Julian Assange and Albanese’s Intervention

The unflinching US effort to extradite and prosecute Julian Assange for 18…

Virtual tourists can now teleport back 600 million…

University of South Australia Media Release Fancy donning a VR headset and taking…

The Right is toxic: what next for conservatives?

The international right is cynical and dangerous. It is crucial we look…

To be truthful, "sorry" is a word so…

When you think there isn't much to write about in politics, the…

Mangroves: environmental guardians of our coastline

University of South Australia Media Release They are the salt-tolerant shrubs that thrive…

Tuvalu, Climate Change and the Metaverse

When lost to climatic disaster and environmental turbulence, where does a whole…

Nats Vote No OR When You're Standing At…

It's sort of interesting that just a few days ago we had…

Was Amtrak Joe derailed?

By 2353NM Prior to becoming President, Joe Biden was a US Senator for…


Michael was first admitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland in 2003 and was entered on the Registrar of Practitioners in the High Court of Australia in 2005. Michael practiced as a criminal defence barrister up to 2010.

The Voice

Regrettably there has been some disingenuous commentary today in the media emanating from the mouths of some members of the Federal opposition about the proposed referendum to amend the constitution, so that there is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament (the Voice) enshrined within the Commonwealth Constitution. It is disingenuous commentary because not only are the questions for the referendum which have been posed by the Prime Minister plain and simple to understand, but also because the Federal opposition when they were members of the former Morrison Government received in July 2021 the detailed 272 page report from the Indigenous Voice Co-Design Process (the Report).

The Federal opposition also have access to the Voice Co-Design Process website, a website they also had access to whilst they were members of the Morrison Government.

Chapter 1 of the Report explains how the Voice will work in the context of legislative consultation, including the details regarding dispute resolution between local and regional members to the Voice as well as with governments. Chapter 2 of the Report records the details of the membership of the Voice, including the selection process.

Some of the commentary in the media today also suggested there had been a lack of consultation about the Voice. That suggestion is ludicrous, as there has been substantial consultation throughout the community via submissions being tendered to the Voice Co-Design Process, webinars, community group consultations, social media and other forms of consultation. Chapter 3 of the Report which commences at page 187 of the documents sets out within the 24 pages of that chapter the extent of the substantial consultation which has taken place. Comments in the media regarding an alleged lack of consultation is just misleading the Australian public, and is simply untrue given the extent of the consultation around Australia.

So, in summary regarding the commentary in the media (both mainstream and social media) by some members of the Federal opposition, and other people in the community, alleging a lack of detail and lack of consultation about the Voice is not just misleading, but it also appears to be an attempt to create division and confusion about a simple constitutional amendment to cause the referendum to fail.

The implementation of the Voice to be a constitutionally enshrined right for Aboriginal and Torres Strait members of our society is one of the necessary steps we need to undertake in this nation. It is not a third chamber of Parliament; the Voice is a respectful consultation process about legislation which affects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. As the Prime Minister Mr Albanese said yesterday, “If not now, when?


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 4,888 total views

The symptoms of mental illness are not the “plan of Satan”, Mr Morrison

I have refrained from writing this post for four days, as it is my apperception (the mental process by which a person makes sense of an idea by assimilating it to the body of ideas they already possess) I have gained from considering the erudite wisdom of Viktor Frankl’s ‘Man’s Search for Meaning‘, an empirical resource of psychiatric and psychological study, in which he reasons that between the action and reaction there is a void in which we have a choice to make in how we react in life to the action. We may either react in an impetuous and emotional manner in which unknown consequences flow from such behaviour, or we may sit back, and in a measured, thoughtful and rational response set out our thoughts. I have not chosen the path of impetuosity, as I consider the words I am about to write below should be set out in a context of personal experience, and hopefully, therapeutic value for people living with a mental illness.

As you may gather from the headline to my post, I am obviously responding to Mr. Morrison’s words spoken last Sunday at a Pentecostal Church established in Perth by the former Australian tennis player, Margaret Court. May I indicate at the outset of this post, I do not intend to display any impiety towards the Pentecostal religion; people are entitled to believe in any form of religion they so choose to believe in; just as I or any other person may abjure any form of religious belief.

My apostasy for religion does not influence my thoughts about Mr. Morrison’s words spoken during his sermon last Sunday about mental illness. As I explained herein my words are derived from personal experience. Many of you may be already aware of this fact, but for those of you who are unaware I have almost recovered from a mental health breakdown in March 2021, a breakdown which culminated from both the post traumatic shock I suffered of seeing my deceased mother on the floor of her apartment approximately 14 hours after she had passed away, as well as almost 43 years of undiagnosed mental illnesses. My mental illnesses had been undiagnosed for such a lengthy period of time because of my shame to admit to my thoughts, and it is the issue of shame which motivates my reaction to Mr. Morrison’s words.

If you are also unaware of what Mr. Morrison said during his sermon (his words decrying government and the United Nations have been more than adequately addressed by the Prime Minister Mr. Albanese) about mental illness, it is reported in the Murdoch media (don’t get too excited, Uncle Rupert, I am still unhappy with you and Lachlan) that:

“While he noted there were “biological issues” or “brain chemistry” that resulted in clinical disorders, he sought to link the everyday anxieties to a spiritual deficit. Mr. Morrison declared that if people gave into their worries, they were giving into “Satan’s plan”.

The symptoms of mental illness, including worry and anxiety are not part of “Satan’s plan”. Mr. Morrison’s words are reckless, and they are also indicative of the anachronistic mindset of a medieval cleric manipulating the benighted minds of the parishioners during the Dark Ages. To link such symptoms to “Satan” or evil, only increases the risk of propagating thoughts of shame amongst the two million or so people suffering from a mental illness in this country.

It is shame which causes many people suffering from mental illness coming forward to seek help. Without displaying too much impiety at this juncture, for Mr. Morrison to link the symptoms of mental illness to “Satan’s plan” is just a product of dissolute pious mumbo jumbo of the greatest degree, and it has no place in psychiatric medicine or psychology. I know, because I have been now undergoing psychiatric treatment and psychological counselling for 16 months, and Lucifer plays no part in either field of treatment.

So I strongly reject Mr. Morrison’s misconceived words about mental illness, but if you think I may have be prone to displaying emotive language in this post, you should have been at my house on Monday when I initially read the above-mentioned article.

I would also like to share with you now the importance of candour and advocacy in normalising mental illness in our society. I have openly shared my mental health journey on Facebook and Twitter since about April 2021. The genesis of my online advocacy about the journey of my mental health treatment and recovery, and the need to normalise the condition in society, arises from the shame I had about my various mental illness thoughts which consumed my mind since 1979.

Whilst I was hospitalised during my first admission to hospital in March 2021, I heard many of my fellow inpatients express the feelings of shame they held about their mental illnesses, and how they were too ashamed to allow the illness to be known in their individual communities.

It became apparent to me, being the outspoken person that I am, society needed to have an open discussion about mental illness, so that more people would come forward to admit to their suffering, and to seek treatment. I have received a number of social media messages from various people since April last year in which they thank me for my advocacy, but this week I received a message from one of my 23, 700 followers on Twitter which best encapsulates the need for an open discussion about mental health in this country. The message I received from this person (for their privacy they shall remain anonymous) read as follows:

“Hi Michael – we have never met but wanted to thank you for your up front and honest tweets in relation your mental health condition. I suffer from anxiety which has re-emerged after 20 years of control. Bit of a dark place now but reading your words provides confidence and reassurance that there is a future and a path forward. Thanks again.”

I do not derive any narcissistic pleasure from this message, but it does give me comfort that by being candid and discussing online my journey back to a healthy state of mind I have given this person hope they will do the same.

Stay well, my friends.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 8,712 total views

Hang on, help is on its way

If you are a 1970s music fan like me, you would remember these famous words from the chorus of the Little River Band (LRB) song.

Goodness knows how many times I have heard the above-mentioned LRB song, but with all the commentary taking place in the mainstream and social media outlets today about extending Covid payments to people who don’t have sick leave, and also about PM Albanese’s work travel, the chorus to the LRB song is ringing in my ears at 10.21pm tonight as I commence drafting my post.

Let me if I may dispose of this ridiculous sniping about Mr. Albanese’s travel, which save for France and Indonesia probably would have been the former PM Morrison’s travel schedule as well had he won the election.

The Quad Meeting had been scheduled to be held in Japan for the week immediately after the day of the election long before election day. Mr. Albanese’s next trip to Indonesia was essential for two reasons. Not only was the trip to conduct the usual diplomacy of a new Australian PM visiting our important northern neighbour, but also it was required to smooth over relations with Indonesia which the Morrison government had strained with them because of their failure to consult with them over the AUKUS pact.

Indeed, it was also because of the shambles Mr. Morrison had personally caused in the breakdown of relations with France (by the way, France are our most important Northern Hemisphere ally when it comes to the Pacific as it holds three territories in the South Pacific which are New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, and French Polynesia and those countries account for about one third of the Pacific Islands’ combined exclusive economic zone) that Mr. Albanese had to travel to that country after the NATO meeting (the first invitation ever extended to an Australian PM) to smooth over the relationship with President Macron before his secret trip into Ukraine.

The improvement of relations with France has further assisted Australia by regenerating the free trade deal with the European Union which had “essentially stalled” amid the tensions with France and international criticism of Australia’s climate change stance. Finally, the Pacific Nations forum had to be attended at by our PM, particularly in circumstances whereby China is expanding its influence in the region. By attending the Pacific Nations meeting Mr. Albanese was able to secure the Solomon Island’s agreement they would not allow China to establish a military base there, and that Australia remained their country of choice for security matters.

The urgent resetting of these afore-mentioned international relations were essential domestic issues for this country, as these relationships affect our trade and security. Even relations with China have thawed to a degree, and all this foreign affairs urgent work has been performed within seven weeks of the new Albanese government being sworn in. So when a half-smart journalist like Samantha Maiden makes some side of mouth comment about the PM wearing his floral shirt this week, send a note back to Sam on social media to say that it was for work and not for a secret holiday in Hawaii (and by the way, you can quote me if you like).

Now I move onto the more complex issue of extending Covid leave pay entitlements for people without sick leave. This problem is not easily resolved by signing a cheque, as our economic position is far worse than what we were told before the 2022 Federal Election was called.

First of all, the budget was not in the state the former treasurer Mr. Frydenberg had told us it was in on the night of the budget. Not long after the Federal Election, indeed on 25 May 2022 the treasurer Dr. Chalmers met with Treasury officials. What Dr. Chalmers discovered is the Albanese government has inherited a “dire” budget situation with a deficit that could blow out further due to soaring inflation, and Dr. Chalmers accused the Coalition of not disclosing pressures on the budget, revealed in Treasury briefings since Labor’s election win on Saturday, 21 May 2022. Dr. Chalmers told reporters on 25 May 2022 that:

“The defining challenges in our economy are skyrocketing inflation, rising interest rates, a fall in real wages and not having anywhere near enough to show for a budget which is absolutely heaving with a trillion dollars in Liberal party debt.”

The next issue about the large national debt the Morrison government has left behind raises the economic issue of concern of crowding. In 2018 the International Monetary Fund (IMF) working paper outlined the critical factors determining a country’s maximum sustainable debt level is the difference between its future nominal interest rate and its growth in economic activity. When the growth in cost of servicing debt (i.e. the interest) is higher than the rate of economic growth, then the debt will not be sustainable, as the economy is not growing faster than the debt servicing costs.

The RBA in May 2021 said about its 2021-22 and 2022-23 forecasts economic growth would be 4% in 2021-22 and 3% in the 2022-23. The RBA forecast in 2021 was that inflation would remain subdued in the medium term (Source: Australian Parliament House (APH) paper ‘Commonwealth debt’, written by Rob Dossor). I can hear the bells ringing on the famous gameshow as I type away here, “Knoll Knoll”. Forecasts by the RBA in May 2021 about economic growth in 2021-22 (4%) and 2022-23 (3%) were also wrong. In it’s February 2022 economic update the RBA stated:

“GDP is forecast to have grown by 5 per cent over 2021, and to grow by around 4¼ per cent over 2022 and 2 per cent over 2023. The unemployment rate is forecast to decline gradually over the forecast period, to 3¾ per cent by the end of 2023 (Table 5.1). Inflation picked up in the second half of 2021, by more than expected at the time of the November Statement (you’re not kidding), and the outlook for inflation has been revised higher. Consumer price inflation in the December quarter was 1.3 per cent and 3½ per cent over the year, led by increases in the prices of new dwellings, durable goods and fuel. Underlying inflation has also picked up in recent quarters and is forecast to increase further to 3¼ per cent in mid-2022, largely reflecting upstream cost pressures amid strong demand in housing construction and the durables goods sector. Further out, the drivers of inflation are anticipated to shift, with a steady pick-up in labour costs in response to strong labour market conditions forecast to sustain inflation in the top half of the 2 to 3 per cent target range.”

In its May 2002 economic update the RBA made the following statement about economic growth and inflation:

“A strong expansion in the Australian economy is underway. This is expected to continue over the forecast period, despite the slowdown in global growth. The domestic outlook is supported by the substantial boost to national income from high commodity prices and growth in private consumption and investment. After slowing in the March quarter in response to the Omicron outbreak, activity is forecast to regain momentum over 2022 as saving and spending patterns continue to normalise and a further tightening in the labour market supports real household income. Growth is then forecast to moderate in 2023 as extraordinary policy support is withdrawn, rising prices weigh on real income and consumption growth slows to more typical rates. GDP is forecast to grow by 4¼ per cent over 2022, and by 2 per cent over 2023. Consumer price inflation in Australia has picked up markedly since the middle of 2021 and the outlook for inflation has again been revised higher. Headline inflation is forecast to peak around 6 per cent in the second half of this year.

