NSW Government, Perrottet and Hazzard totally out of line bullying nurses and the people of NSW over hospital staffing, $1000 fines over RAT tests and Pharmacies buckling not booming – How the liberals in NSW, like their Federal mates have lost the plot, declare their true colours!

Straight from the ABC – Our Liberal government public broadcaster mouthpiece?

NSW NURSES PROTESTING OVER EXCESSIVE SHIFTS, WORKLOADS & DEMANDS OF NSW HEALTH – ABC reports: ‘Westmead nursing staff protest over excessive overtime – Intensive care nurses will protest this morning at Westmead Hospital in Sydney’s west due to staffing issues. The NSW Nurses and Midwives’ Association [NSWNMA] said the COVID-19 outbreak had put pressure on fatigued nurses to work excessive overtime. NSWNMA Acting General Secretary Shaye Candish said staff and patient safety was being compromised and called on the state government for immediate support. “The NSW government needs be up-front with the community and concede the health system is not coping,” she said’.

PUBLIC COMMENT – So all those daily briefings where Perrottet, Hazzard and Berejiklian before them, thanked and praised nurses, and told the people of NSW how well our hospitals and NSW Health are coping was all lies. Meanwhile behind the scenes, not only is NSW Health not coping but they are attacking nurses, forcing them off hard-earned planned annual leave, back to work while still COVID +ve jeopardising patient care, infection control procedures, standards and staffing, and bullying them into excessive overtime.

Hello – Now the NSW government and Health resort to excessive measures and bullying, showing their true colours. Not grateful or supportive of nurses at all, but then we knew that already since they had to repeat it every day to the press in public briefings to convince themselves with their own lies, deceit and denials. NSW Health clearly is buckling and the government resorts to further excessive force on its own long–suffering workforce. So tell us where are those tens of thousands of nurses promised by Greg Hunt yesterday from the private sector? Where are they? Don’t these Liberal governments talk to each other at all? Would that not be supportive? Is that too hard for Mr Hazzard and Perrottet?

Who gives a RATS? Clearly not Perrottet or Hazzard, and not Morrison.

Source: ABC NEWS LIVE: NSW Now – 19 January 2022 – https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-19/westmead-nursing-staff-protest-over-excessive-overtime/100763994

Diary No 5: January 19 2022

1 How is it possible that the attention of the world is so focused on a magnificent sportsman who, in essence, has tried to cheat his way into the Australian Tennis Open? I ask this question in defence of comparative justice. And l defend my use of the term comparative justice with another question.

How does the attention thrust on this tennis player who admits to being an anti-vaccination believer and refuses a jab compare with the plight of a group of asylum seekers housed in the same cheap lodgings? He was incarcerated or inconvenienced for a few days; they have completed as many as ten years imprisonment for never committing a crime.

According to our Government, their crime has been to seek the safety of Australian shores when persecuted by their own. Even after ten years of incarceration, there is no room for empathy from people whose blood runs thin through barren thoughts. If my words were able to jump from this page, I would command them to do so and confront these nefarious politicians’ intent only on using people’s lives to show how strict their border policy is.

Friday, January 14

Scott Morrison has made yet another political decision to send Djokovic home. A decision made only after calculating that the enormity of any alternative was a political cost he couldn’t carry.

Back in the real world, 32 detainees at Melbourne Park’s Hotel – where Djokovic was detained – didn’t receive the same celebrity attention as the tennis player.

Efforts to free them have been frowned on by the Morrison government: A government that is much more interested in Novak Djokovic and the political gain in the story.

Their objections have been dismissed yet again, the refugees and asylum seekers involved in this sad episode in Australian history. The forgotten men and boys who have been abandoned after up to 10 years of indefinite detention placed their weary eyes on putrid windows. They watched as people gathered in the streets below, waving Serbian flags and chanting support for the tennis great.

A more intense exercise in personal narcissism l have ever seen.

Not a word was heard from Djokovic about their plight. He was undoubtedly preoccupied with winning another grand slam, and the Government was busy putting out the flames of yet another controversy.

Djokovic could have used his high-profile position “to advocate for their freedom” but chose his own self-importance as being more critical.

We live in a country where good takes its place in front of evil, but the margin is slipping by degree.

