beyond belief. At this point I proffer the recent example of a senior parliamentarian, a minister, who used a governmental car, with a driver no less, to ferry his two pet dogs around Victoria. Others who, blaming their workload, are suddenly unable to perform their duties. One rather famously was forced, through loneliness, to spend more time overseas courting his intended, than he spent in Parliament. Others who have been charged with dishonesty offences, bankruptcy – the list goes on, and on.

These examples are mainly from the Victorian State Parliament. That is because I live in Victoria, and I am exposed to these clowns on a daily basis. I invite my readers to reflect on their own experience of their own state parliament; I’m sure you are able to dredge up many fun references to our elected dunderheads.

Will Fowles, however, caught my eye recently. He is the young man who became unhinged in his Canberra hotel, because his ‘medication’ was in his luggage, and his luggage was behind a closed door. So he did what any elected representative of the people would do – he kicked the door in, causing a furore which saw his fellow guests bundled out into the Canberra morning, which we all know, can be very cold.

His apology was at first instance less than fulsome, and it appeared to duck the issues raised by his behaviour. He offered to repay the cost of repairs, which is really the bare minimum, and he stated that he had paid his own way there. He was in Canberra for a celebration, unrelated to his Victorian duties. He did not address the reason why he had become violent and a threat to public safety.

He did, however, admit to long-standing mental health and addiction issues, but again that does not explain why he felt that he could destroy property, because he was inconvenienced by a locked door. Was the medicine an anti-psychotic, or was he drunk at the time? Was he fit to travel? What drugs does he use?

Enter Daniel Andrews, the Premier of Victoria. He was pleased that Mr Fowles had apologised, he was impressed that the apology appeared genuine, and he was satisfied that Mr Fowles would pay for the damage. He went on to offer his full support (on full pay) while Mr Fowles sought treatment. He came across as a caring boss, albeit one who wouldn’t be liable for Mr Fowles’ costs.

Those costs will be substantial. Firstly, Mr Fowles will be away from his place of work, and he will not be available to his constituents; he is unable to fulfil his duties, or to actually do anything other than to look after his mental health, and to seemingly address his addiction issues. His time away has been described as being ‘for several months’.

Probably due to politicians being chronically awful to other politicians, and a couple of attempted suicides among their ranks in recent years, they, as a class, have a new-found sensitivity toward their peers, whenever the term ‘mental health’ is mentioned. So they mostly swung behind the Premier’s offer of unlimited assistance to our young parliamentarian. I use the word ‘young’ to highlight not his age, but the amount of time he has been an Honourable Member – seven months.

By his own admission his mental health and addiction issues predated his election. This raises the issue of whether he had a duty to inform his prospective employer, the people of Victoria, through the agency of the Victorian branch of the ALP. It also raises the issue of whether, if he had been forthcoming with this information, would the good people of Burwood have voted for him? Were they offered a fair choice? Did his opponent suffer from a similar handicap? Were the electors ‘sold a pup’?

Employers routinely ask applicants whether they suffer from any condition which might impact on their ability to do a job. Often it is not a block to employment, as many good employers offer to make changes to the role, or perhaps the workplace, so that a good candidate can still take the position. Failure to answer truthfully is seen as legitimate grounds for dismissal.

Was Mr Fowles asked such a question? If he was not, why was he not asked? It seems to be the minimum of due diligence, and as it stands neither Mr Fowles, nor Mr Andrews, seems willing to cover the costs incurred.

We are stuck with him now, and he might continue in the role for years. So, too ill to work, after seven months in the job. He then takes sick leave, on full pay, for as long as needs.

He might even get a pension one day, if he can pull off a recovery.

So, four years later Will Fowles is in the news, again. It appears that he has incurred the wrath of Daniel Andrews, and ordered to leave the Labor Party.

He is still drawing his salary, and if he can brazen his way out of this pickle, he might score that pension. Ain’t Australian politics uplifting?

The problem with Peter Dutton is that, right or wrong, we feel we “know” him. We might have missed noticing the human side to the man, but that is because he spent so much time showing us how tough and no-nonsense he is.