Underlying inflation has also risen strongly and is forecast to increase further to 4¾ per cent in the second half of 2022, largely reflecting further pass-through of upstream cost pressures. As some of the current cost pressures reflect supply bottlenecks domestically and abroad and are likely to moderate over time, headline and underlying inflation are forecast to return to the top of the 2 to 3 per cent target range by the end of the forecast period. Higher labour costs in response to a tight labour market are expected to become the primary driver of inflation outcomes later in the forecast period (which is up to June 2024). Key sources of uncertainty for the domestic outlook include the future evolution of COVID-19, changes in price- and wage-setting behaviour at historically low levels of unemployment, and the response of households, firms and asset prices to higher inflation and interest rates.”

Since getting inflation so horribly wrong, the RBA have gone to the no-no closet of economic management and pulled out its big bludgeoning and blunt monetary sword used to increase interest rates, quite escalated rises after almost a decade of dormant interest rates. Monetary policy should not be resorted to at the best of times, let alone when Australia, indeed much of the world, is facing supply side economic inflation. I wrote about our inflation problems in ‘The inflation we did not need to have‘, in which I not only identified how Australia’s inflation problems were foreseeable, but also how this inflation should be addressed.

Former IMF chief economist Maurice Obstfeld worries central banks are playing catch-up after delaying rate rises too long. The aggressive but uncoordinated action by central banks worries former IMF chief economist Maurice Obstfeld, who says there is a real risk that they take rates too high while trying to fight inflation. He warns excessively fast rate rises across the globe could trigger a major economic downturn like that seen in the 1980s:

“You’ve got a real cocktail of global monetary contraction that could go a bit too far because each central bank is looking only at its own domestic situation and not thinking about the global effects.”

Professor Obstfeld, who teaches economics at the University of California Berkeley, told the ABC’s The Business program:

“The dollar appreciated to stratospheric heights [and] depreciations that US trade partners experienced hampered their efforts to disinflation, so they raised interest rates probably more than they would have otherwise. And so we got a very deep global recession which spilled over to emerging markets in the form of the debt crisis of the 1980s and I think there is a risk of something similar now.” He believes central banks waited too long to lift interest rates and are now panicking, trying to catch up. “They have egg on their face from having been behind the curve, and there is a little bit of a sense of panic in the air,” he said. “A great example is your RBA: two back-to-back 50-basis-point increases when inflation is between 5 and 6 per cent. “Now, governor [Philip] Lowe is predicting that inflation, notwithstanding those rate increases, will reach the 7 per cent level. [Federal Reserve chair] Jay Powell would be very happy to have 7 per cent at this point.”

So that leads us all the way back to crowding caused by the cost of interest payments on national debt pushing out of the way other government funded schemes, such as Medicare. Indeed, Dr. Chalmers warned the country the immensely high national debt of $1T could result in crowding where interest rate payments would usurp the costs of Medicare. Now we are witnessing escalating inflation around the world, and declining GDP. An economic recession because of central banks trying to save face over the escalating inflation by increasing interest rates too much and too quickly may well pull the world into an economic recession, and if doesn’t economic growth may well decline considerably everywhere, including Australia.

The threat of Australia’s national debt (where did that money go to, Scott, Josh, Angus, Peter and Barnaby?) interest payments crowding out other government schemes like Medicare or even aged care are a risk the new Albanese government has to consider after it has just paid out further disaster relief compensation. Indeed, regarding the impact of the economic cost of climate change on Australia, the potential damages at current global emissions patterns are conservatively quantified as $584.5B by 2030. (Source: Melbourne University, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute and Australian National University paper May 2021, ‘Australia’s Clean Economy Future: Costs and Benefits). So the bad news is between now and 2030 a conservative figure of $70B a year may be needed to be spent by our Federal Government in climate change compensation payments, and there still are the costs of the additional infrastructure to change to a clean economy.

So with all these economic pressures to contend with, you could forgive the Albanese government for wishing to restrain our national debt, fix the budget, and carefully consider the extension of the Covid leave payments. The Albanese government did not create these difficult economic challenges, and great care must be taken to improve our financial position as a country whilst we still look to restore funding to aged care, the NDIS, tertiary education, Medicare and the ABC. National Cabinet is meeting on 16 July 2022. What can be done will be done regarding leave payments. The mainstream and social media commentators just need to allow a government of seven weeks since being sworn in time to examine the big picture of all of Australia’s needs.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 5,620 total views

Stop the culture wars, Senator Hughes

I cannot bite my tongue anymore about the egregious disrespect Senator Hollie Hughes is displaying to the Australian teaching profession.

Previously Senator Hughes remarkably claimed the Coalition lost the Federal Election because of the lessons being taught to school children by ‘Marxist teachers.’ Senator Hughes then doubled down today claiming the ‘Marxist teachers’ had been teaching school children the economic theory of John Maynard Keynes, and by virtue of the erroneous Marxist labelling of teachers the senator was also by way of a strong inference also labelling Keynes as a Marxist. There are a number of issues arising out of this unwarranted disrespect, and ignorance, of Senator Hughes embracing culture wars which I wish to personally call-out.

Let me first address the inference of linking Keynes to Marxism, as that is the height of economic and political ignorance I have not heard a politician express before, and I can easily dispose of the slur against Keynes (my apologies to Marxists, but I do not accept Marxism as a viable economic theory). Keynes did not study Marx, and he did not feel the need for doing so because he identified Marx’s theories with those of the classicists, therefore rejecting both Marxism and classicists. Notwithstanding any criticisms either Keynes or Marx raised about laissez-faire capitalist ideology, Marx focused on the failure within production whereas Keynes focused on investment. Keynesian and Marxist theories are as different as chalk and cheese.

Now I wish to discuss the slur Senator Hughes is making against the profession of school teachers. It is both an objective and personal matter I wish to discuss:

1 At the objective level I was educated at both the primary and secondary level by both the private and public sectors of the teaching profession (the secondary level was because I repeated Year 12 after my first occasion was a misguided ‘gap’ year, if I may describe my recalcitrance in that manner). What I can objectively say is school teachers in either sector of education work very hard, including a lot of after hours unpaid work. In either system of education I wasn’t taught to be a Marxist, but the theory was taught to me in economic history classes in both sectors of secondary education.

My private school education occurred at a school in which the majority of students’ parents voted for the Liberal Party, a fact I was personally able to assess as I drew the ire of my fellow students whenever I extolled the virtues of my allegiance to the Labor Party. However, in Year 12 Modern History lessons at that private school we had First Nations representatives come in to speak to us about the racism and other terrible acts they had, and still were (and still are), subjected to. Ponder over that fact for a moment Senator Hughes.

2 On the personal level both my late mum and my stepdad were school teachers in the public system of education. I witnessed first hand how hard they both worked to deliver quality secondary education services in two of the most impoverished suburbs in Brisbane during the 1970’s and 1980’s. It was an extremely difficult time for teachers in the public sector of education, but notwithstanding the challenges both my late mum and stepdad assiduously worked away to deliver a quality service of education for those school students. My late mum and stepdad weren’t/ aren’t Marxists, and they certainly weren’t teaching their students to be Marxists.



I now watch my daughter being educated in the public sector of primary education, and the commitment of her teachers to deliver quality education is simply superb. Today during the school holidays I continued my desire to teach Shakespeare to my daughter (what a fun dad I am). I turned to the sonnets section of my ‘Works of Shakespeare’ book, and as I started to teach my daughter what a sonnet is, she stopped me in my tracks to tell me she had already been taught iambic pentameter in Year 2. My daughter is certainly not being taught by ‘Marxist’ teachers.

Senator Hughes’ disgraceful attacks on the teaching profession in this country by labelling them Marxist is divisive and insulting to teachers. Her ignorance about Keynes and Marx is very concerning. Senator Hughes’ behaviour is the worst level of American style cultural war to try to agitate in this country. Senator Hughes should be reprimanded by her leader Peter Dutton, but I suspect there is a greater chance Shakespeare himself will be teaching next term at my daughter’s school than Ms Hughes being pulled into line.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 6,196 total views

The day after, and the days ahead

A few matters to say the day after the 2022 Federal Election.

Firstly, from the aspect of my Federal seat of Ryan whilst the AEC has not declared it (I have to say the AEC must have continued counting during the night, as the results are different to the ABC’s data at 12.30am) it appears the Greens’ candidate Ms Watson-Brown will be declared the new member for Ryan, so my wholehearted congratulations are extended to her and the Greens. However, whilst it was not to be his night I wish to say how proud I am of my friend Peter Cossar – Labor for Ryan. Peter has worked hard in Ryan for many years, and if you wish to know where the battle to end the Climate Wars began, it started with Peter bravely knocking doors about 5 years in Ryan, speaking to virtues of climate policy. Well done, Peter; you honourably discharged your duty as a Labor candidate, and I still believe you will one day serve in our Parliament. I should also thank all of the branch members who assisted Peter.

Secondly, I am so heartened by the Uluṟu Statement from the Heart will be implemented in full, including the referendum for a First Nations voice to Parliament. That referendum will be held in the next few months, and, just like 1967 when a referendum was passed to allow First Nations to vote, I implore every Australian to vote yes for a First Nations voice to Parliament. It’s not a third chamber; the First Nations voice to Parliament provides a necessary legislative step to recognise the standing and wisdom of the oldest culture on Earth – over 60,000 years of knowledge being generously extended to all our national interests.

I am heartened by the Climate Wars ending in this country. It should never have started back in 2009-10. Powering Australia is the necessary policy to immediately undertake rewiring of the energy grid, restoring manufacturing so that we become a renewable energy superpower, which with our reserves of mineral resources we will be such an international power, and finally achieving net zero by 2050.

This is a dawn of a new, wonderful and inclusive age for Australia, where people don’t get left, but aspiration is rewarded. There are economic issues Labor must immediately get working on, not just in examining how and where so much of our national debt went to, but also addressing inflation, wages, cost of housing and the cost of living. The economics portfolio of treasury will be a powerhouse of economic intellect, with Dr Chalmers as Treasurer and Dr Leigh as Assistant Treasurer.

Important socio-economic reforms for women will be implemented, including important safety legislation and social housing. The NDIS will be fixed, along with aged care and Medicare. Our ABC will also be fixed, not just restoring its funding, but also ensuring it maintains its function as an independent national broadcaster. In that respect, I look forward to a judicial inquiry which will not only examine the concentration of media ownership in Australia, but also the quality of the news being delivered.

A national integrity commission, or Federal ICAC, will be established this year. The integrity commission will have retrospective investigative powers, and it shall be free from any parliamentary influence. Over the last 9 years we have slipped to 18th position on the international transparency and corruption index. The national integrity commission will restore our place in the world regarding this important international index.

Finally, I just wanted to address a remark made by Simon Birmingham on the ABC at about midnight which was not only an ungracious remark to be made in the context of what has occurred regarding the Liberal Party’s (not the National Party) night, it was also extremely misleading about our democratic voting system. Birmingham made a comment about Labor’s primary vote which was disinformation in relation to our voting system as a preferential system, not a first past the post system. Yes, the percentage of primary votes fell for both major parties, but when you take out the National Party component of the primary vote the Liberal Party’s primary vote is very low. Remember the Coalition is actually on most occasions a minority government of Liberal and Nation Party members which cannot form government without each other. On the TPP the AEC recorded this morning Labor being ahead of the Coalition by 400,000 votes on the TPP. Labor has won Government not just on seats won, but also on the TPP.

So now we look forward to a bright future for this country which will bring us together, not divide us. The LGBTQIA community can look forward to a future free from discrimination. So many vital socio- economic reforms need to be implemented to address the economic and social problems in this country which need to be fixed. Australia can always still be a great country, but at the same time striving to do better, and that started last night when a person born into poverty and brought up in a housing commission flat can by talent and hard work rise to the very top to become our Prime Minister- it is a story which not only restores confidence in our system of government, it also is a wonderful reason to make us appreciate and love being Australians.

Have a nice day.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button


 3,884 total views

Why I’m voting for Labor

Undoubtedly for some of you out there in this endless universe of social media you may well have still not made up your minds who you are going to vote for on 21 May 2022, or you perhaps you have an idea, but you are still considering your decision. I don’t blame you as it has been a long election and with all the various policy announcements, advertisements and regrettably even some members of the mainstream media shouting their opinions at you. All these factors may create some confusion.

Obviously by the title you can see I am writing this article to explain to you the reasons why you should vote Labor, so that on Sunday 22 May 2022 we know we shall be looking forward to a brighter future under an Albanese Labor Government. I shall also explain to you why we have vote out this corrupt Morrison Government. So please for the sake of our future, and the future of the generations of your family to come, take a few short moments to consider this article.