6pm Sunday, January 16

Novak Djokovic loses his appeal to stay in Australia after the Federal Court upholds the Government’s decision to cancel the tennis star’s visa. The three judges’ unanimous decision and the reasons will be published later.

Notably, the case was about Minister Hawk’s authority to make the decision he did and had nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of it.

The judges concluded that: “It is no part of the function of the court to decide upon the merits or wisdom of the decision.”

Never have I seen so many double faults in one game.

2 If rules are rules, how did Hillsong avoid a fine for singing and dancing. There are rules for some but none for others. Added to that, they seem to have an endless supply of RATS. How come?

Sunday, January 16

I, for one, am sick of the political scam that takes place in Australia every three years or every day, for that matter. Something has to be done. If Labor cannot win this election, I sincerely fear for our nation and its future.

Australian politics has for over a decade been suffering from the longevity of sameness. I advocate a change in the way it is practised. We don’t have a representative and participatory democracy that administers for the benefit of all. It is time to evaluate just what we want from our democracy.

Change is needed, but it is more difficult for them because it is anathema to the conservative mindset. For progressive Democrats, it should be uncomplicated.

Anyway, I was thinking about whether it will be enough to just go through the motions of bland, vapid promises and a traditional election campaign. Will it achieve a Labor victory?

Albo’s low key philosophy in the face of a self-destructing Government might work, but if you offer to give the people back its democracy, you might emphatically secure victory.

We are at a point in our history where “change” demands it to be listened to. Where the events of a decade scream out for it. It only requires the voice of a natural leader to order it on behalf of the people.

The definition of servitude needs to be indelibly ingrained into the minds of those seeking election. And the self-serving attitudes that now exist need to be purged from the minds of our current politicians.

Brian Briggs tweeted. Never in my 35 years in the law have I seen a Federal Court Appeal proceed so quickly and before a Full Bench and on a Sunday. Some serious strings have been pulled by someone for this to occur. Normally the wheels of justice turn slowly.

We await the court’s reply.

When Barnaby Joyce regained the leadership of the Nationals in June last year, no-one could have been happier than his dear friend and supporter, Gina Rinehart.

She immediately offered to host a party for him. Those VIPs lucky enough to secure an invitation to spend an evening with Barnaby and Gina at her palatial coastal hideaway in Noosa could secure their spot for a mere $10,000 a head.

At a fundraiser for Wide Bay MP Llew O’Brien shortly after their soiree, Barnaby sang Gina’s praises, which Ms Rinehart has graciously shared with us on her website.

Mr Joyce spoke of the LNP’s belief in the importance of the individual to be master of their own game as opposed to being controlled by the state.

He praised the efforts of his long-time “mate”, mining magnate Gina Rinehart, who attended the event.

“Gina is one of the most powerful women in the world,” he said. “If we had more Gina’s we’d have a more powerful nation,” he said.

Barnaby holds a special place in the wallet that occupies the space where Ms Rinehart’s heart should be.

In 2011, Joyce was one of three Coalition MPs flown on Rinehart’s private jet to Hyderabad in India for the wedding of the granddaughter of a coal-mining associate.

In 2013, she donated $50,000 to his election campaign for the lower house seat of New England.

In 2017, pursuant to personal correspondence with Ms Rinehart, Barnaby’s department donated $60,000 towards hosting National Agricultural and Related Industries Day.  Imagine his surprise when, at said event, he was named a “champion of farming” and awarded a $40,000 personal cheque from Gina.

After being initially “humbled” and saying he was going to use it to fix up his farm, Barnaby later returned the cheque following a perhaps predictable public backlash.

Gina is not the only mate Barnaby looks after, as revealed by his conversation with irrigators in a Shepparton pub.

Responsibility for water was handed to the Nationals as part of the party’s coalition agreement with the Liberal Party in 2015.

After a Four Corners program showing alleged (must we really keep saying that?) water theft in the Murray-Darling Basin, Joyce rushed to reassure irrigators that he was there to protect their interests.

“We have taken water, put it back into agriculture, so we could look after you and make sure we don’t have the greenies running the show basically sending you out the back door, and that was a hard ask,” he said in the recording.

