By 2353NM

Prime Minister Scott Morrison spent the Christmas break this year promoting Australia opening up to the world regardless of the increasing threat of yet another form of the COVID-19 virus. Morrison claimed that while there will be people in hospital and that others will die, the economic cost of retaining infection prevention measures was too great. New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet was just as gung-ho, removing almost all pandemic management restrictions in NSW just as the Omicron variant of COVID-19 was starting to appear.

While it is true that we can’t stay isolated forever, the reality of the past month or so is that as a country we have suffered through the highest death and serious illness tolls of a pandemic that has been affecting us for two years. Just think about that – more deaths and serious illness now, when the health experts have a pretty good idea how to minimise illness and death than at the beginning – when everyone was scrambling for understanding.

Agreed, the rest of Australia (except for Western Australia) followed Perrottet’s lead in partially reducing restrictions and ‘opening up’ their states. In reality, they didn’t have a choice. However none of them removed restrictions such as mask wearing and were then forced to reintroduce them, as was the case in NSW.

And while Morrison and Perrottet can carry on about economic recovery and ‘pushing through’ the discomfort, every person who has died or has been in hospital Australia wide as a result of COVID-19 complications since the beginning of December 2021 is a direct demonstration of Morrison and Perrottet’s absolute lack of understanding. There is a person behind every statistic and that person, their family and friends are all adversely affected by Morrison and Perrottet’s fixation on ‘economic good times’.

Again, we have seen ‘panic buying’ in the supermarkets (what is it about toilet paper by the way?) and disruptions to various commonly available services. This time around, the root cause appears to be the number of people that are either forced or choose to isolate because they or someone close to them is infected by COVID. Not only are there a large number of health workers isolating because they or those close to them caught COVID, there are shortages of people to produce the food, transport the food and stock the shelves. On top of that there are shortages of people well enough to provide childcare for those that have to go to work, drive the public transport for those that rely on it to go to work and so on.

The past couple of years has proven to us the real essential workers in Australia are not the politicians, the marketing executives, the share brokers or the management consultants, all of whom probably contribute to the economy. They certainly don’t deliver the food to the shops, stack the shelves, look after the sick, the elderly or our children on a full-time basis. It is therefore easy to argue that the transport drivers, shop workers, nurses, aged or childcare workers are far more important in keeping our society functioning.

It’s also easy to argue that the transport drivers, shop workers, nurses, aged or childcare workers are some of the most poorly paid members of the community. That is probably because traditionally these roles are performed by those who are believed to be unskilled or female – often both.

There is nothing unskilled about driving a semi-trailer into a suburban shopping centre and backing it into the loading dock or piloting it along the highway for 8 to 10 hours between larger cities while remaining on a timetable that is calculated to reduce fuel costs and distribute merchandise as quickly as possible, rather than help the driver perform their role easily. Neither is it unskilled to be standing there and fielding questions without notice about a range of products that is available for sale in the retailer you are working for. Nurses, aged and child care workers require specific qualifications in 2022, however their hourly rates do not reflect the skill and experience they bring to their roles.

For example, at the time of preparation the minimum pay rate for a full time Enrolled Nursing Assistant is $22.19 per hour according to the Fair Work Commission’s website. Aged and childcare workers are similar. Yet those who choose to follow these professions turn up at work every day, COVID notwithstanding because it’s really hard to provide ‘hands on’ individualised care and attention to others using Zoom or email. The share brokers, politicians and management consultants have the option to work from home with the inherent comparative safety that allows.

Alan Kohler, writing for The New Daily suggests that

Too many jobs are chronically underpaid, and they are mainly the ones done by women: aged care, child care, nursing, waiting, interior design, book editing – in fact virtually any job done mainly by women is both undervalued and underpaid.

And that’s apart from the 12.5 billion hours of totally unpaid work that is estimated that women do worldwide, worth about 12 per cent of the global economy.

Kohler argues

Government subsidies for aged care, child care and health care could be increased sufficiently to lift wages, thereby socialising the solution rather than putting the burden entirely on those using the services.

But with taxes being cut (ridiculously), government debt heading for a trillion dollars and the necessarily government-funded NDIS and defence taking a growing share of the budget, that seems unlikely, even under a Labor government.

Whatever the solution, politicians in general need to remember that behind every set of statistics are people who are physically experiencing the ‘unfortunate’ outcome portrayed in the commentary. And in a lot of cases, they have no option but to turn up again tomorrow and do it all again for around $20 an hour while hoping they don’t get sick or injured.

Morrison and Perrottet could help immediately. Two $400 ‘special payments’ to aged care workers who are currently arguing in front of the Fair Work Commission for a 25% wage increase (which is $5 an hour) just doesn’t cut it. Morrison could repudiate the ‘trickle-down’ faux ideology, abolish the future tax cuts and and actually support those on lower incomes. His political mate Perrottet could show him how it’s done using the NSW health and education systems as examples.

As proven in the small period of time when JobKeeper was introduced and JobSeeker was increased for the lower paid and welfare recipients, those on lower incomes didn’t squirrel away the money to spend on the next $80k plus 4WD ute, SUV or future overseas trips. Generally they used it to improve their standard of living by getting their bills up to date, fixing the car they already had so it was actually roadworthy or replacing appliances around the house with ones that worked efficiently.

Who knows, engineering pay increases towards the lower paid by increasing subsidies to various industries that provide real essential services to our society might actually go a long way towards growing the economy beyond what is possible now. It will certainly reduce the current gender pay gap.

What do you think?

On June 26, 2019, Prime Minister Scott Morrison delivered a “major foreign policy address” at Asialink, in the lead-up to the 14th G20 Summit.  Ttled “Where we live”, it outlined “our plan to foster an open, inclusive and prosperous Indo-Pacific, consistent with our national interests.”

The following is an excerpt from that speech:

“We share a comprehensive strategic partnership and free trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China, with a broad and deep relationship underpinned by people-to-people ties; evidenced by the fact we are home to 1.2 million ethnic Chinese and are host to 1.4 million Chinese visitors and 205,000 Chinese students each year.

China’s conscious decision to pursue prosperity as a strategy for national unity and stability launched one of the world’s greatest economic miracles.

Now China is a significant power, with vast military, global interests and the biggest economy in the world in terms of purchasing power parity.

It is important to acknowledge that this success was made possible by the active and strategic engagement of the United States and the wider global community.

Firstly, through enthusiastic bilateral exchange and then by supporting access to the global rules-based trading system through China’s accession to the WTO in 2001, gave it much better access to the markets of 154 member economies.

This also required reforms from China that supported its rapid economic expansion.

China is now the major trading partner of more than 50 countries.

In 1980, China’s trade with the outside world amounted to less than $40 billion. By 2015, it had increased one hundredfold, to $4 trillion

China is the largest holder of foreign US currency reserves.

China’s economic rise has not been a zero sum game. This has been especially true in Australia’s case, but also for the United States.

This is why Australia has always, and will continue to, welcome China’s economic growth.

However, the ground has now shifted. It is now evident that the US believes that the rule-based trading system – in its current form – is not capable of dealing with China’s economic structure and policy practices.

Our prosperity, and that of our Indo-Pacific partners, depends strongly on the maintenance of an open global economy and a rules-based trading system.

It will also depend on a positive, productive and cooperative bilateral relationship between China and the US.

This will require the exercise of special responsibilities by these “Great Powers” to resist a narrow view of their interests.