Vote for Labor

A vote for Labor will ensure:

1. Scott Morrison is NO LONGER our Prime Minister. There is a reason why Morrison hasn’t until this week visited many electorates, and that is because the Liberal Party did not want him to because he is so disliked by most Australians. In 2019 Morrison snuck off to Hawaii whilst Australia was going up in flames. That was the measure of care he had, an absolute zero level of care whilst almost 50 people died and so many people also lost their houses. “I don’t hold a hose mate” was his weak excuse. When he eventually returned to Australia, he tried to make disappointed firefighters and people who were disappointed with him to shake his hand.

Meanwhile we were discovering there was systemic rorting within his government, wasting billions of dollars of our money. Morrison then failed us at the start of the pandemic regarding The Ruby Princess docking in Sydney, the delay with Covid vaccines after telling us a lie we were at the front of the queue and then of course failing with aged care, both before and during this pandemic.

Morrison has also demonstrated on many occasions he has no understanding of women, indeed many women in Australia have a multitude of reasons why they dislike Morrison. He lies repeatedly (including to our allies France and the USA), bulldozes, doesn’t take responsibility and has not one single plan for the future, other than ensuring he remains Prime Minister.

Even his preselection for the seat of Cook in 2007 carries with it the foul smell of accusations of resorting to racism, and other odious acts. That is quite a list, and there are more reasons, but be sure of this, if he does get re-elected his behaviour will only get worse regarding discrimination, protecting his own interests and misusing our money. I have previously written about Morrison’s lies and character flaws in this two part article published by The Australian Independent Media Network.


Scott Morrison’s Lies, Character and Incompetence

Scott Morrison’s Lies, Character and Incompetence (part 2)


2. Your costs of living will become affordable. Labor’s five-point Economic Plan is calibrated to reduce the costs of living; drive productivity growth and expand the capacity of the economy to alleviate supply side pressures; get wages growing so that Australians aren’t held back or left behind; and invest public money in a way that delivers genuine economic value for Australians. Labor supports a 5.1% raise to the minimum wage.

Empirical economic research proves this will be good for our economy. You have for almost 9 years now suffered under a series of Liberal governments from wage suppression as the cost of living has increased, because the Australian Bureau of Statistics (‘ABS’) excludes many items from its CPI calculation, such as fruit, vegetables and fuel.

3. You have access to an affordable home as a first homebuyer. The Liberals last minute brain explosion will only make housing more out of reach for you as a first home buyer; economists don’t support the idea and agree it will make housing even more unaffordable. An Albanese Labor Government will help more people buy a home sooner by cutting the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent. It will restore the Great Australian Dream, and it is a sensible plan which won’t cause housing to become even more unaffordable.

4. Women’s Interests will be better protected. Australian women want, indeed deserve equality. A Labor Government will address the gender gap at work with a national drive to close the gender pay gap; provide the national leadership and investment needed to end family, domestic and sexual violence; take real action to stop sexual harassment at work by implementing all 55 recommendations of the Respect@Work report; Labor will also deliver more safe and affordable housing, helping women and children fleeing violence, and, Labor will work with states and territories to strengthen and harmonise laws relating to sexual assault and consent.

Under the Morrison Government, women are being left behind. We’ve plummeted down the global gender gap rankings since 2013 to our worst ever result of 50th place worldwide.

5. Establish a National Ant-Corruption Commission. An Albanese Labor Government will legislate a powerful, transparent and independent National Anti-Corruption Commission (‘NAC’) by the end of 2022. Labor’s NAC will have a broad jurisdiction to investigate Commonwealth ministers, public servants, statutory office holders, government agencies, parliamentarians, and personal staff of politicians. Labor’s NAC will carry out its functions independently of government and it will have the power to investigate allegations of serious and systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment. Morrison failed to deliver his 2019 Election promise of establishing a Federal ICAC. (Click this link for further information about the NAC).

6. Powering Australia. Creating jobs, cutting power bills and reducing emissions by boosting renewable energy are at the centre of Labor’s Powering Australia plan. A Labor Government will close the yawning gap between our current Federal Government and our business community, agricultural sector and state governments when it comes to investing in the renewables that will power our future. Powering Australia will create 604,000 jobs, with 5 out of 6 new jobs to be created in the regions and it will spur $76 billion of investment.

Alongside the economic benefits, our plan will reduce Australia’s emissions by 43% by 2030 – which will become Australia’s target under the Paris Agreement, keeping us on track for net zero by 2050.

Under Powering Australia, Labor will start restoring manufacturing in this country; it makes no economic sense that we send the primary materials overseas to be manufactured at the secondary level of economic function, to only then buy those same primary materials back as finished goods in the tertiary level of the economy. The Morrison Government won’t reach net zero, indeed there is fighting in their ranks about doing anything at all.

7. Aged Care. Older Australians helped build this country. They worked hard, paid their taxes and raised their families. An Albanese Government will ensure every aged care facility will be required to have a registered, qualified nurse on site, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Labor will raise the standard of aged care across the board – by ensuring there are more carers, who have more time to care.

Labor will back a real pay rise for aged care workers. Labor will ensure that there is better food for residents of aged care homes. Labor will make residential care providers report – in public and in detail – what they are spending money on. Aged care is in crisis under the Morrison Government, but Labor will fix aged care in this country.

8. First Nations. Starting with its commitment to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full, an Albanese Labor Government will renew our national commitment to Reconciliation and work in genuine partnership with First Nations people for better outcomes.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart was generous offer of a genuine partnership, and a real chance for us to create a reconciled Australia. It calls for Voice, Treaty and Truth. Labor is the only party to support it in full. Labor will progress a referendum to constitutionally enshrine a Voice to Parliament in the Constitution as a matter of priority. Labor will also establish a Makarrata Commission to work with the Voice to Parliament on a national process for Treaty and Truth-telling. (Fore more information about Labor’s First Nations policy, click this link).

Labor has an extensive portfolio of policies to fund education, restore funding to the ABC, saving Medicare by restoring funding, fix the NDIS, fixing the NBN, a superior approach to National Security, as well as environmental protection and watering proofing Australia (to name a few).

Morrison Must Go

The last 9 years of Liberal governments have only caused most Australians heartache and pain. In Morrison as Prime Minister we have the most divisive Prime Minister in our history who has overseen the most incompetent corrupt government since our Federation. I have previously written an article published by The AIMN about how much pain we have endured over the past 3 years:


Morrison’s ‘miracle’ only delivered us pain; now, put your hand up to say he must go


If you vote for the Coalition tomorrow (whether that be for the Liberal or National Parties), you will continue to suffer:

1. Three more years of Morrison, Joyce and Dutton. I have already addressed herein just some of the many character flaws and incompetence of Morrison. However, with Morrison we have to also endure the embarrassment of Joyce as Deputy Prime Minister, as well as Peter Dutton who can only be described as a mean hearted person. Morrison and Dutton have destroyed our relationship with our allies, like breaking the submarine contract with France, causing us to incur $5.5Billion in damages- that is right we must pay with our money. Joyce does not have any sensible plans for regional Australia, and he can’t even control Canavan. Morrison, Dutton and Joyce are literally the ‘Three Stooges’ of Australian politics.

2. No Federal ICAC. I have for the main part addressed this issue above regarding Labor’s NAC. Morrison broke his 2019 Election promise. He even had the temerity to try and smear the New South Wales ICAC, only to have Dominic Perrotett publicly disagree with him. This has been the worst government since federation regarding misuse of our funds, rorts, integrity and transparency. Australia now has its worst ever international Corruptions Perceptions Index score, ranking Australia in 18th place. It is an international embarrassment for us, and only Labor’s NAC will fix this problem.

3. Poor treatment of Women. You would have had to be marooned on Pluto, and even then without a working radio, if you did not hear about the Morrison Government’s treatment of women. For legal reasons I won’t refer to one example, but there has been right from the outset of this Federal Election the issue about the treatment of Rachelle Miller. Ms Miller had been involved in an affair with Tudge, in which she claims she was also subjected to physical violence.

According to Morrison, Tudge had stepped down from the ministry, but at the start of this campaign Ms Miller bravely brought to the nation’s attention Tudge was still a member of cabinet. Tudge went missing for most of this election, and as Labor’s Jason Clare commented, even Scoobie Doo couldn’t find Tudge. When Tudge did come out of hiding, both he and Morrison confirmed he would be returning to a ministerial portfolio, even though we have paid Ms Miller $500,000.00 in damages regarding her claim against the Morrison Government. Ms Miller wanted to tell the country her story, but Morrison would not put in place the measures to let her do so.

The poor treatment of women by the Morrison Government is not limited to Ms Miller, we know that Julia Banks, Concetta Fieravanti-Wells, Jacquie Lambie and Pauline Hanson have complained about either being bullied by Morrison, or commented upon his terrible character flaws, not to mention the former CEO of Australia Post. The Morrison Government has not even put in a place a plan to protect the interests of women like Labor has.

As reported on 10 News at 6.00pm on 18 May 2022, 10 News conducted a social media poll on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram targeted only at women asking the question, “who do you believe will better protect women’s interests, Labor or Liberal?” The results of the polls were 71%, 90% and 95% in favour of Labor. I don’t believe the Coalition have quite turned their minds to how much women dislike Morrison, Joyce and Dutton.

4. A poor economy. Notwithstanding the way Morrison and Frydenberg like to talk themselves up as economic managers, they have delivered the only recession this century. The Morrison Government has failed to address inflation in this country, an issue which they should have been aware of at the start of the pandemic. The costs of living are becoming unbearable for many Australians. Wages have not kept up with inflation, and in its submission to the Fair Work Commission (‘FWC’) about the minimum wage a whole chapter is devoted to the misconceived advantages of keeping wages low. Indeed, Morrison is so mean about wages he even argued against the extra 38 cents raise to the minimum wage which the unions are arguing for above the 62 cents argued for by business in the FWC.

There is a plethora of empirical economic research from around the world which proves raising wages is good for an economy. When the Coalition came to power in 2013, Labor handed over the number 1 economy in the world, including that we had not slipped into recession during the GFC and only $186Billion in national debt. It was rude, misleading and laughable for Morrison to make claims about Labor managing money when Morrison doubled the national debt before the pandemic, then he pushed the national debt up to about $1Trillion including paying $20Billion in JobKeeper payments to undeserving companies who the money can’t be recovered from, causing $5.5Billion in debt because of breaking the submarine contract with France, using $1Billion of our money for the government’s own advertising and then finally all of the Rorts.

Since coming to power the Coalition have erased 55,000 manufacturing jobs. The difference between the two budgets is Labor are providing cheaper child care, investing in cleaner energy which will create 604,000 new jobs, including about 80% of those jobs being in the regions, and finally investing in necessary training and education. These investments will result in economic growth. We have no tangible benefits arising from Morrison and Frydenberg causing our national debt to reach $1Trillion, we only have the largest ever trail of waste.

5. Climate Change The simple answer to this question is the Morrison Government doesn’t have a credible climate change policy. Their 2030 target of a 26% to 28% reduction in emissions does not meet international standards and the Morrison Government will not meet net zero emissions by 2050.

The Coalition is even in internal dispute about reaching net zero, with people like Canavan coming out and saying they will not support it. At the 2019 Federal Election Morrison lied to the nation about electric cars, when he claimed they would ruin the weekend. Australians have endured 9 years of climate inaction from the Coalition Government, and the Morrison Government is still wishing to resort to fossil fuels to power our nation, rather than renewable energy in which we hold the necessary mineral resources to build renewable energy products, including electric cars. The only way we will reach net zero by 2050 is by voting out the Morrison Government.

6. Scandals and Rorts. I have addressed a fair component of this reason to vote out the Morrison Government under Labor’s NCA plan, as well as Morrison breaking his promise about implementing a Federal ICAC. After 9 years of Coalition governments, in which we have witnessed 3 different Prime Ministers at the helm, Morrison has simply turned his back on integrity in government, he does not care. Look at the alleged way he even came to be the candidate for the seat of Cook in 2007; Ms Fieravanti-Wells was right that night when she said Morrison does not have a moral compass. With that lack of care comes poor standards of conduct within the Morrison Government, and this in turn has diminished people’s faith in government. This abuse of the First and Second Estates of our democracy has to end on 21 May 2022 by voting out of office the Morrison Government.

7. National Security and Foreign Affairs. I don’t know how many times we have seen a government since our federation conduct the complete opposite of what they screech about regarding national security. Morrison and Dutton like to comment about the threat of China, but when he was treasurer Morrison allowed the 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to go ahead with a Chinese company which is linked to the Chinese Communist Government. The debacle of the Solomon Islands was 9 years in the making of poor treatment of our Pacific friends, which has resulted in the Solomon Islands forming closer ties with China.

Even when the mention of the Solomon Islands looking to China for relations was first broken in the media here, the Morrison Government did not do anything about the issue until it was too late. The United States believes the Morrison Government dropped the ball regarding the Solomon Islands, and they are right. Then we have the AUKUS debacle, which not only includes nuclear submarines we won’t have delivered until 2040, but also the misleading representation the Morrison Government made to the Biden Administration that there was bipartisan support, when the Morrison Government had not briefed the opposition about AUKUS. Throw in offending France again, including Morrison leaking to the press an email from a foreign leader which was sent under the cover of privacy, and you have the worst government on record since federation regarding national security and foreign affairs.

The list is endless regarding how appalling the Morrison Government has been, indeed how bad 9 years of Coalition governments have been from Abbott through to Morrison. Voting for a further 3 years of the Morrison Government will only lead to more misery, more waste, more scandals, more rorts, more incompetence and less equality. The Morrison Government has to end on 21 May 2022 Australia.