He fits the stereotype of the Queensland Liberal, an old fashioned ‘head-kicker’. Being Opposition Leader is a difficult gig, but someone has got to do it. He is using Tony Abbott as inspiration, presumably, on how to be seen as strong, caring and highly moral.

We might have missed his wife saying, “he’s no monster”. The response to that statement is ready to hand: She would say that, wouldn’t she. It also begs the question – who said he was?

If we were to conduct a poll asking Australians about their impressions of Mr Dutton’s strengths and weaknesses, I would hazard a guess that most of us (at least those of us who use cutlery at mealtimes) would think he is uncompromising, set in his beliefs, and addicted to using fairly stale talking points.

Most of his pronouncements seem to highlight his concern for women and children, and an ongoing level of anxiety about pedophiles. He takes every opportunity to sprinkle the idea that he is awake to the “woke” tendencies in the community.

The first, and last impression we form about him, is that once he has decided on a pathway, he will beat that drum until he drops. Evidence and changing circumstances are not going to change his mind, because he sees electoral advantage in his path. This feeds the impression that he is more set on winning through, than evaluating the arguments.

So after what seemed at least a minute’s reflection, he has decided to take the Liberal Party way out to the lunatic fringes of conservatism. He will dog-whistle every Uncle Kev in the country, who has a sneaking suspicion that the Aborigines are ‘taking the piss’. Uncle Kev should study the Closing the Gap report, but Uncle Kev doesn’t read much.

There is a large cohort of Australians who have no interest in politics, and who actively avoid engaging with political issues. These people look at Dutton, in his suit and tie, talking about re-racialising the country, and they believe him. That is why we call it ‘dog-whistling’; because it appeals to the parts of the electorate who are too lazy, or too prejudiced, to look at the facts.

What is the Voice about?

My understanding has always been that the Voice was an attempt to enshrine some sort of recognition of the original inhabitants of our great country into the Constitution. Co-incidentally they also owned it.

The reason for enshrining the Voice into the Constitution is that once done, it cannot easily be overturned by a government which wants to remove it. The example of such bloody-mindedness is the abolition of ATSIC, by the Howard Government, in 2004.

Sadly, the ALP joined in with Howard then. This time the ALP is attempting to re-instate the process. It should be entirely non-controversial, considering it is purely an “advisory body”.

So, a recap: A symbolic recognition of our indigenous people, with an advisory remit to advise government on laws which affect indigenous communities.

Not particularly scary. Of course Malcolm Turnbull did not help, stating that it would form a third chamber of parliament. So he is not so great at Constitutional Law, or he was too lazy to read the Statement from the Heart.

Why are the Liberals opposed?

They think saying No suggests that they are protecting the Constitution. They think it projects a careful evaluation of Aboriginal Affairs, and that there are legitimate doubts. Of course, this is rubbish. Should the referendum achieve success, it will be open to this government, and to all subsequent governments, to ignore the advice the Voice provides.

But Dutton and the other geniuses who advise him have decided that there are enough Uncle Kevs out there, who resent any form of funding for Aboriginal communities, to defeat the referendum.

Their main argument is concern that Aboriginal communities want to change our Western style civilisation, and make the Voice some sort of super-cabinet, which will make pronouncements on matters as diverse as defence or the date of Australia Day.

As Linda Burney has said, they will OFFER advice on Indigenous housing, health, employment and education. That seems eminently sensible to most, thinking Australians. We must not forget that Aboriginal Australians are our fellow citizens – they are not an alien presence among us.

So if you want to evaluate Peter Dutton and his values, look at his parliamentary career. The clangers are many, the apologies few. I suspect that he has fond memories of the feedback he received when he walked out on Kevin Rudd’s Apology.

There would have been plenty of rednecks who secretly applauded Dutton’s action, and he perhaps has calculated that there are enough of them still around, to applaud his efforts at muddying the waters.

All his stance does is to further cement the thinking community’s opinion of the Coalition. Fairly hopeless, and socially and morally blind as well.