In 1951 George Kennan wrote, in American Diplomacy:

“If our purposes and undertakings here at home are decent ones, unsullied by arrogance or hostility towards other people or delusions of superiority, then the pursuit of our national interest can never fail to be conducive to a better world.”

As a rising global power, China also now has additional responsibilities.

It is therefore important that US-China trade tensions are resolved in the broader context of their special power responsibilities, in a way that is WTO-consistent and does not undermine the interests of other parties, including Australia.

The accumulation of issues that have led to these tensions must be acknowledged, addressed and resolved at the negotiating table in a way that reinforces our open and inclusive global trading system.

Like all of us, China and the US have a strong interest, and a special responsibility, to modernise and support the system that has delivered unprecedented growth in national wealth and living standards over the last two decades.

We can support these efforts and outcomes by rejecting the fatalism of increased polarisation and resisting the analysis that only sees these issues through a binary prism.

It is in no-one’s interest in the Indo-Pacific to see an inevitably more competitive US-China relationship become adversarial in character.

All nations in our region, not just Australia, are having to adjust to this period of great power competition.

Like others who live here, Australia simply seeks the freedom to be ourselves, peacefully pursue our national interests, consistent with our values, appreciating our history and being transparent and honest about our aspirations for the future.

These shared challenges create important common ground, which is where I see Australia continuing to play an important role.

So we won’t be fazed, intimidated or fatalistic.

Of course the international environment is difficult.

Of course there are risks of further deterioration in key relationships and consequent collateral impacts on the global economy and regional stability.

There are alsopressures to decouple the Chinese and American economic systems, whether this be in technology, payments systems, financial services or other areas.

But these are not insurmountable obstacles. To think they are not does not amount to some modern form of appeasement. This is a straw man argument.

And what’s the alternative?

These risks not only can but must be mitigated, and this comes more possible when we work together.

We should not just sit back and passively await our fate in the wake of a major power contest.

This underestimates and gives up on the power of human, state and multilateral agency.

There are practical steps that we can pursue.

So we will play our part. We will not be passive bystanders.

Our approach will be based on key principles.

A commitment to open markets with trade relationships based on rules, not coercion.

An approach which builds resilience and sovereignty.

Respect for international law and the resolution of disputes peacefully, without the threat or use of coercive power.

And a commitment to cooperation and burden-sharing within strong and resilient regional architecture.

None of those principles is inconsistent with the natural instinct of sovereign nations to compete.

And It is not inevitable that competition leads to conflict.

We have already demonstrated that like-minded nations can take measures to help shape their own destiny.

We will continue to lead by example, developing our close web of relationships across and within the Indo-Pacific.

This year we hope to conclude the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, an agreement that includes 16 economies and accounts for about one-third of global GDP.

It would be the first regional free trade agreement to include India and has the 10 nations of ASEAN at its core.

RCEP’s membership includes 10 out of Australia’s top 15 trading partners, account forover 60 per cent of Australia’s two-way trade, andover 70 per cent of Australia’s goods and services exports.

To conclude the agreement when leaders meet in Bangkok in November this year, I would urge leaders to send their Trade Ministers to the meeting next month in Beijing with a clear mandate to deal.

While continuing to work with other partners in the region we will also deal directly with our great and powerful friends.

Our relationship with the US has never been stronger.

Ours is a resolute and mutually beneficial alliance partnership where neither party has the need to prove anything to each other.

My Government is also committed to further enhancing our relationship with China.

Our relationship with China has many strengths.

Our trading relationship is flourishing, with two-way trade reaching a remarkable $215 billion in 2018, which benefits both countries.

Our cooperation with China through our Comprehensive Strategic Partnership goes well beyond economic issues.

We are working together across fields including health, education, and taxation, where Australia offers world-class expertise.

We’ve also been cooperating successfully to counter drug trafficking through Taskforce Blaze.

There is more we can do. That’s why we established the National Foundation for Australia-China Relations earlier this year.

The Foundation will strengthen areas where we already cooperate, deepen the already rich links across our communities, and help identify new areas for practical cooperation.

While we will be clear-eyed that our political differences will affect aspects of our engagement, we are determined that our relationship not be dominated by areas of disagreement.

The decisions we make in relation to China are based solely on our national interests, just as theirs are towards Australia, and these are sometimes hard calls to make.

But they are designed always to leave large scope for cooperation on common interests and recognise the importance of China’s economic success.

This success is good for China, it is good for Australia.

McKinsey estimates that 2.6 per cent of consumption in the rest of the world is imported from China, compared with 0.8 per cent in 2000.

Chinese imports now account for 2.0 per cent of the gross output of the rest of the world, compared with 0.4 per cent in 2000.

We welcome Chinese investment.

We have welcomed it for decades.

The stock of Chinese investment in Australia in 2018 was more than 8 times larger than a decade ago, and China is our ninth largest investor behind  the USA, Japan, UK and the Netherlands.

Australia has the most liberal foreign investment regime in our region. It is not possible for Australians to invest in China in the way Chinese investments are made here. Perhaps this will change, but our policy is not framed in the context of reciprocity, but national interest.

We retain our sovereignty over these investments, especially in relation to strategic and national security considerations, but where such issues are satisfied, we would be only harming our own economic interests if we were to deny our economy access to this capital.

That is why we operate a non-discriminatory approach to investment screening.

And I note that all nations, including China, screen foreign investment.

The infrastructure needs of the region are enormous and Australia welcomes the contribution that the Belt and Road Initiative can make to regional infrastructure investment and to regional development.

Let me close by making the following observations.

There are gathering clouds in the global economy.

The trading relationship between the world’s two most important economies is under serious strain.

But an ever-worsening trajectory in this relationship is not inevitable.

We all have responsibilities to deepen patterns of co-operation, especially in the Indo-Pacific.

Australia is ready to play its part.

We embrace free trade, global engagement and an international system where we agree rules, stick to them and honour our commitments.

That is the surest path to an open, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific.”

Election diary No 12. Saturday, 19 February 2022.

1 In 1996, John Howard, the then Opposition leader, offered the Australian people a “comfortable and relaxed” future. It worked a treat.

Labor had been in power for two periods and had achieved bold economic and cultural reforms.

In the 1996 election, the silent majority spoke, and Australia voted for a more peaceful future, and that’s not what they got. From Howard on, conservatives have given us cultural upheaval and political ratbaggery. It seems to work for them.

The conservatives have been in power for almost nine years. By their incompetence and adherence to ideology, they have stuffed up so many things that a likely mantra for Labor is “Let’s change for the better.”

So, in March 1996, Australia opted for a bit of calm. Years later, after a succession of failed prime ministers, the conservatives continue their abysmal flirtation with corruption and bad governance to the point where you couldn’t trust them as far as you could kick them.

Now, after two years of the coronavirus pandemic and three months into a third, delivering a comfortable and relaxed Australia might be unsuitable for the times because we have become a “do-nothing else” nation.

Repairing the many things that need to be mended won’t be accomplished with a “comfortable and relaxed” attitude.

The return of the Morrison government might give us continued “comfortable and relaxed” governance of the sort you are used to while electing an Albanese government would enable “Change for the better.”

Desperately seeking re-election this week has been noticeable for the Government’s unjustifiable attacks on the Leader of the Opposition. As its desperation grows, its shame escalates to a point of disgrace hitherto unseen in this country, leaving us in no doubt about the country’s future under them.