Tomorrow when you go to vote, my fellow Australians, join me and #Vote1Labor for a brighter future.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button


 3,964 total views

Your super under attack

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating has described the Liberal party’s policy to allow people to access superannuation to obtain housing deposits as “another frontal assault by the Liberal Party on the Superannuation system”. I agree with Mr Keating.

In a statement today, 15 May 2022, Mr Keating, who was the architect of the superannuation scheme, says the policy is an attack on the role of government in public life. Further, Mr Keating said:

“The Liberals hate the Superannuation system – they object to working Australians having wealth in retirement independent of the government.

The Libs believe ordinary bods should be happy with the Age Pension. Let them know their place.

The Superannuation taxation concessions exist solely to produce a retirement income for people. Its key is preservation. Accumulated funds preserved to age 60 so working people secure the power and benefit of compounding.

Preserved, Superannuation savings, double roughly every eight years. Over a 40-year working life, at 12% contributions, savings should accumulate to approximately $2million in today’s dollars.

Too good for them, says the Liberal Party. We’ll let them pilfer it away in the supposed good cause of housing deposits. Next it will be aged care or longevity or paying out HECS debt – anything to puncture the pool of money they do fervently hate.
If the public needs yet another idea to put this intellectually corrupt government to death, this is an important offence – and with the government, its unprincipled Prime Minister.”

I concur again with Mr Keating. The Morrison Government have failed in their economic management overall, including housing, as they have allowed prices to surge and there is now a lack of supply of affordable housing, which has resulted in the cost of housing reaching a level that now places owning a first home out of reach for many young families. Indeed, it’s highly unlikely many first home buyers would have enough super to make a deposit on a home, but in any event accessing superannuation is killing two elements of the economy with the one stone.

The proposed housing solution policy being put forward by Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Party is the only sensible solution to the housing crisis, a policy which I attach the link to below for your consideration.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 6,380 total views

An important message for the Australian Hindu community

Dear Hindu Council of Australia (@HinduCouncilAu) and Australian Hindu Media (@austhindu), Australian Federal Elections are always keenly contested, but yesterday the behaviour of Morrison crossed the line from keenly contesting to just an outright lie to the Australian Indian community, a lie which was made about a former Australian Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd:



Notwithstanding Mr Rudd calling Morrison’s lie out, Morrison has not demonstrated any remorse or guilt for not only making a slur against Mr Rudd’s name, but also failing to apologise to the Australian Indian community which was very misleading and untrue about Mr Rudd.

You can’t trust Morrison.

My stepfather, Mr Joshi, comes from Dharmsala, he’s of Brahmin caste and he doesn’t trust or like Morrison. He was educated in India and Australia, obtaining degrees at the University of Queensland, including economics. Most importantly, when I was 8 he came into my life and treated me like his own son.

My stepfather’s @HinduCouncilAu and @austhindu father was Dr Trilok Joshi, a very fine surgeon. One of my stepfather’s extended family was a general in the Indian army. His name escapes me. My stepfather would want you to know the Liberal Party are destroying Australia.

Finally, @HinduCouncilAu and @austhindu my stepfather is 85; he has been very ill but I’ m happy to announce that he is recovering. He would want all the Indian community living in Australia to know that only the Labor Party has a true plan which will be beneficial for all of Australia, including Australians of Indian origin.




Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 4,144 total views

My 38 cent’s worth

I never thought it could happen in Australia, but Morrison with his temerarious judgment has decided to pick a fight about a $1 rise to the minimum wage, which is 38 cents more than the rise the business community has made in its submission to the Fair Work Commission (FWC).

Take that fact in for as many minutes as you need to; a Prime Minister who has legislated for very generous tax cuts for high income earners, who has accrued about $1Trillion in debt which there are not any long term national benefits for such borrowing, is saying the lowest paid wage earners, the people who will spend every single cent of those 38 cents, should not receive a pay increase in line with CPI inflation for which they hold no blame for it occurring (I refer you, the reader, to my previous article regarding why Australia should not be suffering this inflationary pressure).

The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) Governor has not said the increase in inflation has been caused by wage growth, which makes our inflationary pressure different to the rest of the world. People’s wages in Australia have been essentially suppressed to 2013 rates (see Crikey review below). Morrison is saying these lowest paid workers should receive a pay cut.

To make matters even more ridiculous, Morrison is claiming the 38-cent increase beyond what business has submitted will crush the economy.’ This is the same economy which Morrison was claiming after the Federal Budget is a strong economy. Morrison initially said Labor could not change wages; now like a weathervane moving in the wind Morrison is claiming Labor will change the minimum wage. What? Even worse, Ms Hume says Labor’s intervention is unusual, unprecedented, which is once again incorrect. It is not improper for government to intervene in the FWC by making a submission about an actual figure, indeed the Howard Government did so. What is also rare is for the national minimum wage to increase by less than the rate of inflation.

Notwithstanding the factual matters referred to above, Morrison is still bludgeoning away as he has by his own fault wedged himself on the issue of the measly 38 cent increase above the 62 cents which business has submitted to the FWC as a pay increase for the minimum wage earner in Australia. It is absolute nonsense the 38-cent increase will “crush” the Australian economy and set out below are the facts and empirical research which support my opinion.

Crikey’s Opinion

I am indebted to Rod Welford, the former Queensland Attorney-General during the Beattie Government’s time in power here in Queensland, for posting this selected component of Mr Bernard Keane’s (@BernardKeane) of Crikey’s article on Thursday, 12 May 2021:

“Morrison says that there’s no magic wand to lift wages, and that businesses raise wages, not government (ignoring that he’s the biggest employer in the country, and was told by Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe to ditch his public sector wage cap to help wages growth).

But the history of the past decade is Australian businesses don’t lift wages. What they do is use multi-year enterprise agreements to lock workers into lower wages growth, demand increases in immigration to put downward pressure on wages, rely on the Coalition stacking the Fair Work Commission with employer group representatives and Coalition mates, and engage in economy-wide wage theft that has left workers out of pocket by billions.

And all along profits rose at the expense of wages, with the profit share of income surging from 2015 at the expense of the labour share – it currently stands near the all-time high level of 2020 – with real unit labour costs falling 9% between 2015 and 2021. Employers have banked all that, while ordinary households were stuck with real wages at 2013 levels.”

I concur with Mr Keane’s opinion regarding the parlous state household wages are left in after nine years of regressive Neoliberal economic theory being unleased on the Australian public.

However, the issue of economic theory is the subject which I wish to share with you today readers, as there is now taking place across the divide of the social sciences a new empirical approach to analysing data, including economic data relating to wages.

Harvard University

On 12 January 2020 Ms Natalia Emanuel and Ms Emma Harrington of the Harvard University School of Economics published a research paper titled “The Payoffs of Higher Pay” (Harvard article). Ironically, the subject matter of their study involved a pay rise of only $1.00. Surely somebody in either the Morrison Government or Department of Treasury (Treasury) should know about this research paper, and if they don’t, then a broom needs to be taken to Treasury, as well of course the Morrison Government.

The Harvard article confirmed what I had known for years from being educated in economics by my stepfather Mr Baldev Joshi (who was the top of his class in economics at the University of Queensland), but it was nice to see the economic theory being confirmed in writing in the United States, as unfortunately that is where this horrible 20th Century Friedman exercise of market economics was first postulated. The Harvard paper in its opening introduction of ‘Abstract’ reports as follows:

Page 1:‘We document finite wage elasticities of turnover (between −3.0 and −4.5) and recruitment (between 3.2 and 4.2), which suggest the firm has some wage-setting power. Yet, on the margin, raising wages by $1 increases productivity by more than $1, giving the firm an incentive to pay more, even if they could pay lower wages.’

Page 3: “We estimate that the increase in productivity caused by raising wages fully pays for itself. This contributes to the important literature on efficiency wages, which has hypothesized about the effect of higher pay on productivity, but has struggled to quantify the elasticity of productivity with respect to pay Our findings echo the analysis of Ford Motor Company where high wages reduced turnover rates and elicited greater effort from workers (Raff and Summers, 1987) and Cappelli and Chauvin (1991), who find that higher relative pay in a multi-plant firm reduced disciplinary infractions as well as Cohn et al. (2014) who find a 25 percent pay cut reduces productivity by 15 percent among sales associates, and Hesford et al.…”

Page 5: Our estimates reveal that women’s turnover is less responsive to pay then that of men in customer service, which would be consistent with a 6-cent pay gap. ” Importantly, we find that women’s productivity response to higher pay is substantially larger than men’s, suggesting a force that would push female wages higher than male wages. Together, these estimates underscore the importance of including productivity responses in addition to turnover responses when considering how worker responses to pay may affect firms’ pay-setting.”

The Harvard paper then proceeds to address in greater detail the summation of the findings set out in the Abstract, by making these observations or findings in chapter 1, Conceptual Framework:

Page 7: “Intuitively, if workers are unwilling to come to work except at high wages, or are willing to leave at lower wages, wages will be driven upward. The expression also shows that if productivity is increasing in wages, then wages will also be larger. Several explanations are plausible: If ability and reservation wages are positively correlated, then higher pay enhances the selection of workers (Weiss, 1980). Alternatively, if the job is more valuable, higher wages deter shirking (Shapiro and Stiglitz, 1984). Finally, if workers are more likely to feel that they are being paid fairly, they may respond with greater effort in a sort of gift exchange (Akerlof and Yellen, 1990).”

Page 7: “We estimate p(w), the worker output, based on what the firm had previously been paying for a given level of output, inclusive of taxes. Implicit in this usage is the assumption that any misoptimization in the payment is of second order. This means that when we arrive at a cost-benefit calculation, the concerns about taxes appear both on the cost-side and on the benefit-side, effectively cancelling out.”

At chapter 2, the Harvard paper reports its data is obtained from two Fortune 500 firms, however the second firm is critically important as the: “second source of data is the segment of a large staffing agency that provides temporary staffing for production and warehouse companies.”

Chapter 3 of the Harvard paper then proceeds to address productivity response to higher pay, and the following passages are relevant to the matters at hand regarding the value to businesses from the measly sum of a $1.00 increase in minimum pay:

Page 11: “We find that in both the retailer’s warehouse and among their on-site customer service agents, productivity increases when pay, or relative pay, increases. In the warehouse, when pay increases the number of boxes moved per hour by 7 percent (0.325/4.92 boxes per hour), reflecting an elasticity of 1.2. Among customer service representatives, paying $1/hour more than the local outside option increases calls taken per day by 7 percent, reflecting an elasticity of 1.12.”

Page 13: “… in the three months following the pay jump at the warehouse, boxes moved per hour increased by 0.328 off a base of 4.92 boxes moved per hour, an increase in productivity of 7 percent. This corresponds to an elasticity of 1.2. Our metric of boxes moved per moving hour is 0.316, an increase of 4 percent. Finally, we find an increase of 0.018 in the ratio of moving to total hours, which corresponds to an increase of 8.6 minutes of moving per person per day.”

Page 15: (the retailer data) “There is no statistically significant change in the share of absences that are unapproved by a manager in advance and thus difficult for the retailer to respond to.”

The Harvard paper at chapter 4 then examines the costly question of turnover elasticity, and in particular:

Page 16: “According to both estimates provided by the retailer and analysis of both warehouse and call-centre data, turnover is costly, even for workers in jobs that are relatively routine and do not require an advanced degree…(retailer data) Given the trajectory of learning, a higher rate of churn means that at any given time more workers will be new to the firm and have developed less skill in answering calls. This dynamic also suggests that retention of senior customer service representatives is more valuable than retention of junior ones because they will walk away with more human capital accumulated in the firm.…”

Page 16: “Using the same pay jump used to estimate the effect of pay on productivity in the warehouse context, we estimate the effects.”

Page 17: “In the three months before the pay increase, out of every 100 workers in the warehouse, on average 13.4 would be leave per month – a monthly retention rate of 86.6 percent. Paying an additional $1/hour decreases turnover by 2.5 individuals – a decrease in attrition of 18.7 percent, and an increase in retention of 2.8 percent. Since our point estimate captures the effect of a $1/hour increase off of $16.20/hour, our point estimate reflects an elasticity of turnover of 3.03… Since two of the three of these warehouses are within a 13-minute drive of the treated warehouse, if there were a shock to the local labour market for warehouse workers that were driving the decreased turnover, one would expect to see it decrease turnover in these warehouses as well. However, as Table B.9 shows, there is no decrease in turnover in other in-state warehouses.”

Page 17: “We likewise explore whether higher relative pay is associated with reduced turnover among customer service representatives. As in Section 3, we use the retailer’s sticky wages alongside changes in the local pay for customer service representatives as in Equation 3 to assess the value of an additional dollar in relative pay to reach these estimates.”

Page 18: “We find that higher pay is particularly effective at retaining representatives who start in the top third of daily call volume in their first month, as shown in Table B.6, Panel B. Each $1/hr of additional relative pay reduces turnover by 44% for initial top performers, implying a turnover elasticity of 6.6. …also find that in response to a commission adjustment that effectively lowers wages, high-performing call-centre workers are more likely to leave the company than low-performing workers.”

The Harvard paper also considers the impact on recruitment when the employer is paying $1 more an hour than a competitor:

Pages 18-19: “We find that when the retailer’s advertised wages are $1/hour higher than the local outside option, they recruit 23 to 30 percent more employees in the MSA, reflecting a recruitment elasticity between 3.2 and 4.2. Likewise $1/hour higher wages are associated with a 5 percent increase in the likelihood of employing a worker rated as excellent by their manager.”