There is a definite turning point in the quality and the humanity of Australia’s care for the elderly. The Aged Care Bill 1997 (Cth) was introduced as part of the new Howard Government’s 1996 Budget measures. It was to prove a huge gamble, which still wreaks havoc in the Aged Care sector. And it created a distinctly new group of players in our economy. It showed a government naively putting its faith in the market.

It started with John Howard

It was a curiously shallow and unsophisticated Bill, which did not even bother to hide its malicious intent. Each of the recommendations was ‘loaded’ against the elderly, and the Opposition of the time was ineffective in their efforts to mitigate the harm of the Bill, even if they had wanted to. It was led by Kim Beazley, and he was powerless at the best of times, let alone when he faced Howard’s massive majority.

The private (for profit) sector has six big players, who do what ‘for profits’ do; they maximise profits, usually at the expense of their customers – tick. They feed on their smaller competitors – tick. They amass market power – tick. They become too big to fail – tick. They refuse even basic accountability, although they are massively subsidised by taxpayers – tick. That subsidy currently sits at over 70% of revenue.

The worst part is that the governments of the day, (and both sides have been at fault) continue to believe that corporates are better at delivering value for money. This belief endures, even though successive Governments have watched as their performance declined, while their revenues increased. So there is no recognisable corporate ‘efficiency’ being exercised; there are only tax avoidance measures, increased fees and reduced costs, which apparently can include starving their residents. And they continue to sting the Government.

What did the Act change?

The proposed changes in the 1997 Act were to consolidate funding arrangements for the then separate nursing home and hostel sectors, and provide for a single residential care system to determine the level of Australian Government subsidy for each resident.

They outlined a greater reliance on resident contributions to the cost of care, including through a system of accommodation bonds, and residential care benefits subject to income testing. They also proposed a relaxation of previous regulatory requirements, such as tight financial acquittal requirements, and their replacement by a ‘lighter-touch’ accreditation approach.

This grab-bag of ‘nothing regulation’ was the jackpot. It satisfied the neo-liberals, by making the system essentially ‘user-pays’; it consolidated the two areas of accommodations into one bite-sized chunk for the private equity groups, waiting on the sidelines; and best of all it really did use the term “lighter touch accreditation approach”, which just really means no oversight. (You have to love the euphemism team who drafted this Bill. Fun fact: euphemism: a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.)

What did the Royal Commission find?

There are so many issues which affect the Aged Care system that we needed another Royal Commission. That is because although we have had several in the last twenty plus years, no government has felt constrained to follow their recommendations, and so we are stuck with the ideologically driven mismatch of profit-takers and neglected frail clients.

The latest, which produced the Interim Report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was tabled on 31 October 2019. It stated that:

“… the aged care system fails to meet the needs of its older, vulnerable, citizens. It does not deliver uniformly safe and quality care, is unkind and uncaring towards older people and, in too many instances, it neglects them.”

Commissioners Richard Tracey AM, RFD, QC and Lynelle Briggs’s AO investigation into Australia’s aged care system led them to describe the aged care system as “a shocking tale of neglect”.

“The neglect that we have found in this Royal Commission, to date, is far from the best that can be done. Rather, it is a sad and shocking system that diminishes Australia as a nation.”

We wonder why the sector refuses to countenance proper, honest auditing of their work, or their costs. We must wonder anew as to why the stewards of our taxpayer dollars do not insist. It is our parents’, and our grandparents’, lives at stake here.

According to Professor Joe Ibrahim, Head of Monash University’s Health Law and Ageing Research Unit, residential aged care facilities (RACFs) are currently not required to disclose how many staff they have, nor how they spend government funding.

It is hard to understand how a responsible Government can sit idly by and allow itself to be rorted so spectacularly. Matthias Cormann, Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenburg have all been robbed blind, even as they were apparently ‘on duty’, protecting the revenue. Perhaps their attention wandered, as they had to keep watch on the unemployed, who are always plotting some form of chicanery.

How much are we paying for the system?