“A couple of nights ago on Four Corners, you know what that’s all about? It’s about them trying to take more water off you, trying to create a calamity. A calamity for which the solution is to take more water off you, shut more of your towns down.”

In Joyce’s mind, it is the ABC creating the calamity. Tell that to the fish.

According to Barnaby, “One of the most effective forms of recycling of capital is in water infrastructure, because water is wealth and a dam is a bank.”

Even talking about water infrastructure can make some people wealthy.

Take Urannah dam, for example.

In July 2021, Barnaby Joyce issued a press release about delivering funds to keep the idea moving:

“The Australian Government is fully funding the $22.65 million business case and approvals project, which is expected to be completed in mid-2022. The Australian Government also previously committed $3 million to fund a feasibility study for the project.”

In fact, he missed another $2 million grant given to the project by Angus Taylor in 2020.

Without going into exhaustive detail, since 2016, this project has received 4 different grants from 3 different ministers and 3 different funds.

The grants have ostensibly been given to different companies except, via non-transparent funding and subcontracting arrangements, they all come back to Bowen River Utilities – a company that, according to the Guardian, is worth $100 on paper and whose sole director is John Cotter Jr, a former member of the LNP executive and active fundraiser and donor, who employs Jason Frecklington, husband of former Queensland LNP leader Deb Frecklington.

Bowen River Utilities also happens to be the proponent of the Urannah dam though it is unclear how they could possibly come up with the multi-billion-dollar price tag to build it.  They also have no expertise to do the required studies. Or do they just get $27.65 million of taxpayer funds to do their business case to sell to prospective investors?

Additonal to the dam, the proposal also includes a 22,500 hectare agricultural precinct, as well as water for mining projects and urban areas, and a hydro-electric power station.

Documents submitted by Bowen River Utilities to the federal government for environmental assessment show they have consulted major coalmine operators in the Bowen Basin about buying water from Urannah.

Gina wants more dams, among other things like more land-clearing, special economic zones in northern Australia, the elimination of payroll tax and stamp duty, and for pensioners to be able to fill the labour shortage without losing part of their pension. Always on the lookout for cheap labour, our Gina.

Barnaby and Gina are mates – what Gina wants, Barnaby will find a way to make us pay for.

Australia’s treatment of Novak Djokovic, the tennis world number one, has been revelatory. Unintentionally, this has exposed the seedier, arbitrary and inconsistent nature of Australia’s border policies. The approval by the Australian Federal Court of the Immigration Minister Alex Hawke’s decision to re-cancel the prominent Serb’s visa left the country a heaving precedent that will be invoked, in future, with relish.

Djokovic had originally entered the country under the assumption that he had been granted a legitimate vaccine exemption. As the former Australian Tennis Open director Paul McNamee explained to the ABC, “every player and support member fills in a form, visa 408, and everyone does that, you are guided through it by Tennis Australia, every step of the way, and then you get approval, that is the process.”  

On December 30, 2021, Djokovic received a letter from the Chief Medical Officer of Tennis Australia explaining that he had been granted a “Medical exemption from COVID vaccination” on the grounds that he had recently recovered from COVID-19. The exemption certificate had been furnished by an Independent Medical Review panel commissioned by Tennis Australia and approved by the Victorian state government’s independent Medical Exemptions Review Panel.

To cap things off, the Department of Home Affairs informed Djokovic that his Australia Travel Declaration has also been given the nod. His “responses [i]ndicated that [he met] the requirements for a quarantine-free travel into Australia where permitted by the jurisdiction of your travel.”

The story turned out rather differently. Such documentation proved insufficient for Djokovic on entering Australia on January 5. A delegated officer of the Australian Border Force hastily cancelled his visa, giving Djokovic insufficient notice to prepare his explanation on the morning of January 6. It was this procedural blunder that led to the Serb’s victory in the Federal Circuit Court, where Judge Anthony Kelly stated the following with some pungency: “Here, a professor and a physician have produced and provided to (Djokovic) a medical exemption. Further to that, that medical exemption and the basis on which it was given was separately given by a further independent expert specialist panel established by the Victorian state government […] The point I am agitated about is, what more could this man have done?”  