Page 19: “We find that the retailer hires throughout the country and higher relative pay increases recruitment in MSAs throughout the country.”

Page 20: “As shown in Table 4, Panel A, every additional dollar the retailer pays above the average, local entry-level rate is associated with between 0.17 and 0.22 more customer service recruits in the MSA off of an average of 0.73. This translates into an elasticity of recruitment with respect to the wage of between 3.2 and 4.2.30 When customer service representatives are considering different options at the recruitment stage, their decision-making seems heavily swayed by relative pay.”

At chapter 6 the Harvard paper then examines the issue of the return to higher pay, and it opines:

Page 20: “We find that in both the warehouse context, where estimates arise from a deliberate increase in pay, and the customer service setting, where estimates arise from keeping pay constant, productivity shifts are instrumental in offsetting the costs of higher wages.”

Page 21: “We find that an increase of $1/hour means the warehouse has 2.5 fewer workers per hundred employees leave each month, yielding a savings of (2.5 fewer turnovers x $1849) $4623 per month… The gross returns of increased productivity in the warehouse are $1.44. Based on hourly pay in the treated warehouse, in the quarter before the pay jump, the firm was spending $4.27 per box moved ($16.20 in hourly wages * 1.30 in taxes / 4.92 boxes moved per person-hour). Since the higher pay increased the warehouse level productivity by 0.336 boxes per person-hour, the gross return on a $1 pay increase, which costs the firm $1.30/hour, is $1.44.”

Page 21: “Among customer service representatives at this retailer, the gross return on a $1/hour increase in the relative wage is also positive… Among customer service representatives, we find moderately small decreases in turnover from increasing relative pay. We estimate the cost of replacing a customer service representative to be $2,100, consisting of $1800 over the course of their 3-week training and $300 in badges and other administrative costs. According to these estimates, increased retention would thus reflect a savings of $2,730… A higher wage increases call volume by 1.90 calls per day, so the return on an $8/day in wages ($10.40 in total costs to the firm) in higher wages is $12.48 ($6.57 x 1.90) – or $1.56 on the $1/hour investment.”

To be thorough, the Harvard paper at chapter 7 examines the mechanisms of selection at behavioural responses, and it draws these interesting findings from the data:

Page 22: “To understand what share of the effects come from the same worker facing different wages and adjusting their behaviour accordingly, we leverage data from a staffing agency. While the dataset is distinct from the retailer data, the staffing agency places many workers in similar warehouse jobs, allowing us to consider the effects of pay on this occupation. Because we observe the same worker in multiple, comparable jobs with different pay, we can see what percent of the reduced form relationship is present when the same worker faces different pay rates. We find that over half of the turnover reduction and productivity increase arises from behavioural responses of the same worker facing different wages.”

Page 23: “Our estimates are thus identified off of variation in hourly pay across firms and workers in the same local labour market and industry… We find that an additional dollar of pay increases job completion by 2.6 percentage points, off a base of 40 percent completion. This is equivalent to an elasticity of 0.72. We estimate that 83 percent of that effect arises within the same worker… In this case, we find that 50% of the increase associated with higher pay arises within the same worker.”

At chapter 9 the Harvard paper then takes the reader to the important issue of benchmarking:

Page 26: “We find that higher relative pay increases job completion rates by 1.2 percentage points of a baseline completion rate of 83 percent… We estimate that an extra dollar in relative pay is associated with an 8 percent decrease in quits (-0.48 percentage points off of a base quit rate of 5.9 percent). We see no change in the evaluations proffer by on-site managers… Of the 8,477 temporary assignments that the shipper secures through the staffing agency, 75% are retained in our sample. To construct the outside option, we include all other warehouse jobs begun in the same season and in the same commuting zone filled through the staffing agency.”

Page 27: “We estimate that an additional dollar in relative hourly pay means the shipper is 6.7 percent (0.87 percentage points off a base of 13 percent) more likely to have a worker to is predicted to be reviewed excellently and 2 percent (0.75 percentage points off a base of 39 percent) less likely to have a new worker. There is no statistically significant difference in workers who are predicted to be poor.”

Page 28: “When the shipper is hiring at all, quits at rival firms increase by 12.4 percentage points off a base of 28 percent. An additional dollar of pay over the outside option is associated with a 1.45 percentage point increase in quits. We also assess bad endings– namely when workers be terminated for performance or attendance, or to receive a “Poor” Evaluation. When the shipper is hiring, bad endings at rival firms increase by 8 percentage points, off a base of 24 percent.”

The Harvard paper then delivers its overall opinion at chapter 10 under the heading of “Conclusion”, reporting these findings:

Page 28: “In this paper we present evidence that warehouse workers and customer service representatives are responsive to wages, not only with regard to recruitment and turnover, but also with regard to their on-the-job productivity. We estimate recruitment elasticities in excess of 3, turnover elasticities between -3 and -4.5, as well as productivity elasticities in excess of one. The productivity response to higher pay yields a net positive return. We estimate that 80 percent of the improvement in turnover arises from workers’ behavioural responses to higher pay… This paper also estimates gender differences in these elasticities. We find that while women’s labour supply is slightly less elastic than men’s, women increase their productivity in response to higher pay more than do men. The gender difference in labour supply elasticity is important because it suggests that when the concentration of firms is used as a measure of monopsony power, we may underestimate firms’ power to set female wages. The productivity response is particularly intriguing because it suggests that if wage discrimination were not illegal, women should be paid more than men in this context.”

Page 29: “Increases in the minimum wage will increase wages without decreasing employment. To the extent that our results are often measuring the difference between a firm’s pay and workers’ outside options, minimum wage changes change the outside option. If a minimum wage increase compresses the wage distribution, workers who were paid above the minimum wage will have less difference between their wages and their outside options. Our results suggest that firms can capture lower turnover and higher productivity by raising wages. Thus our paper suggests that in the wake of a minimum wage change, firms may seek to raise wages even for workers who were not paid the minimum wage.”

I have been meticulous as I can be with the content of the Harvard paper so that you the reader can understand the benefits the writers of the Harvard article found in increasing wages by only $1.00. Here in Australia, it is a measly 38 cents which Morrison is trying to run a scare campaign on. I just hope all the staff and students at the Harvard University School of Economics, when they eventually stop laughing about Morrison’s scare campaign, understand that his view does not conform with the views of most of the Australian public. One final comment, notwithstanding the pandemic, and the current inflationary pressures in the United States, this paper has not been changed in any respect to reflect a different finding, and therefore it remains an invaluable empirical resource to consider the question at hand. I have set out here the webpage address if you may wish to read this paper yourselves:

The 2021 Nobel Laureate Economics Prize

There can be no finer piece of empirical resource to resolve the 38 cents debate than the 2021 Nobel Laureate Economics Prize, which to describe the observations in the summation:

“This year’s Laureates – David Card, Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens – have shown that natural experiments can be used to answer central questions for society, such as how minimum wages and immigration affect the labour market. They have also clarified exactly which conclusions about cause and effect can be drawn using this research approach. Together, they have revolutionised empirical research in the economic sciences.” I have set out below the webpage address for you to examine the summation, if you may so desire to do:

What this opening to the summation conveys for the benefit of the dilettante (the uninitiated) of social sciences is that Mr Card, Mr Angrist and Mr Imbens have now revolutionised the approach for analysing data, particularly in economics. Their studies include how minimum wages affect the labour market. The summation refers to the following key points for the matter under consideration in this article:

  1. One way of establishing causality is to use randomised experiments, where researchers allocate individuals to treatment groups by a random draw. This method is used to investigate the efficacy of new medicines, among other things, but is not suitable for investigating many societal issues – for example, we cannot have a randomised experiment determining who gets to attend upper-secondary school and who does not.
  2. The Laureates have demonstrated that many of society’s big questions can be answered. Their solution is to use natural experiments – situations arising in real life that resemble randomised experiments. These natural experiments may be due to natural random variations, institutional rules or policy changes. In pioneering work from the early 1990s, David Card analysed some central questions in labour economics – such as the effects of a minimum wage, immigration and education – using this approach. The results of these studies challenged conventional wisdom and led to new research, to which Card has continued to make important contributions. Overall, we now have a considerably better understanding of how the labour market operates than we did 30 years ago.
  3. In an innovative study from 1994, Joshua Angrist and Guido Imbens showed what conclusions about causation can be drawn from natural experiments in which people cannot be forced to participate in the programme being studied (nor forbidden from doing so). The framework they created has radically changed how researchers approach empirical questions using data from natural experiments or randomised field experiments.
  4. In the early 1990s, the conventional wisdom among economists was that higher minimum wages lead to lower employment because they increase wage costs for businesses. However, the evidence supporting this conclusion was not fully convincing; there were indeed many studies that indicated a negative correlation between minimum wages and employment, but did this really mean that higher minimum wages led to higher unemployment? Reverse causation could even be the issue: when unemployment rises, employers can set lower wages which, in turn, may lead to demands to increase the minimum wage.
  5. To investigate how increased minimum wages affect employment, Card and Krueger used a natural experiment. In the early 1990s, the minimum hourly wage in New Jersey was raised from 4.25 dollars to 5.05 dollars. Just studying what happened in New Jersey after this increase does not give a reliable answer to the question, as numerous other factors can influence how employment levels change over time. As with randomised experiments, a control group was needed, i.e., a group where wages didn’t change but all the other factors were the same.
  6. Card and Krueger noted that there was no increase in neighbouring Pennsylvania. Of course, there were differences between the two states, but it is likely that the labour markets would evolve similarly close to the border. So, they studied the effects on employment in two neighbouring areas – New Jersey and eastern Pennsylvania – which have a similar labour market, but where the minimum wage was increased on one side of the border but not the other.
  7. Card and Krueger focused on employment in fast-food restaurants, an industry where pay is low and minimum wages matter. Contrary to previous research, they found that an increase in the minimum wage had no effect on the number of employees.
  8. The overall conclusion is that the negative effects of increasing the minimum wage are small, and significantly smaller than was believed 30 years ago.
  9. The Laureates’ contributions from the early 1990s demonstrate that it is possible to answer important questions about cause and effect using natural experiments. Their contributions complement and strengthen one another: Angrist and Imbens’ methodological insights about natural experiments and Card’s applications of this approach to important questions led the way for other researchers. We now have a coherent framework which, among other things, means that we know how the results of such studies should be interpreted. The work of the Laureates has revolutionised empirical research in the social sciences and significantly improved the ability of the research community to answer questions of great importance to us all.

I implore you the reader to take in the Laureates findings, consider them carefully, and then ask yourselves why 38 cents an hour on top of what business is arguing for as a minimum wage increase could possibly crush the economy as Morrison so inelegantly claims? The answer is it won’t, it will just assist the lowest paid workers in Australia to keep up with CPI in relation to their ever day costs of living expenses.

So why are we here?

To the educated mind the natural response would be “beats the living daylights out of me.” For everyday Australians earning the minimum wage it means a lot, as they struggle to pay their rent and other daily living costs.

For Morrison it is a poorly considered political tactic in an already sinking ship, and his whole approach to political life has been one of trying to manipulate the various Australian communities’ fears or passions, rather than doing what he should be, namely governing in the best interests of the nation. We have seen this week Morrison has had no moral compass when it comes to trying to manipulate social issues by supporting Ms Deves repulsive remarks, all in the name of trying to secure votes by trying to divide the nation. Morrison is not an economist, nor does he have a future vision for Australia, rather he tries to survive day by day by seeking opportunities for political expediency.

On this occasion Morrison jumped too soon, he did not consider the empirical research over the past 30 years, and now he has nothing but a ludicrous scare tactic which once again demonstrates he does not care if he causes harm to any people or group in Australian society. Indeed, his submission to the FWC has a whole chapter devoted to how keeping people below the poverty is good for the economy, which it isn’t.

The sought after 38 cents which means a $1.00 an hour increase to the minimum wage will not crush our economy, as it will just help the lowest paid workers keep up with the costs of living, and every single cent they receive will in any event be spent to keep the cycle of the economy running. However, what Morrison’s scare campaign does is it highlights his propensity to lie or be a hypocrite, not only for all the reasons stated herein, but also because he started this campaign by spruiking how strong the Australian economy is. Once again, Morrison’s dreadful character flaws are displayed.

Our lowest paid workers deserve that extra 38 cents. There is no sensible reason to militate against this happening.

Australia deserves a better future under an Albanese Government. On Saturday, 21 May 2022 vote 1 Labor, for a government which will govern for every Australian.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 5,674 total views

A once in a century chance (part 4)

Continued from Part 3: Why an Albanese Government should be elected.

(In Part 1 of these articles I provided a link to the ALP’s 2022 policy agenda, and I ask that you take time to read those items of policy (if you haven’t done so as yet), before reading the matters I raise here-on-in.)

Climate Change

As I stated earlier, it has been a dreadful political tactic by Morrison and Abbott to weaponise climate change as a political point scoring mechanism, rather than treating it for what is, the most pressing global issue which all of us living on this beautiful little blue planet must address to ensure not just the survival of certain flora or fauna, but also our own survival. The Morrison Government do not have a proper climate change plan, and even the carbon credit scheme is being called an alleged fraud.

The ALP has a plan which addresses climate change in an expeditious and responsible manner.