Australian Government expenditure for aged care throughout 2018–19 totalled $19.9 billion, an increase of 10 per cent from the previous year.

In 2018–19, over 1.3 million people received some form of aged care. The great majority received home-based care and support, and relatively few lived in residential care:
• 840,984 people received home support through the CHSP
• 133,439 people received care through a home care package
• 65,523 people received residential respite care, of whom 34,984 (approximately 53 per cent) were later admitted to permanent care
• 242,612 people received permanent residential aged care.

The sector, notwithstanding its perceived inadequacies, is expected to continue to grow its revenue by an annual rate of 5.4%. Its profit is expected to grow by an annual rate of 4.4%.

When asked about the finding that up to 50% of Aged Care residents were malnourished, Sean Rooney responded that the daily allowance for food per resident was $6, however that was at wholesale prices, and there were possibly supplements added, for some residents, and really that aged residents should not be compared to prisoners because they needed less calories. He leads the peak body, Leading Aged Services Australia.

The sector appears to be hugely profitable, and to pay very little tax. Although how would we know? They keep their operating costs secret, so we know their revenue, but we do not know their operating costs, so their profit remains a mystery. According to the ATO, the total combined income of all for-profit aged care providers was just over $5 billion in 2015–16, with a total profit of $529.3 million and after-tax profit of $402 million.

Companies can use various accounting methods to avoid paying tax. One method is when a company links (staples) two or more businesses (securities) they own together, each security is treated separately for tax purposes to reduce the amount of tax the company has to pay. Aged care companies are known to use this method as well as other tax avoiding practices.

Another practice is by ‘renting’ their aged care homes from themselves (one security rents to another) or by providing loans between securities and shareholders. See Tax Avoidance by For Profit Aged Care Companies Australia Report 2018.

The big players

Bupa, Australia’s largest for-profit aged care provider made over AU$ 663m in 2017. Over 70% (AU$ 468m) of this was from government funding.

Opal, the second largest for-profit company had a total income of AU$ 527.2m in 2015-16 (76% Government funding).

Allity had total income of $315.6 million, 67% of which came from government funding.

Japara had a total revenue of AU$ 275.5m in 2018, 72% (AU$ 198.7m) of which came from government funding.

In FY2018, Estia had a total revenue of AU$ 266.8m, 74% (AU$197.3m) of which came from government funding.

In 2018, Regis had total revenues of AU$ 280.5m, 71% (AU$ 198.2m) of which came from government funding.

As a basic principle, companies that receive millions of government subsidies must be held to a higher standard of transparency and must be publicly accountable. The fiasco which is the Aged Care sector has been sold off to profiteers, and we get what you would expect. If you don’t pay attention, they exploit the system, and the aged suffer.

The system is way too important to leave in the hands of companies whose first allegiance is to their shareholders. We need to re-build a strong public sector, augmented by not for profits. Throw away the neo-liberal playbook. Sink some money into aged care, because the community wants it. Our politicians have probably got a cosy little retirement haven set up for themselves, and probably paid for by us. The rest of the community should not dread old age, because our government of the day is too miserable to provide for ALL of its citizens.

If you were exposed to the last conservative government in Australia, you have just about seen it all. It was like a trip back in time, to a time when the communist scare had legs, when there was no such thing as ‘society’, and crony capitalism took over from the idea that Australia was the land of the ‘fair go’. And never forget the last prime minister really believed that he was chosen by God.

In the 1950s and 60s many in Australia were afraid that communism was going to sweep down from the Soviet Union, down through China, through South East Asia, with a short stopover in Indonesia, until it made its inevitable landfall on Australian soil.

Darwin would fall, and the absurdity of a new Brisbane Line was a part of the fever dream. We would abandon the country north of the Line, but our brave Aussies would rush to take up arms. It was hoped that we could push the communists back, preferably into the sea.

During Scott Morrison’s shambolic time in office, nothing reminded us of those dark days of fear and xenophobia like Dutton and his China bashing.