The Commonwealth, for its part, rejected claims that any deferral of vaccination should not have been read as an excuse not to get vaccinated. The Tennis Australia exemption letter did not constitute sufficient information for the purpose of entering the country unvaccinated.

Exercising ministerial discretion

The Commonwealth’s defeat in the Federal Circuit Court did not end matters. Hawke was left to exercise his vast executive discretion in a none-too Solomonic way. The federal Labor opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, wondered whether the government was conducting a focus group in order to receive “the answer before it responds to the issue.”

As Hawke dithered, Djokovic was ritually torched in media and social media circles for incorrectly filling out the travel declaration. Much of the kindling had been provided by the tennis player himself. He had, it transpired, been in Spain; his agent had made a “human error” in stating that he had not travelled abroad in the 14 days prior to arriving in Australia on January 5.  

He had also breached Serbian pandemic restrictions by avoiding isolating for 14 days after receiving a positive PCR result on December 16. Instead, on December 17, he breezily attended a tennis event in Belgrade where he presided over the giving of awards to children and, on the following day, conducted an interview with French journalist Franck Ramellaof L’Equipe. “The instructions were clear,” Ramella subsequently wrote on realising that the tennis star had done the interview after testing positive for COVID-19. There were to be “no questions about vaccination.”

This was all a bit much even for the otherwise supportive Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabić, who told the BBC, “If you’re positive you have to be in isolation.” She did, however, leave it to Djokovic to explain the matter. “I do not know when he actually got the results, when he saw the results, so there is some grey area… the only answer to this can be provided by Novak.”

This growing resume of seeming shiftiness did not augur well for Djokovic’s already anaemically thin chances. The Minister had been furnished with fuel and duly ignited it. The cancellation came, timed with brutal effect, on January 14. It had been made “on health and good order grounds, on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.” The Australian Open, for which Djokovic had started training for on court, was to commence on January 17.

The threat inflation factor

Within hours, the legal team began proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia in a speedy effort to overturn Hawke’s cancellation. The government submission was telling, consciously magnifying the Djokovic threat. He had “indicated publicly that he was opposed to becoming vaccinated against COVID-19.” He had “acted inconsistently with certain COVID-19 restrictions in the past.”  

The second ground drew more attention to the first point, with the Minister insisting that Djokovic was stirring an anti-vaccination insurrection: “[T]here are some media reports that some groups opposed to vaccination have supported Mr Djokovic’s presence in Australia, by reference to his unvaccinated status.” The ground was barely credible, given that his reservations about vaccination were already known before entering Australia. As is often the case Down Under, the Australian public is treated as a potentially wayward child who might be tempted by anti-institutional contrarianism.

The third ground followed on from the first: that encouraging such resistance against COVID-19 vaccinations and restrictions “would present a problem for the health of individuals and the operation of Australia’s hospital system.” What a revolutionary monster the Serbian player was being made out to be.

Djokovic’s submission

The defence outlined, plausibly, that Hawke had engaged in a crude bit of threat inflation. It was one thing to deport an individual who, posing an individual health risk, had entered Australia lacking a medical exemption and inconsistently with the guidelines of ATAGI (Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation). It was quite another to do so to a person “who poses negligible individual health risk, enter with an exemption, and consistently with ATAGI guidelines, etc.”  

Such reasoning, it followed, was “perverse, illogical, or irrational” and distinctly “out of keeping with the proper exercise of a power the purpose of which is to reduce risk to health.” This also ignored that the cancellation “creates a much larger health risk (or good order risk).”

The Minister had also not addressed “in express terms” what those dangerous consequences to health and good order Djokovic posed might be. This was a “counterfactual” that the Minister did not consider. The “anti-vaccination sentiment” approach was also at odds with the original delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs.  

In attempting to hole Hawke’s argument, emphasis was placed on the Minister’s one-sided approach in considering the consequences of Djokovic’s presence, rather than absence. It might very well be that the visa cancellation, the Serb’s detention and deportation, rather than the player’s presence in Australia, could cause unrest. “Mr Djokovic’s point is that that material [suggesting that anti-vaccination groups were upset at the cancellation and his detention] is not referred to or considered in the Minister’s reasons.”