The attacks have honed in on national security and the character of Anthony Albanese.

Even Mike Burgess, the Chief of ASIO, found it necessary to appear with Leigh Sales on 7.30 to tell Dutton, Frydenberg and Morrison to basically shut up about Albanese being a threat to national security.

Rather timely, Rachael Withers wrote in The Monthly that:

“As deputy Labor leader Richard Marles said in an interview on RN Breakfast (in which he used the word “desperate” around 10 times in 10 minutes), the scare campaign about the ALP being China’s pick actually puts Australia’s security at risk – a sentiment backed up by the experts. “The attempt to politicise this is not only desperate, but it’s also not in the national interest,” Marles said, adding there has traditionally been strong bipartisanship in this area.”

The Government’s behaviour in Parliament during the past two weeks has been deplorable, and who knows how much lower it will stoop before it reaches rock bottom. When it’s backed into a corner, its white teeth anger is frightening. It acts like an animal in a fight to the death, and what a terrifying animal it makes.

2 I don’t read The Australian the Daily Telegraph, the Herald Sun, The Advertiser, the Courier Mail and the Mercury (all Murdoch journals) for the same reason I don’t eat out of the toilet.

3 For your interest, The ABC show “Vera” had a higher viewer ranking than the cringe-worthy Morrison interview on 60 Minutes with 587,000 metro viewers, just ahead of 60 Minutes on 574,000.

Vera beats “At home with the Morrisons”. But liberal strategists are unfussed. She’s not a candidate in any electorate. https://t.co/oWKtkT4qPY

— Barrie Cassidy (@barriecassidy) February 14, 2022

4 In the event of a Labor win in the May (?) election, would Treasurer Josh Frydenberg become the undisputed heir to the Liberal Party leadership, or would Peter Dutton claim it? Time will tell.

5 Deals with the devil or just buying votes?

Clive Palmer, who has previously likened the Prime Minister with Hendrick Himmler, now he is doing dirty deals with him. The Liberal Party has agreed to exchange preferences with Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party in a deal nutted out by the two parties last week. The deal could decide many marginal seats and give Palmer a fair chance of gaining a seat in the Senate and perhaps even the balance of power in a close vote.

According to Newspoll, Palmer’s vote is somewhere between 5% and 14%. Talk about buying votes.

6 The Prime Minister has had a report into allegations against Education Minister Alan Tudge since 28 January in his grubby little hands. Still, the Government cannot say if it will be dealt with before the coming election. Yet another cover-up that wouldn’t pass the pub test.

The ‘journalist for leaks’, Channel Ten commentator Peter van Onselen has revealed that Prime Minister Scott Morrison will soon cut Alan Tudge from the Ministry. Well, it’s a fair bet when you observe his name being taken from the door of his office.

Of course, Mr Tudge will be sacked, but Morrison cannot say when. You can bet it won’t be until the Parliament has risen.

7 After three years, the Conservatives confirmed today that they didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to legislate for a Federal ICAC. Incredible when you have had three years to do something about it. Yet to be seen if it will cost them votes.

8 Oh my God, not another one. Another Government grant’s scandal. This time, as reported in The Guardian, the Auditor General found that the Coalition used its $187m safer communities grants program to fund at least ten projects deemed “unsuitable” by the department.

This was after the project applicants were visited in person by Peter Dutton’s assistant minister, Jason Wood.

The Guardian reported that:

“… the audit, which found the program favoured Coalition-held seats in the lead-up to the last election, is critical of how grants were awarded more than half delivered without a “clear basis for the decision.”

9 Remember when? Memories of the last election?

With the knowledge we now have, it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the Coalition won the last election in circumstances contrary to what people expect of our democracy.

Clive Palmer spent $60 million on advertising. This year it’s reported he will spend another $20 million. Why?

Street Signs were written in Chinese. Why?

Grants were given to sporting bodies in Coalition electorates, and the Auditor General found them out.

Unequivocally the Prime Minister lied repeatedly.

Then another $150 million scheme for government or fringe seats appeared without rules and no need to apply; just let us know how much?

If we had some form of ICAC, they would be out on their arse.

Have I made myself clear?

10 On the subject of winning, Eddie Otto, on 17 February, wrote the following Facebook comment:

“Thanks to Lynton Crosby, the Liberals have been winning elections since Howard in 1996 with the old “dead cat on the table” and contentless policies and vacuous platitudes.

And it happened again in 2019 with the Death Tax, Retiree Tax, and it has already started again…

Already creating fake Labor policies, fear-mongering, Labor “high taxing & spending”, economic mismanagement.

With no facts and figures, no justification, no validation… just lies…

And it was amplified repeatedly by the complicit mainstream media.

All the accusations are projections of the Liberal’s shortcomings.”

10 Broken promises.

In addition to breaking its promise to pass Religious Discrimination legislation this term, it can now add a bill for a National Integrity Commission.

Except on Wednesday 16 February, outgoing Liberal MP John Alexander, who reckons he would “seriously consider” supporting Helen Haine’s bill for a federal integrity commission if the independent member for Indi attempts to have her draft legislation debated by Parliament before the election.

11 Remember, $16 billion in the last budget for unallocated policies. Well, that’s code, meaning that its money put aside for Government giveaways in the election campaign.

12 The wash-up of the NSW By-elections was that large swings favoured Labor and the independents. No point repeating myself.

13 I received a message from an AIM reader asking why we don’t have donations with real-time online- and online voting. They are good points, and l will do some research.

14 The closure by Origin Energy of Australia’s most significant and largest coal mine says the 2,880MW black-coal generator in NSW is not well-suited to rapidly changing conditions in the national electricity market. Certainly, throws a cat amongst the pigeons.

To: Scooter

From: The Heavenly Father

Cc: the Son, the Holy Ghost, the Eagle painting

Hi Scoot,

Apologies for the delay in responding to your prayers, it’s been a bit frantic what with My latest round of global misanthropy and Beelzebub’s interference wrt Ukraine; not to mention the two new galaxies I have on the drawing board. I did leave a couple of messages as per the Lad’s face in your cheese toasties – whilst I am infallible that was a tad ambiguous I must confess, so thank Heavens (LOL) for modern technology where we can avoid any confusion.

You want Me to save your arse, yeah? There has been a bit of a misunderstanding, My son. Drought, fires, floods, pestilence, the mouse plague, the Canberra convoy – do you see the theme? I gave you the top job as a warning to humanity for what I had planned and as a do-nothing PM that job was also to not interfere in My malevolence. You’re familiar with My genocidal track record so I was expecting you’d readily pick up on this and the early signs were promising (kudos for Hawaii, quarantine and the old folks homes) but you then fucked up everything you touched and then hinted at My involvement … you’ve taken things too far. While blaming everyone else is a nice touch, putting Me in the frame with all of your public announcements of our supposed collaboration is not on. I’m good with the angry God routine (obvs) but you’re on your own with the constant fails – after all, My brand is ‘all powerful deity’, dude. When the time comes for Me to claim credit for something I’ll distribute a weeping statue or two and chuck in another miracle (note though that not even My omnipotence could get persona au gratin Gorgeous George laid; I tried as per your request but he has to negotiate that for himself. Please note that Brother Stuie has dibs on the stigmata – did he let you know? Sobering Barnaby up is a future option perhaps. (Thoughts?).