Powering Australia

An Albanese Government will:

  • Upgrade the electricity grid to fix energy transmission and drive down power prices.
  • Make electric vehicles cheaper with an electric car discount and Australia’s first National Electric Vehicle Strategy.
  • Adopt the Business Council of Australia’s recommendation for facilities already covered by the Government’s Safeguard Mechanism that emissions be reduced gradually and predictably over time, to support international competitiveness and economic growth – consistent with industry’s own commitment to net zero by 2050.
  • Protect the competitiveness of Emissions Intensive Trade Exposed industries by ensuring they will not face a greater constraint than their competitors.
  • Allocate up to $3 billion from Labor’s National Reconstruction Fund to invest in green metals (steel, alumina and aluminium); clean energy component manufacturing; hydrogen electrolysers and fuel switching; agricultural methane reduction and waste reduction.
  • Provide direct financial support for measures that improve energy efficiency within existing industries and develop new industries in Regional Australia through a new Powering the Regions Fund. Roll out 85 solar banks around Australia to ensure more households can benefit from rooftop solar.
  • Install 400 community batteries across the country.
  • Demonstrate Commonwealth leadership by reducing the Australian Public Service’s own emissions to net zero by 2030.
  • Invest in 10,000 New Energy Apprentices and a New Energy Skills Program.
  • Establish a real-world vehicle fuel testing program to inform consumer choice.
  • Work with large businesses to provide greater transparency on their climate related risks and opportunities.
  • Re-establish leadership by restoring the role of the Climate Change Authority, while keeping decision-making and accountability with Government and introducing new annual Parliamentary reporting by the Minister.

The ALP’s plan will see Australia re-join key trading partners in their ambition to 2030, like Canada (with its similar economic base) at 40-45%, South Korea at 40% and Japan at 46%. Peak groups including the BCA, Australian Industry Group, and National Farmers Federation have said that raising Australia’s 2030 emissions mitigation goals is “necessary to provide a clear and credible basis for action and investment [and] maintain our competitiveness amidst a growing global transition.” Powering Australia puts Government policy in line with Australia’s leading industry, business and agricultural groups.

The Australian Government has agreed to the recommendations of COP26 and signed up to deliver a more ambitious 2030 target. Morrison is not telling Australians what his plan is to meet it.

Whether Morrison can see it or not, we are in a race. Every major economy in the world is moving toward renewables and if we do not seize this moment to invest in a homegrown renewables sector, Australia will be left out and left behind (Anthony Albanese).

The Environment

An Albanese Labor Government will protect the Great Barrier Reef, fix Australia’s urban rivers and catchments, and double the number of Indigenous Rangers (Anthony Albanese).

The ALP will commit to a suite of environmental policies that continues Labor’s legacy in the policy issue of the environment.

Federal ICAC

Morrison has really been caught on a lie of a broken promise regarding the implementation of a Federal ICAC. The ALP believes the time is long past for a National Anti-Corruption Commission to be established, and an Albanese Labor Government will give priority to introducing legislation to establish such a body.

The National Anti-Corruption Commission established by the ALP will operate with all the independence, resources and powers of a standing Royal Commission into serious and systemic corruption in the federal government. The ALP has been working with Australia’s preeminent legal and integrity experts to develop design principles that will ensure the Commission is the most effective anti-corruption watchdog in the country.

Under these design principles, the Commission will:

  • have broad jurisdiction to investigate Commonwealth ministers, public servants, statutory office holders, government agencies, parliamentarians, and personal staff of politicians;
  • carry out its functions independently of government, with discretion to commence inquiries into serious and systemic corruption on its own initiative or in response to referrals, including from whistleblowers and complaints from the public. To ensure the Commission’s independence, the Commissioner and any Deputy Commissioner would serve for a single fixed term and have security of tenure comparable to that of a federal judge;
  • be overseen by a statutory bipartisan Joint Standing Committee of the Parliament, empowered to require the Commission to provide information about its work. To ensure bipartisan support for the Commission’s work, that Committee would be responsible for confirming the Commissioners nominated by the Government;
  • have the power to investigate allegations of serious and systemic corruption that occurred before or after its establishment;
  • have the power to hold public hearings where the Commission determines it is in the public interest to do so;
  • be empowered to make findings of fact, including a finding of corrupt conduct, but not to make determinations of criminal liability. Findings that could constitute criminal conduct would be referred to the Australian Federal Police or the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions for further consideration; and
  • operate with procedural fairness and its findings would be subject to judicial review.

Chris Bowen’s Q & A appearance resolutely stated the facts in relation to a Federal ICAC, namely one will only be implemented under a Labor federal government.

First Nations People

An Albanese Government will:

  • Implement the Uluru Statement in full – Voice, Treaty and Truth.
  • Work towards Closing the Gap.
  • Abolish the punitive Community Development Program.
  • Turn the tide on incarceration and deaths in custody through landmark justice reinvestment funding.
  • Improve housing in remote Indigenous communities.
  • Invest in First Nations management of land and waters.
  • Strengthen First Nations economic and job opportunities.
  • Get rid of the privatised Cashless Debit Card.

“The Uluru Statement from the Heart was generous offer of a genuine partnership, and a real chance for us to create a reconciled Australia. It calls for Voice, Treaty and Truth. Labor is the only party to support it in full” (Anthony Albanese).

Aged Care

Older Australians helped build this country. They worked hard, paid their taxes and raised their families.

As I stated about the atrocious record of the Morrison Government regarding aged care, it is not only in crisis, it is also a national disgrace.

An Albanese Labor Government will take practical measures to ensure older Australians receive the aged care they deserve:

  • Registered nurses on site 24/7: Under a Labor Government, every aged care facility will be required to have a registered, qualified nurse on site, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This will save thousands of stressful, expensive and ultimately unnecessary trips to hospital Emergency Departments, for issues a nurse could solve on the spot.
  • More carers with more time to care: Labor will raise the standard of aged care across the board – by ensuring there are more carers, who have more time to care. We will mandate that every Australian living in aged care receives an average of 215 minutes of care per day, as recommended by the Royal Commission. That means more care for every resident, every day. Not just for essential medical treatment – but basic, important things like helping people take a shower, get dressed or eat a meal.
  • A pay rise for aged care workers: Labor will back a real pay rise for aged care workers. Labor will support workers’ calls for better pay at the Fair Work Commission. And a Labor Government will fund the outcome of this case. Because if we want higher standards of care – we need to support higher wages for our carers.
  • Better food for residents: Labor will ensure that there is better food for residents of aged care homes. A Labor Government will work with the sector to develop and implement mandatory nutrition standards for aged care homes to ensure every resident gets good food.
  • Dollars going to care: Labor will make residential care providers report – in public and in detail – what they are spending money on. And we will give the Aged Care Safety Commissioner new powers to ensure there is accountability and integrity.

Labor has a plan to put security, dignity, quality and humanity back into aged care.

“Only an Albanese Labor Government will treat aged care residents with the respect they deserve.”



Other Policies

There are many other important policy issues the ALP wish to implement upon an Albanese Government being elected. These issues address women (protecting women and equality of pay are major issues for women which will be implemented by an ALP government), the NDIS, protecting the ABC and disaster readiness, to name a few. If you wish to examine all of the policies an Albanese Government will implement, please visit this website: Our plan for a better future for all Australians.

My ALP Candidate

I have previously written about my local ALP candidate for the seat of Ryan, Peter Cossar:


A Person For All Seasons


Peter is a good person, and he has been working hard to knock on as many doors as possible in Ryan, to understand the needs of the various community members which make up this l Federal Seat. The Liberal Party have for too long now treated Ryan like an old piece of discarded silver ware, deposited away in the darkest corners of the Liberals’ closet.

It’s time to turn Ryan Red. It’s time for Peter Cossar to be the new Honourable Member for Ryan.


The Coalition like to say a lot about the ALP, but they have too many skeltons in their closet. An Albanese Government will breathe a breath of fresh air into our democracy.

If a Coalition person makes a comment about Albanese personally to you, tell them these facts in response.

Have a nice day or evening, and remember, we are at the crossroads of history at this 2022 Federal Election, so please vote 1 for Labor.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button


 3,914 total views

A once in a century chance (part 3)

Continued from Part 2.

Why an Albanese Government Should be Elected

My Morrison Must Go article set out a number of reasons why an Albanese Government should be elected, but let us drill down a little further regarding the policies which the ALP have announced or have recorded on their website.

This is not change for the sake of change. I repeat what I said in my AIMN article of 28 April 2022 about the reasons why change is now necessary, in the interests of our democracy, and even in the compromised interests of our Fourth Estate. Indeed, when it comes to media bias in favour of the Liberal Party, I have previously raised these facts of concern. This week we saw that bias on full display as an impertinent reporter from Channel 9 tried to make a hero of himself with a gotcha question asked of Albanese, when all he did was interrupt the flow of policy discussion at an energy forum.

Notwithstanding the ongoing imbecilic reporting by Channels 7, 9, and the Murdochracy (and even some reporters at the ABC), there are very important policy objectives which the ALP will introduce to make Australia a better nation again, brought together and not the divided horde which Morrison has deliberately planned for it to be (take the intrusion by Morrison into the NSW Branch of the Liberal Party to insert as a candidate for Warringah, Katherine Deves).

In Part 1 of these articles I provided a link to the ALP’s 2022 policy agenda, and I ask that you take time to read those items of policy (if you haven’t done so as yet), before reading the matters I raise here-on-in.

So, as I said earlier in reference to the theatrical work of art, “away we go.”

Cost of Living

Child Care

Nowhere have young families felt the cost of living more than in the failure of the Morrison Government to implement a policy regarding the costs of childcare. Indeed, for many families this cost makes it uneconomic for both parents to work when the child care fees almost consume one of the incomes being brought in by a parent. An ALP government led by Anthony Albanese will:

  • Lift the maximum child care subsidy rate to 90 per cent for families for the first child in care;
  • Increase child care subsidy rates for every family with one child in care earning less than $530,000 in household income;
  • Keep higher child care subsidy rates for the second and additional children in care;
  • Extend the increased subsidy to outside school hours care.

96 per cent of Australian families will be better off under the ALP’s child care reforms. Which in real terms amounts to 1.26 million families. The ALP will also get the ACCC to design a price regulation mechanism to drive out of pocket costs down for good, and the Productivity Commission will conduct a comprehensive review of the sector with the aim of implementing a universal 90 per cent subsidy for all families.

The ALP will also develop and implement a whole of government Early Years Strategy to create a new integrated approach to the early years and develop of program of action. The ALP will invest approximately $5.4 billion to make child care cheaper, starting from July 2023.

Economic Plan and Budget Strategy

I have already in the matters discussed above regarding the Morrison Government’s mismanagement of the economy highlighted how unnecessary it has been for Australians to be subjected to the inflationary pressure (remember we did not go into recession under the helm of the Rudd and Gillard Governments).

Undoubtedly this is the worst nightmare of poor economic performance being displayed by the Morrison Government as it is an out of control truck of pork barrelling lacking criteria for billions of dollars of our money being handed over to undeserving recipients which would not meet the proper criteria for such large amounts of money being distributed to them. Indeed, it is almost like watching pigs in mud as the Morrison Government displays its focus on channelling funds into seats it needs to retain to be returned to government, and with that intention the beneficial outcome for the public has been negligible, such as building a carpark where there is no train station.

An ALP government’s Budget Strategy is tailored to Australia’s economic conditions and is designed to:

  • Make room for smart, targeted investments that expand the capacity of the economy, so that it can grow stronger, broader and more sustainably.
  • Improve the quality of spending to generate a budget position that will allow us to reduce debt as a share of the economy over time, while delivering real outcomes for Australians in essential areas like Medicare, aged care and child care.

The ALP will do this by:

  • Prioritising smart, responsible and targeted investments that deliver economic value.
  • Dealing with the Liberals’ wasteful spending including by trimming spending on contractors, consultants and labour hire in the public service.
  • Conducting a waste and rorts audit.
  • Closing down loopholes which allow multinationals to avoid their tax obligations to Australians.

An Albanese Government will not impose new taxes on Australians, but it will go after the multinational companies trading here in Australia who have not paid tax under the Morrison Government. The ALP will tackle multinational tax avoidance in four ways:

  1. Supporting the OECD’s Two-Pillar Solution for a global 15 per cent minimum tax, and ensuring some of the profits of the largest multinationals – particularly digital firms – are taxed where the products or services are sold.
  2. Limiting debt-related deductions by multinationals at 30 per cent of profits, consistent with the OECD’s recommended approach, while maintaining the arm’s length test and the worldwide gearing ratio.
  3. Limiting the ability for multinationals to abuse Australia’s tax treaties when holding intellectual property in tax havens.
  4. Introducing transparency measures including reporting requirements on tax information, beneficial ownership, tax haven exposure and in relation to government tenders.

An Albanese Government will support a global 15 per cent minimum tax and ensuring some of the profits of the largest multinationals are taxed where the products or services are sold as it will implement the OECD’s global Two Pillar Solution, which was designed to address challenges created by the digitisation of our economies. The Two-Pillar solution includes:

  1. a Global Minimum Tax proposal to ensure multinationals pay an effective tax rate of at least 15 per cent on the profits they make around the world; and
  2. a fairer distribution of profits by multinationals, in particular digital firms.