Valiantly, the defence also argued that Hawke’s discretion to cancel the visa could not be undertaken “on an evidence-free figment of his imagination.” The point on whether there was evidence supporting the contention that Djokovic’s presence “may foster sentiment against vaccination” was not addressed. The media reports cited by the Minister to supposedly show anti-vaccination support by groups in Australia failed to even mention Djokovic.

The mess became even more elaborate with the defence salvo that the Minister did not himself know what Djokovic’s actual views on vaccination were. This was despite claiming that his anti-vaccination stance was a “well-known” one. “This,” the submission bluntly states, “is illogical.” Djokovic’s statement for the record should, the argument went, lead one to an inference that his public views had been “taken out of context” and that he did “not accept the depiction by the ‘international media’ of his views on vaccination.”

All it would have taken was a request by Hawke that Djokovic furnish him with material on the issue. As the player had previously pointed out in other media reports, he was “no expert” on vaccinations and was keeping an “open mind” on the issue; he simply wanted to have “an option to choose” what was “best” for his body.

Dark consequences, sinister precedents

On Sunday, January 16, the decision of the full court of the Federal Court was handed down. (Full reasons are yet to be published.) In finding for the Commonwealth, Chief JusticeJames Allsop affirmed the traditional reservation shown by Australian judges to challenging exercises of executive power. The grounds made by Djokovic “focus on whether the decision was, for different reasons, irrational or legally unreasonable. It is not part or function of the court to decide upon the merit or wisdom of the decision.”

The Djokovic precedent presents the authorities with a large tarring brush, one to be used against other notable figures of certain opinions seen to pose a risk to Australia’s public interest. Hypotheticals will suffice, given that the Minister need only be satisfied that the person might be a risk to health, safety and good order.  

Such latitude also grants authorities a heavy hand to target future dissent and protest. The Australian government will be able “to justify,” barrister and president of Liberty Victoria Mike Stanton warns, “the suppression of legitimate political expression because others might engage in unrest.”  

With a stunning lack of imagination, the Djokovic precedent promises that the executive will not be accountable for the disorder and disruption arising from deporting individuals who might command a following. Oppression promises to be twinned with unpardonable stupidity.

Scott Morrison has an arrogant certainty about him.  Whether this comes from his self-perceived divine ordination, his devotion to ideology, an inflated view of his own merit, or a fear of appearing weak, it is an increasingly dangerous trait.

He just won’t listen.

ScoMo perceives advice as criticism.  If he didn’t think of it, and announce it first, then it’s not worth doing.

Like procuring and providing free rapid antigen tests to the community when you decide to “push through” with no restrictions and send everyone back to work and school as we approach the peak of a pandemic we have worked so hard to slow for two years.

Transport Workers Union national secretary Michael Kaine told ABC News Breakfast this morning that “there is no plan” to address supply and staff shortages in the sector.

“We wrote to Scott Morrison in September with a follow-up in October last year, saying it was critical, amongst other things, that road transport supply chains, were flooded with rapid antigen tests because we could see in the context of the Delta outbreak that if we intended to reopen, we needed to ensure that workers were testing negative and we were maximising the number of healthy people in supply chains or we would have a problem.

That was dismissed by the Morrison government. They don’t listen to the voices of workers… His approach here is to send back into the work force those people that we have deemed for the last two years close contacts, are most likely to be carrying the virus without knowing it. That means that we could actually be making matters worse.”

Similarly, there is still no plan on how to staff schools on short notice when teachers inevitably ring in sick.

The pattern was the same when former fire chiefs implored the Morrison government to act on climate change and better prepare the nation for extreme fire seasons ahead. The government would not meet the experts to hear the advice, let alone implement it.

When disaster struck, the excuses flowed.  It was the Greens fault for stopping hazard reduction burns.  It was just those “raving inner-city lunatics” and “woke capital-city greenies” who thought climate change had anything to do with it.  It was arsonists setting the fires.  And apparrently we had enough people to hold hoses so Scotty could take a well-earned morale-boosting rest.

Advice that Robodebt was illegal was also ignored, presumably because they thought poor people wouldn’t have the resources to challenge it.

Having subsequently been forced to repay $1.8 billion to over 400,000 people, the government is now appealing a FOI direction to release documents regarding how the scheme came about, claiming there is “strong public interest” in preserving the secrecy of “business case” documents because “ministers would not receive full and frank information if there was concern any deliberations would be made public”.