Regardless, there’s bad news: It’s over

I like to throw positive stuff into the mix – you know, carrot and stick, loaves and fishes, water into wine (or as I now call it, the reverse Barnaby. ROFL). Junior claims credit for those but they’re mine. Old school sure, but I don’t want a despondent, fuck-up weary flock pulling a Jim Jones – I weep on mass murder and suicide’s a no-no. My people are My greatest creation (blackholes aside – I’m pretty chuffed with those) and they need an occasional upside and I am not seeing any from you. To be frank, you’ve become an embarrassment to yourself and to Me.

I could overlook the rather tragic self-applied nickname, the risible curry cooking and the wholly invented daggy DIY dad routine, after all, the exploitation of a gullible public is the business model for My franchisees but the panicked, shrill tantrums, throwing Jen under the bus, the ukelele, the washing of a stranger’s head (I noted the baptismal undertones on that one so thank fuck you didn’t do her feet) and now the facile “reds under the beds” faux outrage – I don’t want people thinking I am advising you on this shit.

If it’s any consolation it’s not just you; it’s your entire cabal of incompetence, sleaze, grift, cruelty and planetary destruction. I’ve borrowed the résumés of the entire LNP gene puddle from Old Nick and what a disheartening read!

I once had some hope for Joshy, a nice Jewish boy, but in digging down he’s a nasty little shit, isn’t he? And innumerate to boot. Spud, as is obvious, is the anti-Christ in a human skin suit. And what’s with Fingers Taylor? I created this fucking planet and I’ll be the one to destroy it – so tell that pyromaniacal eco-maniac to back the fuck off. Spotty dick Jimmy Paterson’s Hitler Youth of the Month persona makes Me uncomfortable. I looked away first time round but questions were asked. Jimmy should focus on completing his Hitch-hikers Guide To State Forests.

The lady folk™ are no better. Michaelia (Blah Stupenda) has a future as a roof-top, active shooter alarm, Mandy Stoker gives off a Nazi doctor vibe, while Holly Hughes and Anne Ruston belong in a home for foundlings confiscating the orphans’ Christmas presents.

As for the Rustic Party, that souser BJ has the bladder control of a Wiggles concert mosh pit and an entirely misunderstood interpretation of the comfort to be derived from “thy rod and thy staff”. Sweaty Betty McKenzie, Miss Appropriation 2019 and the fastest drawers in the west would re-gift her nastiness yet she’s the best the rubes have to offer? FMD!

While it’s a good idea to assemble the worst possible people imaginable in one place that one place is not something I want My name associated with. That’s B.Bub’s domain.

You’re desperate and looking ridiculous so I say this more in sorrow than in anger. It’s time for you to get up off your knees and fuck off. If you could leave My name out of future stunts that will be most appreciated.

(Please acknowledge receipt via return email).

Regards,

The G Dog

😎

PS: Please ask Brian to forward the details of the tithe account so I can draw down on some of that lovely stash. My new Jag is a gas-guzzler and with the price of petrol lately my weekends are being ruined.

This article was originally published on Grumpy Geezer.

Election diary No 11. Wednesday, 16 February 2022.

The first thing to say about the National Press Clubs ladies’ speech day was that Albo turned up; Scomo didn’t.

1 In one of those moments you cannot manufacture, Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins at the National Press Club expressed themselves in terms that honoured their femininity. They articulated their anger in a manner usually reserved for the angriest of men. It’s the men who have to modify their behaviour.

Let’s hear it for these courageous ladies.

Conspicuous by his absence, the prime minister could have given the occasion the potency of his masculinity. He had the opportunity to display some leadership, but he seemed to belong to another era. Like Abbott, he allowed the opportunity to pass through to the keeper, reinforcing the point that it’s men who are the problem.

Sure, he would have had to experience the indignity of exposing his lack of understanding of just what women were telling him. But he could have made the statement that he cared and was prepared to listen despite the alleged embarrassment it would cause him.

Instead, again he paints himself as part of the problem and not the solution.

Tame and Higgins delivered what could be a final knockout blow for Morrison, labelling him an abuser. Now it’s up to us to ensure that the final blow is struck at the ballot box!

In a tweet, Barrie Cassidy, former Insiders presenter, described their appearance thus:

An exceptional moment in 2 speeches that were jaw dropping in their power, intelligence and emotion. Extraordinary how 2 people brought together by abuse will surely change the country. https://t.co/nqRGsOjiCY

— Barrie Cassidy (@barriecassidy) February 9, 2022

The ABC’s Dannielle Macguire and Georgia Hitch wrote an excellent summary of the two speeches at the National Press Club.

In my reading, listening on this subject, I must say that most people miss the point. That is that men are the concern. It doesn’t occur to them, so women have to tell it as it is. It is our actions that have implications for others. Some men have never grown up. It can be seen in every sphere of life, from war to rape. The rise of narcissism and inequality and the demise of compassion is a male trait.

Unfortunately, the audience at the press club was comprised mainly of females. Even male journalists failed to front up. Were they in their absence making a point, or were they too embarrassed to do so? Anyway, two better speeches you are unlikely to hear again. It was a moment in time when women of today told men of yesterday that they needed to change. Not today, not yesterday or tomorrow. But immediately.

Of course, Andrew Bolt had a different take on the event. Writing in The Herald Sun, he lamented that:

“There was “unbridled hate” for Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the National Press Club today, says Sky News host Andrew Bolt.

It comes as advocates for survivors of sexual assault and abuse, Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins, addressed the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday.

“Unbridled hate, not the slightest attempt to reach out to the Liberals to join in tackling an issue that should concern all of us,” Mr Bolt said.

Bolt would have his supporters, but obviously, he also misses the point. Reaching out to Liberals has no future in it. Given their record, it would be the last thing you would do.

2 Scott Morrison warned his ministers (as all Prime Ministers do) that disunity spelt political death. He told the party room:

“I’m going to lead, and I’m asking you once again to follow me to an election victory.”

After an all-night sitting and as dawn approached on Thursday, five Liberals ignored the prime minister’s advice and crossed the floor to vote against Morrison’s baby; the religious discrimination bill.

The show of faces was more extensive than expected and left senior figures somewhat bewildered.

News from the Senate was no better. They didn’t have the numbers to get its religious discrimination legislation through the Senate. Liberal senator Andrew Bragg also intended to cross the floor.

It wasn’t Morrison’s only problem. As per The Guardian, a “Fresh leak revealed Scott Morrison was rolled in cabinet over a plan to win back the renegade MPs.” Now, he was facing a boilover on the right.

The over-represented Australian Christian Lobby was so aggrieved it called for the legislation to be withdrawn.

Remember Morrison had told the Christian right after seeing same-sex marriage pass through the Parliament that he would give them protection. Religious discrimination would be Morrison’s major reform, the legacy of his prime ministership.

He also saw it as a potent political wedge against Labor as ever playing the political game. But the legislation failed to protect vulnerable kids. Once again, his political judgement was found wanting. It would greatly diminish his ability to raise the voice of religious discrimination in the coming election.

The wedge had become a reverse wedgie with a two-hand grip.

Scott Morrison has been rolled by his own cabinet, despite telling them that he was putting his leadership on the line in a bid to secure safe passage of his religious discrimination bill. Exclusive by @vanOnselenP. Watch @10NewsFirst at 5pm for more. https://t.co/78mDRgObzu

— Stela Todorovic (@Stela_Todorovic) February 10, 2022

Channel 10 and the Australian were reporting that:

“Scott Morrison was rolled by his own cabinet, after presenting them with a plan to save his religious discrimination bill by also putting a national integrity commission bill back on the agenda.”