Of course, he had a lot of Coalition confederates, happy to take China’s money in the good times, but still wanting to blame them for the Covid-19 virus and attributing all sorts of evil to the Chinese Communist Party.

What was shocking was their willingness to re-visit those days, where the Communist word caused heartburn, and we stood behind LBJ. This time around it was Donald Trump providing us with a shield. Risky!

And we must remember Trump’s record of favouring white supremists. Was there a whiff of the White Australia Policy in our rush to condemn the Chinese? Is there a whiff of post-colonial racism in our demonisation of a document titled “Statement from the Heart”?

Dutton is a throwback to cold war thinking

Watching Peter Dutton as he struggles to find relevance is exhausting. There he is, wearing his scholarly glasses, using words like “history” and even referencing George Orwell’s Animal Farm. The quote he is using describes Soviet Russia in the 1930s and 40s and is laughable in an Australian context.

In my opinion it better resembles the belief system of the born-again community, where it divides the world into the ‘saved’, and those not saved.

“At a time when we need to unite the country, this prime minister’s proposal will permanently divide us by race,” he said.

If Dutton had acted like any sort of aspiring leader, he would have embraced the Voice as being essential, and as a necessary first step toward reconciliation with our original inhabitants.

He would have welcomed the opportunity to lead the cranky and the disenchanted in his party toward their better selves, but he has instead handed them more to be grumpy about, and sowed seeds of doubt, where none existed. All it takes is a reasonable amount of goodwill.

Even the Coalition would be aware that we have built our estimable modern achievements on stolen land. The least we can do is to give First Nations folk some acknowledgement of past wrongs, and a heartfelt promise that we will consult them in the future.

Everything about the Coalition these days reeks of grim reaction, of rejecting every aspect of modernism. Who do they think they represent? Not even Uncle Arthur, who terrorises all of our Christmas dinners, could hold to all these regressive ideas.

They don’t believe in climate change, because they haven’t read any of the science for the last forty years. They also presumably think those images of melting glaciers were photo-shopped.

They are panicking because they think a shadowy crowd of transgender kids is plotting to flood into girls’ toilets, for some unspeakable reason.

Although they know that there is a tsunami of hunger and homelessness, they do not want to vote for a $40 a fortnight increase in the Jobseeker allowance.

We need a decent opposition. But what we have is a Dad’s Army of nay-sayers, spooked by issues of gender, equality, law and order, reparations for past wrongs to our Indigenous fellow citizens, immigration terrors, and absolute panic that an unemployed person, somewhere in Australia, is rorting the system. God help us!

Over eighty years ago Prime Minister John Curtin prepared a New Year’s Eve message for the Australian people. It was written three weeks into the war with Japan. It was published in the Melbourne Herald on 27 December, 1941:

‘Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.’

With this message he informed the world that Australia’s foreign policy direction must change, in response not only to the military situation with Japan, but to Australia’s location in the Pacific. From then on, he states, Australia will be proactive, the architect of her own interests.

Australia disengaged from the ‘general war’ to concentrate on the Pacific conflict. Both Churchill and Roosevelt were surprised, and dismayed, but the die was cast. Australia survived the war, but only with massive assistance from the U.S. America has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy ever since.

Eighty years later, are Australia and the U.S. still a ‘perfect match’, or is it time to re-consider the partnership? Although America is still the pre-eminent power on earth, does Australia need its protection, and secondly, does America provide that protection, and if it does, at what price?

Is there a credible threat to us, or would we be more sensible to take a leaf out of New Zealand’s book, and be no-one’s enemy, and no-one’s target? It is important to look at our similarities, but also at the areas where we diverge.

Shared history, shared values?

For years, at least until President Trump was elected, there was a type of consensus that what we had in common far outweighed our differences. Recent events, particularly in America’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and then the Black Lives Matter protests, have thrown some doubt on that shared vision.

Many have used the “shared history, and shared values” argument to justify our continued relationship. Others question the value for Australia, which has stood loyally by its mighty ally, through its many wars, with not much to show for the effort, except in terms of lost lives, and wasted military resources. We were never there as equal partners.