The Sanctity of the Cabinet?

Senior ministers between 2015 and 2016 included the former social services ministers, Scott Morrison and Christian Porter, who were members of cabinet, and the former human services ministers, Marise Payne and Alan Tudge, who were not.

Instead of listening to experts about the parlous state of the Great Barrier Reef, the government bribed delegates with resort holidays to get them to keep it off the World Heritage Endangered list.  Conflict of interest was ignored as money was given to kill a few crown of thorn starfish and attention focused on plastics.  Anything but climate change.  Land clearing and coastal development continue apace.

The idea of formalising a mechanism to listen to Indigenous Australians sent the government into a hissy fit.  A third Chamber!  A usurping of power!  Racist!

When several Liberal Party women spoke out about the bullying and intimidation they endured during the leadership spill that installed Scott Morrison, he said he would investigate internally.  A week later, he informed us that South Australian Liberal senator Lucy Gichuhi had told him she was not bullied by anyone in Canberra and no names of any perpetrators had been provided to him.

Morrison said politics was a very “torrid” business and his inquiries to date had not yielded evidence of “gender-specific actions” in relation to what some people would characterise as “very intense lobbying which is fairly normal in the political process, albeit not edifying”.

Having been in parliament for almost fifteen years, it’s hard to believe that Morrison hadn’t observed any “gender-specific actions” for himself since the place is a hotbed of sexual harassment, abuse and coercion.  Apparently, the only woman he listens to is Jen.

The flooding of the media by the Djokovic case has tangentially drawn attention to Australia’s draconian border enforcement and the plight of the refugees who have been held hostage for nine years.

When Morrison was told about the declining health and the neglect and abuse of children in detention, he denied it and accused advocates of promoting self-harm.  When told that refugees are suffering torture, he claimed our strong borders make that necessary.  Which makes his newfound concern about the mental health issues caused by state border closures sound very hollow.

It really doesn’t matter what issue is facing the nation, risk assessment and expert advice are ignored in favour of tame consultants, ministerial decree, contracts without tender, grants without due process, and appointments without merit.  We have panels and departments and commissions and reviews to make recommendations – all routinely ignored.  To have such unerring confidence that you know better is foolhardy.

Australia is paying a high price for Morrison’s hubris.

By TBS Newsbot  

Dominic Perrottet promising to fine anyone who fails to register their positive RAT is more than draconian; it’s delusional.

Faced with spiralling COVID cases, long lines at testing facilities and a health system on the brink, NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet enshrined the era of “personal responsibility” whereupon it was up to the people of his state to do the right thing and get tested. This was predicated on citizens being able to find rapid antigen tests that haven’t been ordered and not catch COVID, despite everything remaining open. To help track these new cases, QR codes would be discontinued, and masks would no longer be mandatory.

Today, the goalposts have shifted further, as Perrottet has announced a $1,000 fine for those who haven’t registered their positive test since January 1. It’s beyond farcical for two reasons, as Perrottet is punishing people for a situation he created, and the state has openly admitted that they have no idea how they’re going to police it.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, NSW’s health department was in talks with the Crown Solicitor’s Office to figure out how to legally enforce logging rapid tests.

“There has been much discussion regarding the possibility of mandatory enforcement and the health lawyers are consulting with Crown Solicitor’s to look at what may be possible… at the end of the day, it’s an obligation on all of us to make sure that we log in to the Service NSW app, particularly as it will give a clear picture of how the virus is moving through the community,” Hazzard told SMH

This, mind you, is the same app that we were told that we no longer need to use. Those still doing the right thing (against the official advice) will know that their check-in history is littered with close contacts, making the new plan to stop the virus already obsolete.

What’s more, we’ve seen this behaviour before.

In May 2021, one man’s thirst for the right barbecue returned Sydney to the embrace of COVID restrictions. For those who missed the story, one Sydney man in his 50s travelled to numerous barbecue outlets over the weekend, a voyage of more than 100 kilometres and more than seven stops.

As Kevin Nguyen of the ABC noted at the time, “The man’s nine other close contacts have returned negative swabs, but NSW Health remains concerned about a swathe of venues around Sydney the cases have visited while infectious. It’s prompted Premier Gladys Berejiklian to tighten social distancing restrictions.”