3 By the end of the week, or should I say three years late, Peter Dutton sought to even the score by saying that the five (who crossed the floor) had given assurances. Any Government that takes 3 three years to pull some relatively simple legislation together doesn’t deserve to govern.

Dutton also raised the spectre of Labor being connected to China, bringing yet another scare campaign into focus.

4 Come Saturday, the headlines in mainstream media outlets confirmed that Morrison had suffered another horror fortnight of political chaos. The following day, all three journalists on Insiders were aggressive in their condemnation of our governance.

Here are some of the major headlines:

Familiar tune: Morrison opens up his home amid ‘kitchen sink’ strategy, but will it actually work? (The Sydney Morning Herald).

Scott Morrison says he ‘understands’ Canberra antivax protesters amid skirmishes with police (The Guardian).

Discriminatory ‘sword’ may spill Coalition blood (The Australian).

The government lost a dramatic showdown on religious discrimination laws overnight. So, what happened? (The ABC).

Why the Liberals will not dump Scott Morrison … but the voters might (The Sydney Morning Herald).

Our hard-ball next PM? Peter Dutton signed up ‘to play tackle, not touch’ (The Sydney Morning Herald).

The political week that ended in the toilet, literally (WAtoday).

Stood-aside MP Alan Tudge will recontest his seat, despite cloud of allegations (The Sydney Morning Herald).

5 George Christensen, the soon to depart extortioner of public funds, was found ripping off the taxpayer to the tune of $10,000 a month to feed like-minded nutters with conspiracy theories about “unelected global elites.”

https://twitter.com/choosing150/status/1490790644205645824

In August last year, the federal Parliament condemned Christensen after describing COVID-19 restrictions as “madness“.

And the promotion of anti-vaccination, of course.

6 If you come across the word Cakeism (as used in politics), it means “You cannot be all things to everybody all the time.” Or “you cannot have your cake and eat it too.”

7 Monday 14 February, The Poll Bludger reports Newspoll 55/45 for Labor.

“Newspoll’s second poll for the year records no change on the major party primary votes since the Coalition’s disastrous result a fortnight ago, but a decline in Greens support and Anthony Albanese’s personal ratings.”

Time and time again, we are told that making people vote improves representation and representativeness. Herding them on pain of penalty will somehow keep politics honest, and ensure that those in Parliament, or whatever chamber it may be, will be kept accountable. Imagine how awful it is to have a President voted in on a mere third of the vote, or political representatives who only ever speak on behalf of a small portion of their electorate?

The argument is only superficially appealing. A look at the ABC’s Four Corners episodes, featuring picked electors by the national broadcaster, did little to instil confidence in compulsory voting, which has been the mainstay in Australia since 1924. From that year on, electoral legislation has stipulated that “it shall be the duty of every elector” to vote “at each election”.

What was dismal in the exercise by the national broadcaster was the happily conceded ignorance of the punters, who, with the exception of one “voter”, seemed to have gone for the whole political spread in their electing history. In other words, they were swingers, fidelity adjustable. This ignored the fundamental point that Australians remain, even now, hostile to eclectic coalitions and representatives unaligned to the major political parties. On the issue of whether the Labor opposition leader Anthony Albanese would be a suitable leader, let alone prime minister, no illumination was offered, only a blanket of ignorant darkness, occasionally rented by observations that “he might be a decent bloke” who hated Tories and loved his beer.

The major parties still command automatic blocs of votes: the Labor voter who could never imagine voting for the party of the corporate boss; the Liberal, business minded voter, who cannot possibly conceive of an alternative that might mean more taxes or a raid on the family trust. This state of affairs has produced a particularly mercenary approach in politics, with political apparatchiks ignoring campaigning in safe seats while obsessing over the swinging “marginals”. Don Aitkin, rather accurately, has also observed that Australian political parties have had little need for mass membership in such a system. Parties, he remarks, “have become career structures for the politically active.”

The history of compulsory voting in Australia is fascinating. Those protecting it do so with a suicide-bomber’s fanaticism. Many who have questioned the system invite apostasy and ostracising. After the 2004 federal election, there were some murmurings of disagreement from some members of the Liberal Party, unsurprising given the historic advantage left-wing parties have had over conservatives in the process.

This sentiment, however, went nowhere. The approach is rusted down, and opinion polls on Australian attitudes to compulsory voting have persistently shown that “never less than six out of every 10 voters [support] compulsory voting.”

The arguments for maintaining the status quo include, for instance, a chance to snuff out potential extremists. They are neutralised by the sheer bulk of the beige middle ground. The problem with that line of thinking is evident. Such a process also discourages the voting in of independent voices unattached to worn, factional party machines.

For its modest merits, no compulsory voting system creates a more enlightened voter. In Australia, the ritual is a well-rehearsed one on polling day. Often held on the weekend so as not to be a disruption to work. Sausage-sizzles. How to vote cards handed out by volunteers. Party paraphernalia just outside the polling booths. Many trees felled in the enterprise.

None of this guarantees a more educated, informed choice. Dismally, individuals who turn 18 can be asked whether they even know the bicameral nature of the Australian Commonwealth, only to be greeted by blank stares. How puzzled are those looks when they are asked to fill out the boxes of the Senate candidates at the polling booth, which has historically had ballot papers so long they would provide gift wrapping for many an occasion. To date, the teaching in schools to rectify this problem has shown no evidence of correcting this. But then again, the teachers may themselves be ignorant of it.

Certain authorities on the nature of electoral choice, such as Keith Jakee and Guang-Zhen Sun, argue that compulsion for those who are not interested in the first place in the process can lead to an increase in the proportion of random votes. Less popular candidates, ironically enough, can find themselves being elected.

There have been some clever arguments framed against the compulsory voting model, notably within the peculiarities of the Australian political system. Unfortunately, these have not made much headway except in the dry and narrow channels of academe and the occasional policy paper.

One is that such a system infringes the implied freedom of political communication recognised by the Australian High Court since 1992. Another goes back to the basic understanding of a right to vote, one recognised by the same judicial body as inherent in the Constitution. A right to vote entails the freedom not to vote. In making Australians vote, the right becomes an obligation or, as the propagandists for this cause claim, a duty.

There are some things that would not be addressed if voting was made voluntary. The Australian voter has had an enormous capacity to tolerate illegal wars, incursions into foreign territories without parliamentary approval, the torture, degrading and permanent detention of refugees, and pandemic policies tinged with a policing frown. Big picture issues, at least since the 1990s, have been treated with withering suspicion.

Voters will remain purchasers and customers, the political parties hawking products and opportunities to entice self-interested choices. Talk will continue to remain about interest rates, the crushing mortgage, the housing market, and finance. Climate change chatter has finally made it into the pubs and public halls, but this has been a painfully slow thing in a country where digging the earth and exporting readymade resources is a dandy thing to do. We can only hope, come the next federal election, that voters resolve to make their elected officials work. And there is no greater incentive than a hung parliament in achieving that aim.

Zali Steggall has been a target of the Liberal Party ever since she dared topple Tony Abbott, in the 2019 election, in the seat of Warringah.

So, it now seems there has been a political hit on Steggall over electoral donations she received from the KInghorn Family Trust which had donated $100,000 to Steggall’s campaign. This donation was in one cheque but represented pledges of $12,500 each on behalf of eight members of the family trust.