We supported American wars whenever we were asked

Australia joined the U.S. in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the First Gulf War in Iraq, the Afghanistan War, the Second Gulf War in Iraq. We even joined the so-called War on Terror.

When push comes to shove, Australia is expected to step forward, no questions asked. Perhaps the debt from 1941 – 1945 has been repaid?

Democratic standards

Australia and the U.S. are both nominally democratic societies, and yet there is a tradition in the U.S. of actively trying to suppress the vote for minorities, and to rig elections by gerrymander. There are efforts to outlaw postal voting, begun when in the midst of a global pandemic.

Australians are used to electoral matters being decided by independent umpires. We are not only encouraged to vote, but we are punished if we do not. So is America still a democracy, and is it worth defending?

Guns in America

Probably the most contentious right Americans possess is the right “to keep and to bear arms”. Covered by the Second Amendment and intended to permit the personal use of arms as a defence against state tyranny, it has mutated into a violent and uncontrolled gun culture.

In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC.

This was the highest number of gun deaths since 1968 (see here). Another side of this tragedy is that suicide accounts for almost twice as many deaths as homicide.

By comparison Australia’s gun deaths in 2019 were 229. It is incomprehensible to us living in Australia that Americans insist on their right to kill, and to be killed.

This situation is exacerbated by the militarisation of the various state police forces, and the sheer number of mainly gun-fuelled deaths. Most of those deaths are of Black men, arguably by overzealous police. Do we share the values of a nation which practices officially sanctioned, racially based murder?

Did Scott Morrison commit us to a war with China?

Our previous, unlamented Prime Minister ramped up the hysteria and the rhetoric concerning China. He committed a sum of $270 billion to defence, which included funding for long range missiles. These are presumably to warn China that we are deadly serious about defending ourselves, militarily, against our largest trading partner.

This can be traced back to a slavish desire, on Morrison’s part, to please Donald Trump. The ex-President, in an attempt to divert attention away from his own criminal governance of the country, had sought to demonise China for somehow ‘inventing’ Covid19.

By jumping on Trump’s bandwagon, Australia is going to be ‘protected’ if China reacts badly to our belligerence. That must be why we are investing in nuclear powered submarines, to be ‘delivered’, in dribs and drabs, if at all, in the 2040s.

It is uncertain whether human civilisation will even survive until the 2040s. Already climate change is contributing to mass migrations; droughts and floods are affecting food and water security; the West is already fracturing under the political pressures of exploding refugee numbers, and political volatility is out of control. Russia is just the first rogue state to bust out of the bubble.

Labor has drunk the kool-aid

The logic behind following the United States anywhere is flawed. It is a nation which seemingly needs wars, in order to keep its over-sized military busy, and focused outwards. How else to restrain its generals and admirals?

The American Century is over. The country is hopelessly divided, and its people are not only divided on political grounds, but also on economic, religious and racial lines. Inequality has morphed into something resembling the Middle Ages.

If America was once a trusted ally, the Trump presidency must have caused us to reconsider where we stand. A buddy this week, maybe not so much next week?

We need to tread carefully until the U.S. has a leader who can be trusted. Joe Biden is 80 years old. At his age, how long can we rely on his common sense? His main opponent will probably be Donald Trump, who is crazy, old and unstable.

This then is the horse we have hitched our wagon to. In Australian terms, “have we backed the wrong horse?”

The Liberal Party of Australia continues to present its worst face to the electorate. One would have assumed that Peter Dutton, one of the most unpopular politicians in Australia’s parliamentary history, could not possibly have been elected to lead an already discredited party.

But to the party which selected Tony Abbott in 2009 to the same position, one bad decision is never enough. After disposing of Abbott, who to his credit did actually win an election, they eventually woke up and replaced him with Malcolm Turnbull.

Of course, Turnbull was far too clever to be left in power, so the party chose Scott Morrison to lead them. He was meant to present a more likeable leader than his opponent, Peter Dutton. So far, there is very little to choose between the two. If you are a Liberal voter, you appear to be stuck between a rock, and a hard place.