Countries around the world are committing to implementing these measures, which will only affect the largest companies in the world. Australia should also take action domestically to ensure we do not lose out when other jurisdictions are implementing these arrangements. The ALP would join other OECD members in implementing the arrangements in line with global action. The OECD is expecting these arrangements to begin in 2023. The ALP will adopt the OECD’s recommended approach for limiting the deductions multinational firms can claim for interest payments.

Creating artificial debts and repayment arrangements within related entities is one of the main strategies multinational groups use to minimise their profits in higher tax countries while maximising income in low tax countries. An Albanese Government will adapt Australia’s rules on deducting interest to fit with the OECD’s recommended approach to limit net interest expenses to 30 per cent of profits (EBITDA – earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation) from 1 July 2023.

An Albanese Government will ensure we are targeting tax minimisation and firms may be able to make further deductions if they can substantiate those under the arm’s length test or worldwide gearing ratio test.

Many countries around the world have adopted similar approaches including the US, UK, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Norway, Spain and many other European countries.


A major cost of living issue in Australia is the price of housing.

Under the Morrison Government we have witnessed market politics at its worst in relation to the cost of housing. To put it in simple terms, the Morrison Government have been economically negligent in allowing the cost of housing to skyrocket.

An Albanese Labor Government will help more people get into the housing market sooner by:

  • Cutting the cost of buying a home by up to 40 per cent. This will mean a smaller deposit, a smaller mortgage and smaller mortgage repayments. Help to Buy will be open to 10,000 Australians each financial year.
  • Implementing a system whereby eligible home buyers will need a minimum deposit of 2 per cent, with an equity contribution from the Federal Government of up to a maximum of 40 per cent of the purchase price of a new home and up to a maximum of 30 per cent of the purchase price for an existing home. This would mean that for a homebuyer in Sydney, buying at the maximum price cap of $950,000 with 40 per cent equity, monthly mortgage repayments would be over $1,600 cheaper.
  • Implementing a system for a homebuyer in regional Queensland, buying at the maximum price cap of $500,000 with 40 per cent equity, monthly mortgage repayments would be over $850 cheaper.

Similar schemes are already successfully operating in several states including Western Australia and Victoria. Homebuyers will not be required to pay rent on the stake of the home held by the Federal Government. Help to Buy will cost around $329 million over the forward estimates. Real Estate groups support the scheme.


Tomorrow: Why an Albanese Government should be elected (continued).


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 4,680 total views

A once in a century chance (part 2)

Continued from Part 1.

The Scandals

The scandals surrounding the Morrison Government are set out in my Morrison Must Go article. However, there are still these unanswered questions which we, the voting public, are being kept in the dark about regarding:

That is quite list of allegedly scandalous behaviour whilst holding office. One matter is certain, you will not find one impertinent reporter from Channels 7, 9 and the Murdochracy shouting at Morrison about these scandals.

Aged Care and the Indue Card

Aged care in this country is not only in crisis, it is also a disgrace. The Commonwealth Government is responsible for the aged care facilities in this country, but this is what we have witnessed regarding the treatment of aged citizens who helped build this nation and paid their taxes:

  • Many of you may say “tell me it’s not true”, but yes the costs of proper care were challenged by the Morrison Government:


Are YOU Really Arguing We Can’t Feed and Care for Our Grandparents?


Now the second issue I have referred to under this heading is very concerning in relation to the Indue Card, as it is an overreach of governance to determine what pensioners and any other person requiring public money to support them should have to submit to, to receive such support because:


The Coalition have never liked people being able to access proper medical care. Indeed, the Whitlam Government’s Medibank scheme was privatised by the Fraser Government, which then made Bob Hawke determined to introduce universal health care again when he came to office. These are the egregious examples as to how the Morrison Government is slowly but surely dismantling Medicare:

  • I have previously written about the manner in which the Morrison Government, and the Liberal Party governments which preceded it, have been slowly but surely been dismantling Medicare:


Brick by brick we say goodbye to Medicare


  • Ms Rushton being appointed to the Health portfolio just before the 2022 Federal Election was called, and she has a history of making statements about Medicare which are not comforting about the long-term intentions of the Morrison Government if they are re-elected.
  • Vulnerable Australians missing out to the diminished funding of Medicare.


Morrison likes to boast about how many lives he saved here in Australia in response to the global pandemic, but the first question is “how as a nation girt by sea did Covid ever manage to enter Australia?” Well, a Royal Commission will need to be established to examine our response to Covid-19, but in the meantime our experienced press gallery members (not the barking mad junior members) have had this to say:


This scheme is sad for the lives destroyed or lost by what was undoubtedly one of the most shameful chapters in the history of this almost a decade of miserable governance under the most inept governments in what has been a revolving door of Prime Ministers. Robodebt should always be looked upon with nothing but great shame, such was the harm which it caused in the community:

  • In his usual pusillanimous style Morrison tried to absolve himself from blame, even though as Prime Minister he declared the funds received from the scheme would assist the government’s revenue declarations.
  • A Federal Court judge stated the Robodebt scheme was a shameful chapter in our history.

When one scans one’s eyes over this atrocious history of federal governance, in which such shocking economic, social services, waste, scandals and foreign affairs policy are, to quote an old friend Nick, “the Smirking Turd has presided over the most corrupt, mendacious and inept government in Australia’s history.” Like many Australians, Nick, me and you the reader are at the crossroads of history in which in the interest’s of our descendants, those of our blood all the way through to those whom we shall never meet living in the next century, we must rid ourselves of the Morrison Government.


Continued tomorrow: Why an Albanese Government should be elected.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 4,818 total views

A once in a century chance

I apologise to the readers of my articles for my absence over the past two to three days, as personal matters had to be attended to by me.

Nevertheless, during my absence from being politically active online, I did stop to take in the importance of this 2022 Federal Election, not just from the aspect of soundly removing the Morrison Government from office, thereby destining them to the annals of history books, but also why the policy agenda of the Australian Labor Party (‘ALP’) has set out for us is such a doorway of opportunity and protection, not only in this century, but also into the twenty- second century.

It is a somewhat confronting experience to talk about a future history which one knows one will be unlikely to be around for. However, such thoughts are but inconsequential once you have read Tolstoy’s ‘The Death Ivan Ilych’. Considering our feral media (sorry if narcissistic younger journalists take offence to the nomenclature, but the behaviour of some of you has been infantile (my many thanks to Mike Carlton for this description infantile) will not ask one single question of Morrison beyond the initial feeble enquiry to which he immediately twitches a dislike to, so it is left to us the public, on the Fifth Estate of social media to make the case for change.

This article will address the matters of very poor governance by the Morrison Government, which not only raise concerns about questions of competency, but also highlight the need for a Federal ICAC. I might add, a Federal ICAC is not the ogre Morrison makes it out to be, an opinion he allegedly seems to hold from perhaps fear of his own political conduct since 2007. In addition to the matters of poor governance, I shall also address the Morrison Government’s lack of a policy agenda which will lead us into the twenty second century.

The second component of this article will address the sound economic and social policies the ALP wish to introduce to secure our futures, and those of our descendants’ futures. Remember, the ALP has always been the party of dynamic economic and social change, so when a Coalition supporter asks a member of the ALP “what has your party done?”, we can respond with such nation changing policies from the Snowy River Hydro system through to the NDIS (to name a few), these are policy agendas which various ALP governments have implemented. When the same the question is asked of the Coalition supporters, they can only meekly point to a consumption tax called the GST (Goods and Services Tax) which Mr Howard lied to the electorate about to ensure he could win the 1996 Federal Election.

By way of an executive summary, you will read how the need for change is required as the Morrison Government has delivered poor governance due to:

  1. Morrison’s lies and poor character.
  2. The government’s terrible management of the economy.
  3. Its broken promises.
  4. Its failure to act on climate change.
  5. Its failure to properly execute foreign affairs and national security.
  6. The scandals.
  7. The aged care debacle and the threat of the Indue Card.
  8. Medicare being dismantled.
  9. Robodebt causing so much harm and even death.

Whereas the call for change to an Albanese Government may be found in not just the ALP’s treasure trove of policies, but also in a future Prime Minister and a cabinet which will not be embroiled in controversies, a cabinet which governs in the nation’s interest, not their own.

So, now that we have the agenda of this article set out in stone, as they would say in the 2009 comedy-drama of the same title, “away we go.”

The reasons why the Morrison Government must go

I have previously addressed in articles, posts, and tweets the reasons why the Morrison Government must be swept out of office, articles which have been published by the good people at The Australian Independent Media Network:


Morrison’s ‘miracle’ only delivered us pain; now, put your hand up to say he must go


However, if life has taught me anything when it comes to writing, it’s the writer’s prerogative to take the readers to the topics of concern. There are so many topics of concern regarding this terrible Morrison Government, I have also broken these issues of concern down into subcategories, so that you the reader may explore this horrible trail of governance in a focused manner.

Morrison’s lies and character

The list is long regarding Morrison not being fit to hold office, for a variety of reasons which have been raised by several political commentators. I have espoused these matters of poor character before, so I shall take you the reader on a journey of my previous articles:


Scott Morrison’s Lies, Character and Incompetence


Scott Morrison’s Lies, Character and Incompetence (part 2)


The Economy

Former American President Bill Clinton’s illustrious statement in 1992 “it’s the economy, stupid” comes to mind anytime politics and elections are mentioned. Not that I am saying social measure are unimportant, not indeed. No, the statement made by former President Clinton goes to one critical issue in a campaign, and on this issue the Coalition have failed Australians time and time again, as the previous articles, posts of tweets will convey to you:


The inflation we did not need to have


“With Scott Morrison it’s always too little, too late”



From Back in Black to a Trillion in Debt



A Morrison guarantee? I would rather do a deal with Shylock


  • Employment has been a noticeable issue the Morrison Government is trying to save its political hide on, but as we have discovered regarding climate change and real economic facts there is, all is not what it seems in Morrison’s little bag of dirty tricks, which I have previously discussed in my AIMN Morrison Must Go Article, but in addition there are these facts.
  • Morrison’s gaffe regarding JobSeeker. Now, ordinarily I would say so what, I want to discuss policy, not whether some little Channel 9 reporter impertinently displayed in a clear case of biased reporting, and, to quote Malcolm Farr in The Guardian on Friday 6 May 2022, it’s rudeness journalism (actually, it’s biased, amateurish, and democracy draining journalism).
  • The terrible waste of our money, including the damages we have to pay for Morrison and Dutton deciding to pull out of a binding contract regarding submarines (the new ‘nuclear’ submarines will not be delivered to us until some time in the 2040’s).
  • The real economic facts (graph prepared by Dr Jim Chalmers):



The ALP have always been the better economic managers.

Broken Promises

  • The list of broken promises is contained within my Morrison Must Go Article. Nevertheless, after the AIMN published my atricle, there has been some further commentary in the media regarding some of these broken promises:
  • Federal ICAC, senior judiciary have described Morrison’s conduct as “spurious“.
  • The nonsensical claim by Morrison he didn’t introduce Federal ICAC legislation because the opposition would oppose it.
  • Why is Mr Morrison so afraid of an integrity commission (indeed his recent responses of it being a public autocracy which destroys lives suggests he fears for his own personal reasons, rather than the public interest.
  • We have a Prime Minister now quite rightly referred to as a buffoon due to his nonsensical statements as to the reasons why a Federal ICAC should not be implemented.
  • Morrison’s BROKEN PROMISE to implement a Federal ICAC was criticised as being a failure to undertake a key policy measure, he committed himself to at the last election.

Climate Change

It is an unfortunate that such an important issue regarding the adverse impact of human made climate change has become a weapon of political war in this country. The United Kingdom are united in politics regarding this issue. In any event, here are some of the outrageous claims made by the Morrison Government, and other commentary, regarding climate change:

Foreign Affairs and National Security

The Coalition have always tried to portray themselves as being the form of government which has a record of being strong on national security, which in some ways foreign policy flows from that or is connected to that other area of governance. Well, the Morrison Government and the Coalition have demonstrated time and time again they are just hopeless on:


Scott Morrison’s national security fail



Continued tomorrow: The Scandals.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 7,410 total views

“With Scott Morrison it’s always too little, too late”

The words spoken by Senator Gallagher during an interview this morning were what I was saying back in March of this year.

A federal government with only a teaspoon of economic understanding would have, or indeed should have, seen the dangers of what the supply side-effects of the lack of secondary materials would have on inflation, and our economy.

What the federal government has done too late in the piece, and very ineffectually is to fuel the demand side of the economic equation in circumstances whereby wages had been stagnant. Demand is increasing and the lack of the secondary level manufacturing in Australia is virtually non-existent as successive Coalition governments have said bon voyage to the secondary level manufacturing occurring here in Australia, instead 55,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost, and the skill set which accompanies those people.

We are now too reliant on China and India for producing our goods. That is why a Labor Government led by Anthony Albanese will assist Australian businesses to resume manufacturing here, including increasing TAFE placements so that we again may resume our place in the world as a manufacturing country. That leads to reasons why Senator Gallagher made these sensible and factually correct remarks this morning about Mr Morrison’s role this inflationary juggernaut:

“Well, that is the prime minister’s responsibility. The cost of living crisis, frankly, is something that the prime minister should have a plan to deal with and should have had a plan to deal with not just in the last month, but over the last few years. And that is the critical point and a point of criticism that we’ve been making about him.”