The eight separate donations at $12,500 fell below the disclosure threshold but the AEC quite correctly noted that the payment by a single cheque exceeded the threshold and required further disclosure: this disclosure was corrected by Steggall in February 2021.

The threshold for donations requiring disclosure at that time was $13,800 since then it has been increased by indexation to $14,500. The system at the federal level was running quite well with a disclosure threshold of just $1500 until 2006 when John Howard decided that was too low and increased it to “more than $10,000” with annual indexation : that’s when the rot set in and neither party has been prepared to address the growing problem since.

This practice of donation splitting, when payments are divided into smaller amounts so that large payments can be kept under the disclosure threshold, has been widely adopted by all political parties and is still quite common and legal. Where Steggall came undone was that the established political parties are alert to the need to keep the individual donations under the threshold ; that’s why they are calling Steggall’s blunder a rookie mistake.

So, in effect nothing illegal has occurred and when the oversight was brought to the independent member for Warringah’s attention, it was corrected.

Does it warrant a media hit? I don’t think so but there is no doubt that the whole of the regulatory system governing political donations badly needs to be overhauled. When you consider that just $17.9 million worth of individual donations were declared for the 2020 – 2021 year compared with the almost $177 million received by parties you would be forgiven if you thought that the disclosure regime was better described as a non-disclosure scheme.

Personally, Steggall’s oversight doesn’t concern me but I am far more concerned that our former Attorney General, Christian Porter, was able to receive and conceal an anonymous donation said to be in the order of a million dollars. In Porter’s case he threw a legal doona over the donation by calling it the proceeds of a blind trust and thus he could not reveal either the source of the funds or the donor – all legal according to him, wink wink, nudge nudge !

Not to mention the potential for disruption to our democracy, not from overseas interests as Peter Dutton would have us believe, but closer to home in the form of Clive Frederick Palmer who spent $60 million in the lead up to the 2019 election without much of a return on his money. But he threatens to spend even more this time around and may well be able to insert one or more of his stooges into the senate: that’s what ASIO are worried about and we should be too.

Scott Morrison worships at a church that deems homosexuality as a “broken-ness”, something that can be fixed with conversion therapy.

When the country overwhelmingly voted for marriage equality, Scott Morrison and Barnaby Joyce, the men who lead this country, both abstained despite their electorates instructing them to vote in favour.

When Israel Folau insisted that gay people would go to Hell, Scott Morrison said “He’s a good man. Good on him for standing up for his faith.”

In fact, Morrison made it his “signature” legislation to enshrine the right of the religious to vilify and actively discriminate against the queer community.

Tonight, we are going to hear how upset Jen and the girls were to hear Scotty called mean names by his colleagues and how unfair that was to read those texts out in public.

Well, Jen, how do you think gay/trans kids feel when your church preaches from the pulpit that they are an abomination who will burn in hell forever unless they give up their evil and unnatural ways?  How do you think that affects gay people of faith?  How must it feel to have your very identity debated by strangers?  How do you think it feels to have parliament vote on who you are and what you can do?

If your husband stopped condoning and facilitating such persecution, it would do a lot more to improve his standing than cooking curries, playing the ukelele (badly – seriously whose idea was that), and shoving his wife and kids in front of him to say ‘please like me’.

Like everyone else, politicians have private lives. Unlike everyone else, increasingly they have been sharing these with us during the course of their work.

Brittany Higgins made a powerful statement during her address to the National Press Club about Scott Morrison’s response to allegations that she was raped in a minister’s office.

“I didn’t want his sympathy as a father… I wanted him to use his power as Prime Minister. I wanted him to wield the weight of his office to drive change.”

Scott’s concerned dad persona wasn’t going to cut it.

No-one could have failed to be touched by Labor MP Stephen Jones when he shared the story of his nephew and son and the harmful affect that the debate about religious freedom has on kids. Surely it doesn’t take having a transgender child to realise that?

Whenever voluntary euthanasia is discussed, we hear politicians recount stories of the passing of an elderly relative regardless of which side of the debate they are on. This is something that everyone faces and everyone’s story is individual. This should be about choice, not competing stories of what happened to every politician’s nan and pop.

Discussion of the NDIS causes the same thing – they tell us about someone they know. Whilst hearing about someone else’s struggles might make people realise they are not alone, it does nothing to assuage the despair that so many carers are feeling. There’s no room left to hear the story of someone who can easily afford to pay for the support they need and the connections to access it.

Sadly, when it comes to domestic violence or sexual harassment or bullying, too many politicians also have personal stories to share.

Should this be necessary? Is it even helpful? Do you have to be personally affected to be able to deliver fair and just legislation? Does using your platform as a politician to tell your own story raise awareness or does it take over? Is listening to individual stories more important than hearing expert advice?

Empathy is great but what we need from politicians is action.

But where the line really gets crossed is when politicians deliberately use their families for image making or political campaigning.

As with everything, Tony Abbott was openly crass in the exploitation of his daughters.

‘If you want to know who to vote for, I’m the guy with the not bad-looking daughters.’

Scott Morrison’s daughters are much younger. Like many young kids, they often seem excited by the cameras and the attention, though I am sensing less so as time passes and they get to the ‘you’re embarrassing me’ stage.

Photos of dad building cubby houses and chicken coops are one thing. Sharing poetry on a very important day when the whole country is listening is another. It’s great to be proud of your kids but it is a parent’s job to also protect them. Morrison’s constant stream of family photos on social media is, at best, unnecessary and, at worst, a shameful disregard for his daughters’ well-being in pursuit of political advantage.  Every time he drags them into the spotlight to try to soften his public image, he risks them copping the consequences of his unpopularity.

I cringe in anticipation of Sunday night’s hard-hitting episode of Karl at Kirribilli where Jen and the girls save the day for the celebrity PM before he gets kicked off the island.

This campaign is not going to be good for anyone’s mental health – perhaps best to leave the families out of it and stick to the issues.

Journalist Karen Middleton, writing for The Saturday Paper, has penned a remarkable analysis around The Lodge Occupant’s apology to those who suffered abuse in parliament. That the first, last and only consideration of The Lodge Occupant is politics should come as a surprise to precisely no-one. However, this is something special.

Delegation and Evasion: The Lodge Occupant and Responsibility

This topic also needs little introduction: recall the phrase ‘I don’t hold a hose, mate’?. But this is just delicious. Middleton reports that

Scott Morrison intended to leave his abuse apology to the presiding officers.

For clarity, ‘the presiding officers’ refers to The Speaker of The House and The President of The Senate. So the original plan was for The Lodge Occupant to delegate responsibility for a change. To give full context here, there had been an agreement between all sides (LNP, Labor, Greens and Independents) on February 3rd that the Presiding Officers would deliver the apology. It was the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, who first considered making a personal address on the subject. There was back and forth between their two staffs, with The Lodge Occupant insisting that the original order be observed. Mr Albanese’s decision to speak regardless of what The Lodge Occupant did forced the latter’s hand. Not wishing for Mr Albanese to upstage him, he was forced to say something. Great: not wanting to be upstaged, rather than actually, you know, addressing the issue was his motivation. Clown.

The Lodge Occupant’s Speech

The speech itself deserves some attention, for there is a gem in here demonstrating The Lodge Occupant’s utter lack of self-awareness. He said, in part

“Over many decades, an ecosystem, a culture, was perpetuated where bullying, abuse, harassment and, in some cases, even violence, became normalised,”

“We don’t shy, nor have we sought to silence the valid and just complaints of people, because there is fear about electoral consequences. I am sorry. We are sorry.”