Dutton’s public pronouncements do not help his cause

Over the years Peter Dutton has sought to present himself as a no-nonsense ‘straight talker’. It is hard to reconcile his public statements with the pleasant, personable man that some of his supporters attest to.

He described the belongings brought to Australia by refugees as:

“… the world’s biggest collection of Armani jeans and handbags up on Nauru waiting for people to collect it when they depart.”

When commenting on past immigration under Malcolm Fraser, he stated:

“The advice I have is that out of the last 33 people who have been charged with terrorist-related offences in this country, 22 of those people are from second and third generation Lebanese-Muslim background.”

He decided that:

“… the reality is people (in Melbourne) are scared to go out at restaurants of a night time because they’re followed home by these gangs, home invasions, and cars are stolen and we just need to call it for what it is. Of course, it is African gang violence.”

He was much more sympathetic towards white South African farmers, however:

“I do think on the information that I’ve seen, people do need help, and they need help from a civilized country like ours.”

Heaven help them if they should become pregnant, though:

“Some people are trying it on. Let’s be serious about this. There are people who have claimed that they’ve been raped and came to Australia to seek an abortion because they couldn’t get an abortion on Nauru. They arrived in Australia and then decided they were not going to have an abortion. They have the baby here and the moment they step off the plane their lawyers lodge papers in the federal court which injuncts us from sending them back.”

This statement was a factor in Shane Bazzi’s tweeting that Dutton was a “rape apologist”. Dutton then sued, and won, only for the original verdict to be overturned on appeal.

Adding to his sense of frustration with migrants, or refugees, or both classes of people not from South Africa, he elaborated on the theme of “anchor babies”, an anti-immigration term popularised in Trump’s America.

This was in relation to two specific children, and their parents of course; Sri Lankan couple Priya and Nadesalingam and their Australian-born daughters Kopika, and Tharunicaa:

“It’s been very clear to them at every turn that they were not going to stay in Australia, and they still had children. We see that overseas in other countries, anchor babies…the emotion of trying to leverage a migration outcome based on the children,” he told Macquarie Radio.

Dutton has been accused of being racist

We can only really list his mis-statements and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.

Dutton walked out on the apology to the Stolen Generation, and proffered the following apology for his boycott:

“I didn’t appreciate the symbolism of it, and the importance to Indigenous people.”

He was caught making a joke about the rising sense of doom amongst Pacific Island nations, as they face possible extinction of their homelands, due to climate change:

“Time doesn’t mean anything when you’re about to have water lapping at your door.”

Is Dutton just another naysayer?

His grandstanding about the Voice to Parliament is grating, because it seems to be playing a non-existent tune. The Voice has been explained, ad nauseum, as an advisory body, only.

It will not be a third chamber to the Parliament; it will not legislate. It will advise the mostly non-indigenous parliamentarians about purported effects of legislation affecting indigenous Australians. It will not advise on national security, nor will it advise on defence matters.

And yet, ignoring his seeming irrelevance in modern Australian political life, Dutton continues to be treated as if his concerns are real. As the Prime Minister bends further backward to appease Dutton, the rest of us are forced to watch, and listen, as he inches towards understanding.

The remaining two Liberal premiers have now joined the Federal Government, and the other state premiers, in supporting the Voice to Parliament.

Dutton is isolated on policies, and on attitude

So now Dutton is marooned with the likes of the crew at Sky News, and David Littleproud’s strange fringe party. He then made the effort to attend George Pell’s funeral, and he was outraged by the decision to leave King Charles off the $5 note.

These are the current issues which marginalise him even more from mainstream Australia, or at least those voters who are under seventy years of age, and not conspiracy theorists.

Add it to his climate skepticism, and the Liberal Party of Australia is doomed to spend a very long time out on the fringes. It begs the question of how long he can be allowed to make the party not only irrelevant, but one which seems to delight in choosing unpopular causes to champion.

He seems to be channelling Tony Abbott, and we know where that leads.