The moment the world shut down in 2020 Mr Morrison should have started the ball rolling by addressing the supply side problems which were inevitably going to arise once countries started emerging from lockdown. It is very bad economic planning by the Morrison Government not to either undertake or foreshadow this inflationary event.



Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 5,789 total views

Morrison’s ‘miracle’ only delivered us pain; now, put your hand up to say he must go

It’s hard to believe we are coming to third anniversary of a night which not only stunned the nation, but it also meant a person who was not, and indeed still is not, fit to lead the nation was now going to do so for the next three years.

I was certainly surprised about the outcome of the Federal Election on 19 May 2019, as I honestly thought the nation would see Mr Morrison for what he is, namely treacherous, and an alleged failure at Tourism Australia who had probably been our worst treasurer, and who had acted in such a perfidious manner towards his prior leader Malcolm Turnbull (et tu Brute?) the nation surely would not support such nauseating character.

History is now etched in stone, and regrettably Morrison was able to accomplish a devious victory that 19th day of May 2019. Of course Morrison didn’t pass the finishing line first that night of 19 May 2019 because of ‘a parting of the Red Sea miracle’, no he passed that finishing line with his nose just in front because of the media bias, because of a huge media spend by Clive Palmer, and finally because of a leader who could not cut through due to the media bias (before the crowds of feigned indignation come after me, I have previously acknowledged in my one of my articles Labor has on a very few occasions been the beneficiary of such bias.

Now here we are in 2022, and to say the Australian public are displeased with Morrison would be minimising their sentiment. A vast proportion of the country dislike and do not trust him, it’s as simple as that. Morrison not only divided the nation at the last election; he is now trying to dig himself out of a hole of poor economic management, poor foreign relations, poor national security, and broken promises, which he alone has dug for himself. He still has his media cohorts of Murdoch, Costello, and Stokes. Even dear Old Aunty ABC is a crumbled ruin of what it once was, not to dissimilar to Shelly’s poem Ozymandias, as it bit by bit falls apart under the pressure of diminished government spending (Mr Morrison can still find in the coffers of our money to pay a billionaire whisky distiller $4,500,000.00), and government interference to be this relic of a once golden age of public broadcasting.



There now seems to be five clear elements of his governing, or his character attributes, which has turned the public off Mr Morrison, no matter how hard the biased journalists at Nine Entertainment, Seven West Media, the Murdochracy and the ABC try to paint this fallacious picture Mr Morrison is your typical married Australian father cooking fish or curries. So, I shall now embark on this journey of the reasons why you should not (I would very much like to say be compelled, however such language is inconsistent with my beliefs in democracy) vote for the Coalition, which by virtue of voting for the Coalition would result in three more years of us as a nation having to endure lies, waste of our money, promises made but not delivered, and finally ensuring Australia isolates itself in a region of the World where we were previously held in such high esteem.

Broken Promises

It is a corollary of our democratic system of government that if a politician makes a promise to do something for us the voting public, and the public do so vote for them, only for the promise to be broken, then we as members of a democratic system should not vote for that politician again.

  1. Federal ICAC: notwithstanding his feeble explanation as to why he broke this promise, what was prepared by Mr Morrison and Mr Porter as a draft Federal Integrity Bill in November 2020 would have prevented a Federal ICAC to hold its own independent inquiries, prevented a Federal ICAC from holding public hearings into politicians or public servants, and banned the Federal ICAC officers from investigating past scandals. It is now etched in the history books of time Mr Morrison made this promise of establishing a Federal ICAC with teeth before the 2019 Federal Election. It is hard to comprehend what Mr Morrison considered a Federal Integrity Commission with ‘teeth’ meant back in 2019, but he knew from the reported sources it had to include public hearings. When the draft Federal Integrity Bill was presented to Parliament he would not even allow debate on the draft bill which is just contrary to the principles of parliamentary democracy, in which both upper and lower houses debate the legislation and tweak it so that it conforms with the legislative intention. In any event it appears Mr Morrison is going to break this important promise of the 2019 campaign.
  2. A budget surplus: ah yes, how can we forget Mr Frydenberg’s AC/DC moment of shame. Despite any attempt by Mr Morrison or Mr Frydenberg for that matter claiming otherwise, we were never on track to achieve this misleading, indeed even deceptive, proclamation which the Coalition and Mr Morrison made before the 2019 Federal Election. By the way, I’m wondering what the cost of the ‘Back in Black’ mugs would be fetching at the various low-priced stores where such items may be sold at.
  3. Carparks: yes, nothing like promising 47 new commuter car parks at a cost of $650Million to entice the voting public to vote for you. However, only 6 car parks have been built and construction work has started on another 6, whilst the remaining 35 have been scrapped.
  4. New trees: I shall refrain from ridicule or jeer towards the Morrison Government for breaking this promise, as it was an important promise by the Morrison Government during the 2019 Federal Election to address climate change. In 2018 Mr Morrison announced a plan to plant one billion trees to help the environment, and the government said 400,000 hectares of new tree plantations were needed to meet its target. Presently, government statistics record there are only 4,300 hectares of land where new trees have been planted.
  5. Social Media Trolls: in March of 2019, the former Attorney-General Mr Porter promised there would be a tightening of laws on social media, pledging to increase penalties for breaches of another person’s rights to privacy. Those legislative amendments were not introduced to Parliament by the Morrison Government. In 2021 Mr Morrison proposed a fresh crackdown on social media, pledging laws to unmask anonymous trolls, but these laws were also not introduced to Parliament.

As one may see, this is a significant record of broken promises by the Morrison Government, and despite Mr Morrison saying it’s not his fault (when actually it is), these facts alone should see him being hosed out of Parliament on 21 May 2022. However, like the old advertisement, ‘but wait, there is more.’

Economic Management

Now I can’t recall just how the Liberals ever managed to pin the dirty badge of being good economic managers to themselves, because the facts are they never have been.

Some of you may be too young to remember the 1982 recession when Mr Fraser was Prime Minister and Mr Howard was Treasurer, but I can recall it and it was far worse than the subsequent Keating recession. We had the worst recession since the Great Depression, and when Mr Howard handed over the treasury reigns to Mr Keating the budget deficit was $4.3Billion, inflation was 11%, unemployment was 10.2% and growth was a negative 0.4%. Terrible numbers. When Mr Hawke and Mr Keating examined the books the budget deficit forecast quickly increased to $9Billion. Regarding interest rates, from 1977 to 1982 the average mortgage rate was set at 13.5% and business interest rates reached 17.5%.

Even when Mr Howard was Prime Minister, he, and his Treasurer Mr Peter Costello (now chair of Nine Entertainment), sold our gold at the worst possible time being when the price of gold was very low, and they failed to act on the funds derived from the mining boom to develop infrastructure, improve health care (The Howard Government slashed the funding to Medicare) and Education. Instead, we had to endure Mr Costello’s off-putting smirk as he delivered budget surpluses which did not provide much macroeconomic benefit to Australia, as surpluses cause a market disequilibrium in the demand and supply chain. When Mr Hawke and Mr Keating ran surpluses, it was because of fears about the current account deficit. The so-called low interest rates of the Howard Government era were a product of the one-off impact of the introduction of the GST and the fall-out from the resources boom, the Australian current account went into a larger deficit and household debt almost doubled during the Howard Government’s years of office from 1996 to 2007. Home loan interest payments were higher than 1989 when they peaked at 18%, because of sharp rises in house prices, so in relation to mortgages to income this data had grown prodigiously during the Howard years (Ibid).

Now we look at the Morrison Government’s performance, and the striking issues are obviously its failures in respect to the economy. The first myth I wish to dispel is the notion the Liberals tax less than Labor. That is just a lie, and ABC Fact Check said it was a ‘Fair Call’ when Dr Chalmers said the two highest-taxing governments of the past 30 years have been Coalition governments. Figure 1 below, proves Dr Chalmers claim:



The next myth about the Liberals claims to economic management is the amount of national debt. The ABC found it was a fair call when Dr Chalmers said two thirds of Commonwealth debt had been incurred before the outbreak of the pandemic. We now have almost a $1Trillion in debt with nothing to show for it, and Figure 2 below reflects the sharp incline of national debt before the pandemic:



Regarding the issue of employment, a clear majority of Australians (69%) say the Roy Morgan February 2022 unemployment of 8.5% is closer to the truth than the figures which Mr Morrison and Mr Frydenberg have trotted out before us. The claim by the Coalition to 4% unemployment is deceiving for two reasons. The first reason is the data is obtained by simply including the underemployment rate with the unemployment rate. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (‘ABS’) calls the sum of the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate the under-utilisation rate. The unemployment rate on an FTE (full-time equivalent) would be more than 4% but perhaps not as high as the underutilisation rate of 10%. The second method to measure unemployment is to count the number of people receiving unemployment benefits. There are two unemployment benefits, namely youth allowance (paid to people 21 years of age or younger) and JobSeeker which is paid to those persons 22 or older. You would typically expect the reported unemployment rate to sit between the rate of people receiving JobSeeker and the rate of people receiving either JobSeeker or the Youth Allowance (other). It was very solidly there till 2013.

From then to the start of the pandemic, the unemployment rate and JobSeeker recipient rate have been very close. However, the performance in benefits payment has not matched the claimed recovery in unemployment. Both rates are well above the levels applied before the election of the LNP, and for JobSeeker payments they are still at the highest levels through the entire term of the LNP government. The explanation for the discrepancy lies in the definition of ’employed person.’ A part-time worker who is looking for full-time work can receive JobSeeker. The real question is on what number should the government focus. Should it be crowing about the 4 per cent rate, or should it be concerned that the rate is almost a percentage point lower because persons on temporary visas aren’t doing some jobs? Should it be more concerned that the under-utilisation rate is 10 per cent or that between 2 per cent and 3 per cent of the workforce has a job but needs income support? This is a genuine concern. It isn’t that the unemployment rate relies on a definition of employment that under-reports the rate. The situation is that the Liberals have plenty of other data to tell them that the employment picture is nowhere near as strong as they claim. Whether that is because the Liberals are intentionally misleading the public or because they really don’t understand the numbers themselves is a matter of judgment.

The final issue regarding the Morrison Government’s economic management is unlike Labor, the Coalition does not have a proper plan and our escalating inflation is proof of this, as I have previously written about:


The inflation we did not need to have

From Back in Black to a Trillion in Debt


The Morrison Government are poor economic managers. Mr Morrison has recently provided a guarantee he won’t increase taxes, but I have already addressed the reasons why I wouldn’t accept such a guarantee.


Notwithstanding remaining close to his media cohorts, and the benefits of shielding from the press which goes with such an undermining on the Fourth Estate, the voting public are not enamoured with Mr Morrison anymore and even members of the Liberal Party say he is allegedly unfit for public office:

There are the alleged lies, character and incompetence I have written about regarding Mr Morrison and the Morrison Government which do not paint a pretty picture of him at all:

Scott Morrison’s Lies, Character and Incompetence

Scott Morrison’s Lies, Character and Incompetence (part 2)


There are just too many lies, too many unanswered questions and too much alleged bullying and deception to allow Mr Morrison to continue as Prime Minister.

The Pacific Stuff-up

I have previously written about the almost 8 years of neglect and insulting by a succession of Coalition governments which has led to our worst display of foreign affairs and national security since WWII:

Scott Morrison’s national security fail


Even Julie Bishop, a former Coalition Minister for Foreign Affairs, said the current Foreign Affairs Minister Ms Payne should have immediately flown to the Solomon Islands. Instead, Mr Morrison sent a junior minister in Mr Seselja to the Solomon Islands, clearly conveying a lack of respect for that country. Mr Albanese called the whole Solomon Islands situation a ‘Pacific Stuff-Up.’ I have not heard too many commentators disagreeing with Mr Albanese.

Scandals, Aged Care and Too Late

This has been government which has had the word ‘Gate’ written about it more often than any previous government. From ‘Watergate’ to ‘Grass Gate’, and Barnaby Joyce’s spending of $675,000.00 of our money to apparently produce a text message report. There are matters of alleged scandal I shall not refer to, for legal reasons, however I shall repeat Jason Clare’s comment yesterday, about where Mr Tudge is, why are we not being told why we are paying $500,000.00 and “even Scooby-Doo would not be able to find Mr Tudge.”

In relation to Mr Morrison, he has gone missing during our hours of need on too many occasions. He secretly went to Hawaii whilst Australia was going up in flames. Mr Morrison said we were at the front of the queues for vaccines when we were not in such a position, and Ms McManus quite properly referred to the vaccine rollout as being a ‘stroll out.’ Mr Morrison also let down the country again regarding the floods, and he has strangely only paid Queenslander’s half of what the good people in New South Wales (‘NSW’) are receiving.

Then we have our disgraceful treatment of senior citizens, an issue which could be substantially improved by paying Aged Care staff more than what they currently being paid. I have already written about this issue on earlier occasion, and I provide my link to that article so that you may acquaint yourself with my thoughts regarding this national disgrace:

Are YOU Really Arguing We Can’t Feed and Care for Our Grandparents?


Finally, we have the Coalition tearing itself apart over net zero climate change and Mr Morrison’s intervention in the NSW branch of the Liberal Party.

I could write more facts and opinions about this terrible government; however, War and Peace would then be a shorter and not so daunting book.

I have put up my hand 🤚 to say I will be voting for Albanese Government. I hope after you read this article you will do the same.


Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Donate Button

 8,333 total views