The first part is quite true, and valid. Parliament was, for a very long time, a ‘boy’s club’ dominated by men. When women became employees (and eventually members) a culture was in place that did not treat women as equals. Fair point. By contrast, the second part must surely ring hollow in light of reporting about Grace Tame receiving a threatening phone call to ‘not say anything damning’ about The Lodge Occupant before the 2022 Australian of The Year Awards. Never sought to silence valid and just complaints? Spare me.

Another Little Gem: Higgins and The Advocates for Change

A second little gem around this speech, as Middleton reports, is the fact that

The advocates’ presence in the chamber was also a late addition. They were initially not invited to watch the apology. Independent MP Zali Steggall facilitated their attendance at the last minute, as her guests, accompanied by one of her staff.

They were not intended to be there? Let us do a brief summary of what we have so far. The Lodge Occupant essentially had to be goaded into saying anything at all, and when he does decide to say something, it takes an independent MP to even have the advocates for change brought into the Chamber. It truly never ceases to amaze how a man so seemingly obsessed with marketing and optics can be so terrible at it.

The Lodge Occupant’s attitude to having to make the address is neatly summed up in this photograph, from Middleton’s piece:

Indeed is all I have to say to that.

A Horror Week for The Lodge Occupant, Part One: The Abuse Speech in Context

Between this issue and the breakdown of the Religious Discrimination Bill, this parliamentary week has not been kind to The Lodge Occupant. Middleton reports that he is feeling the heat too. She writes

The prime minister’s desperate tone would be explained two days later, when Peter van Onselen revealed that the night before, Morrison had been rolled by his own cabinet. The prime minister had put his leadership on the line over his religious freedom bill, trying to persuade his own MPs not to cross the floor against it by proposing to put legislation for a national integrity commission before parliament as well.

But his cabinet colleagues overwhelmingly rejected the strategy.

The Lodge Occupant evidently lacks the ability to read a room. Offering to bring forth the federal ICAC bill to persuade his own troops not to vote against the Religious Freedom Bill? They do not want such a bill anyway! Senator Cash (through a representative) said earlier this week that there was not enough time to debate the bill before the election. This effectively killed the bill. The point is this was not going to mollify the party room.

A Horror Week for The Lodge Occupant, Part Two: Back to What Brought Him to The Dance

A useful illustration of the utter chaos that is this government is found in what happened when the Coalition partyroom meeting continued after Question Time on Tuesday. Middleton reports that The Lodge Occupant said

“If we fail to agree on this, the mountain will be made higher. You will experience opposition – not a place you want to be. I appeal to you to come together.

Interesting, is it not? From conciliatory to issuing threats in mere hours? He must get fired up after Question Time. Instead of attempting to bribe his party room with a bill that was already dead, he was now threatening them with ‘opposition – not a place you want to be’. So, if the party room did not fall in line, they would lose the election and be in opposition. A big threat to a born to rule government. This next point may be coincidence, but is it not interesting that The Lodge Occupant said ‘you will experience opposition’ rather than ‘we will experience opposition’? This suggests either that he thinks he will lose his seat, or he is trying to blame the party (because nothing is ever his fault) for electoral defeat.

Shovels to Earthmoving Equipment: The Lodge Occupant Keeps Digging

This incident offers detailed insight into the chaos going on behind the scenes with the government, and specifically its so-called leader. The Lodge Occupant is no longer using a shovel to dig his political grave; he has brought in a backhoe. The sheer instability of the current regime means that the focus is on themselves rather than governance. The election is not far off, and it remains unclear whether the current Lodge Occupant can survive politically. As my gran used to say, fight you buggers I hate peace.

Spud pulling the wings off butterflies – “I think I will, I think I won’t…”.

You’ve got to feel for der Gruppenfritter. Well, no you don’t – the bloke’s what an arsehole would be if arseholes had an arsehole, or in kinder parlance he’s a fully cooked unit, so rather let’s just have a chuckle at his dilemma – will he deploy an IED or will he hold off hoping Scooter goes full Campbell Newman.

Spud can smell the blood in the water. Herr Shickletuber is no doubt delighted at Scooter’s travails; according to Bob Carr going so far as chucking a grenade down the hallway in the form of a public airing of a scathing text assessment of Scooter’s character as a “fraud” and “complete psycho”.

The potato wedge (someone had to say it).

The minister who shared the text with van Onselen and gave permission to use it was Peter Dutton. If PM Morrison has one more week in free fall the prospect of a leadership change pre-election is real. Party rules don’t count if most MPs think you will lead them to defeat.

— Bob Carr (@bobjcarr) February 6, 2022

Usually immune to embarrassment Scooter’s rapid-fire eyeblinks semaphored his discomfort at the National Press Club when publicly confronted with such an accusation originating from a member of his own cabinet and at his “good friend”* St Gladys’s contribution to same – “a horrible, horrible person more concerned with politics than people.”

*Author’s note: not his good friend.

I can imagine Spud’s excitement at these public humiliations of his foe – a facial tic, a slight flaring of the nostrils. If he possessed eyebrows perhaps he may have lifted one as another indication of his arousal. I’d never given any thought before to the notion of synchronised boners with Spud but in watching the opprobrium build on Scooter I displaced my hot Milo and Scotch Finger from my lap to the carpet due to a phenomenon that’s as rare as a Tory’s kept promise. I felt a fleeting bond with hairless Hitler. Chubby buddies!

Scooter’s messiah complex is evident in his smarmy arrogance and self-regard and his shamelessness but, like his deity, he’s got a vengeful, thin skin – those barbs would’ve stung. Scooter is incapable of introspection and is inclined to retribution but he’s powerless to act on his instincts to undermine his tuberous nemesis so as per the playbook his response was to deny and distract. A photo-op was called for.

In a desperate attempt to divert attention and recover some palatability with pissed off women in particular the self-styled marketing whizz concocted a bizarre mash-up of the shower scene from Psycho and Patrick Swayze’s reach around on Demi Moore in Ghost by washing an innocent woman’s hair.

Image: Some clever clogs on Twitter

Creepy yet hilarious; fondling an unknown woman’s head was Morrison’s attempt to offset his misogynist reputation FFS! Touchy pervy with the vibe of a subliminal baptism – surely a sign this bloke cannot read a room or that some in his inner-circle of image wranglers hate him. Perhaps both.

In watching the unravelling of the Tories as a whole and Morrison’s smirkathon in particular one is inclined to optimism that this unapologetically corrupt and shambolic regime is shortly to be assigned one-way tickets to Dignitas. The opinion polls are promising, independents are threatening once blue ribbon seats, their fuck-ups are affecting the politically disengaged and internal warfare is rife.

Tory cheersquadders Janet Albrechtson from Murdoch’s Daily Riefenstahl and the oleagenous Andrew Bolt on Melbourne’s Hun have both voided on Scooter. The scrotum squeezed through a shirt collar that is Rupert Murdoch does not like backing losers. Likely there’ll be Scomo+Jen hagiographies scheduled for regular release but if Murdoch’s faecal finger of fate points Scooter to the exit he’s in big strife.

We’re in for months of the worst behaviour possible from the desperate Tories. They can and will get dirtier – the prospect of a grilling by counsel assisting with consequent spooning from Bubba on the lower bunk lends itself to fear and panic. We can abhor the coming ugliness while enjoying the thought of their collective puckered sphincters.

Scooter’s god will be on speed-dial but his mendacious, genocidal deity requires careful handling. Tithing and prayer circle schmoozing of his celestial sponsor won’t keep the Tubermensch at bay. In the traditional, unambiguous sign that he’s circling Spud told morning TV he’s “100% behind” Morrison. He would’ve gained new friends if instead he’d said “Scooter is my Prime Minister and I’m ambitious for him.” Will there be a Spud spill? Doubtful, but the prospect is heartening.

Twitter again

This article was originally published on Grumpy Geezer.

By Andrew Wicks  

Scott Morrison might well undermine it, but let’s remember the apocalyptic summer he left us to navigate and later lied about.

Ahead of the 60 Minutes puff piece that will apparently save his job, we got a taste of what to expect, as Scott Morrison has hit the internet playing a ukulele.

Get you a Prime Minister who can do both (sing the same verse of April Sun In Cuba twice) pic.twitter.com/AQ8at4Gzpb

— Josh Butler (@JoshButler) February 11, 2022

The subtext is obvious. Man plays tiny Hawaiian guitar, undermining one of the most notorious scandals during his tenure, when he famously buggered off to Maui on holiday, while exasperated fire officials have reconciled to hold a crisis meeting with themselves as the Prime Minister lied about it.

But, I’m reminded of another song. David Bowie’s album The Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars opens with the end. The first song, Five Years, articulates the hopelessness the average person feels when they realise doomsday will occur in their lifetime.

The song came to mind as the state caught fire. As the sky turned black, we struggled to comprehend what we were seeing. We’re equal parts furious, guilty, and clueless. Yet, at the top, we’re steered by official delusion, as the man who held the power was powerless, as he famously, couldn’t hold a hose.

At the height of the haze, I crossed paths with an angry older man on the phone, voice wafting through the bushfire smoke, yelling at whoever was on the other end, saying that this wasn’t acceptable, and how he shouldn’t have to put up with it.

It’s fair to say that we’ve taken climate change seriously but from a place of comfort. Some tethered themselves to Queensland bitumen, others have constructed a platform to yell from. The scientists told us it was serious, and our politicians told us it wasn’t. The media sat on the fence. We knew we had to do something, so we got together to elect Scott Morrison, a man who brought a lump of coal into parliament.

But I’d wager it took fire as big as Sydney itself to truly understand. Suddenly, the sun was pink, respirators appeared on the street and our previously safe suburbs were on fire lists.

In Bowie’s world, the knowledge arrives via an oddity from elsewhere, the eponymous Ziggy Stardust. In ours, you could argue that Greta Thunberg is our Ziggy, a soothsaying otherworldly interloper, offering truth and fielding criticism.

News guy wept and told us,
Earth was really dying
Cried so much his face was wet,
Then I knew he was not lying.

As far as apocalypses go, the average Sydneysider navigated it with the power of denial. I found myself at a roundabout, stuck behind a person who decided a catastrophic fire day was the best time to take his Sea-doo out for a spin.

On the radio, two identical glossy voices vibrantly spoke about being unable to buy a mask, before cueing up Sade, before giving props to the ‘smooth operators’ who would make a ‘motza’ selling them to those who missed out. When I got home, I was greeted by the genial wave of the elderly babu next door, who was blithely hosing down his property, as the pink sun angrily shook its fist through the blackening pall above.

I think I saw you in an ice-cream parlour,
Drinking milkshakes cold and long.
Smiling and waving and looking so fine,
Don’t think you knew you were in this song.

As far as I can see, we’re split into two camps. The angrily worried, and furiously inactive. You could probably place me, and every other journalist, writer and whoever, in the latter column. This piece serves no purpose. It’s telling us what we already know. We know that 11 times the safe range is not normal. We know that politicians should have listened. We know that we’ve placed greed over money and we know that Scott Morrison is lying to us.

But to those who want to boot Morrison out for dereliction of duty, we should note that his opponent toured the Queensland fossil fuel belt in order to keep his job in three years’ time. I don’t know what that change looks like, which is the problem. Fossil fuels are indelibly linked to the kings and the kingmakers of this land, and true change results in either the tearing down of democracy, or a significant wounding of it. We’re relying on those in power to bow to the polluters, before removing their heads. We’re relying on a significant part of the country to suddenly change their minds. We’re leaning on people to make the correct choice, one that directly impacts their own personal experience.

We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot. Five years, that’s all we’ve got.

While some minds have figured the tipping point to be 2050, or sooner, it’s fair to say that we’ve had enough warnings. We may not be at the hopeless crossroads Bowie found himself at, but we’re not far off. I fear that we’ll readily squander the freedom of this window by our angry inaction and indeed, the hope of a better day in the near future, one where those in power who ignored us before will suddenly listen and do something.

I fear we’ll only truly have this conversation when it is too late, and the only thing left to do, as Bowie noted, indulge ourselves and turn to the binary of common violence.

This article was originally published on The Big Smoke.

It was August 2014 when then assistant defence minister, Stuart Robert, took a “private” trip to Beijing to oversee a mining deal involving a major Liberal donor and meet a Chinese vice-minister.

Robert had a shareholding in Metallum Holdings, which had an interest in Paul Marks’ Nimrod Resources. The Liberal Party declared Mr Marks donated $250,000 as an individual and $500,000 from his company Nimrod Resources in 2013-14.

Robert did not inform anyone in the government that he was going, later insisting he was there in a private capacity. Apparently, he didn’t tell that to the Chinese as detailed in the Guardian: 

A media release issued by China MinMetals Corporation said Robert had extended his congratulations “on behalf of the Australian Department of Defence” and had presented “a medal bestowed to him by Australian prime minister in honour of remembrance and blessing”.

This was followed by a meeting with the Chinese vice-minister of land and resources in the reported presence of Nimrod Resources the next day.

This was far from Robert’s only dealing with influential Chinese.

In 2013 he hosted a dinner in his Parliament House office for Chinese businessman Li Ruipeng, Tony Abbott, Ian McFarlane and Paul Marks after which Li gave them all Rolex watches valued at about $250,000. After “advice from the clerk”, the watches were returned.

And Robert isn’t the only one with close links.

Two years after clinching a historic free trade deal with Beijing, in October 2016, it was announced that former trade minister Andrew Robb had joined the Landbridge Group, a Chinese company which had been granted a 99-year lease on Port Darwin in 2015, as a “high-level economic consultant”. It was reported that Robb had accepted the $73,000 per month position before leaving Parliament. Landbridge Group is chaired by Ye Cheng, a billionaire with links to the Communist Party of China.

ASIO warned the major parties about taking donations from two Chinese property developers because of links to the Chinese Communist Party. The warnings have been ignored.  One of these men donated $50,000 to Andrew Robb’s campaign financing vehicle, the Bayside Forum, on the day the Free Trade Agreement was signed in 2014.

To underscore how ridiculous Peter Dutton’s baseless claims about the Chinese wanting to instal Anthony Albanese, and the whole reds under the bed scare campaign, Australia’s sovereign wealth fund, the Future Fund, has millions invested in a Chinese state-controlled weapons manufacturer. We also host survival training exercises for Chinese military personnel in Queensland and the NT.

I know you are auditioning for the top job, Peter, but this is weirder than your bikie joke and scarier than when you tried out smiling the last time you were undermining a leader.