A month earlier, Gladys Berejiklian announced that citizens would no longer have the right to assemble with more than one person outside, besides their immediate family.

The NSW Police Force were empowered to ensure compliance with the two-person rule, under threat of a $1,000 infringement notice. And that was just one of the string of other recently enforced regulations designed to save our lives, as well as criminalise them.

At the time, Berejiklian also handed over the full reins of the COVID-19 pandemic response to NSW police commissioner Mick Fuller.

“A sensible escalation”

“We know there are some new laws that will come in line tonight in relation to two people being out together – that’s sensible,” the NSW police commissioner told reporters at the time. “We don’t want to have to enforce these laws.” Indeed, the transfer of power came soon after Berejiklian closed down state parliament – one day following the PM’s closure of federal parliament.

Soon thereafter, Health Minister Brad Hazzard passed a number of public health orders with new “laws” involving social distancing and quarantining. Issued under the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW), if these orders are breached a person is liable to up to 6 months prison time and/or a fine of $11,000.

According to the official lettering, “The object of this Order is to give certain Ministerial directions to deal with the public health risk of COVID-19 and its possible consequences. In particular, this Order directs that a person must not, without reasonable excuse, leave the person’s place of residence. Examples of a reasonable excuse include leaving for reasons involving: obtaining food or other goods and services, or travelling for the purposes of work or education if the person cannot do it at home, or exercise, or medical or caring reasons.”

Last year, the NSW Police Force announced that it would have thousands of extra police on the streets enforcing COVID laws, in an attempt, as NSW police minister David Elliot put it, “to kill this virus before it kills us.”

Indeed.

This article was originally published on The Big Smoke.

The operating doctrine of many a defence ministry is premised on fatuity. There is the industry prerogative and need for employment. There are the hectoring think tanks writing in oracular tones of warning that the next “strategic” change is peeking around the corner. Purchases of weapons are then made to fight devils foreign and invisible, with the occasional lethal deployment against the local citizenry who misbehave. This often leads to purchases that should put the decision maker in therapy.

Australia’s war-wishing Defence Minister Peter Dutton may be in urgent need of such treatment, but he is unlikely to take up the suggestion, preferring to pursue an arms program of delusional proportions. His mental soundness was not helped by last year’s establishment of AUKUS and the signals of enthusiastic militarism from Washington. Having cut ties with the French defence establishment over what was a trouble-plagued submarine contract, Dutton has been an important figure in ensuring that Australia will continue its naval problems with a future nuclear-powered submarine.

Submarines are seaborne phallic reassurances for the naval arm of defence. Stubbornly expensive and always stressing celebrated potential over proven reality, they stimulate the defence establishment. The land-based forces, however, will also have their toys and stimulants, their own slice of make believe. And Dutton is promising them a few, including tanks.

This month, the minister announced that Australia will be spending A$3.5 billion on 120 tanks and an assortment of other armoured vehicles, including 29 assault breacher vehicles and 17 joint assault bridge vehicles. All will be purchased from the US military machine. This will also include 75 M1A2 main battle tanks, which will replace the 59 Abrams M1A1s, purchased in 2007 and kept in blissful quarantine, untouched by actual combat.

Reading from the script of presumed military relevance, Dutton declared that, “[t]eamed with the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, Combat Engineering Vehicles, and self-propelled howitzers, the new Abrams will give our soldiers the best possibility of success and protection from harm.”

Chief of Army Lieutenant General Rick Burr was also of the view that, “The main battle tank is at the core of the ADF’s Combined Arms Fighting System, which includes infantry, artillery, communications, engineers, attack helicopters and logistics.” Tanks were versatile creatures, able to be “used in a wide range of scenarios, environments and levels of conflict in the region.”

To dispel any notion that this purchase simply confirmed Australian deference and obedience to US military power, the defence minister also claimed that the new Abrams “will incorporate the latest development in Australian sovereign capabilities, including command, control, communications, computers and intelligence systems, and benefit from the intended manufacture of tank ammunition in Australia.”

In other words, once Australia finishes with these cherished, dear imports, adjusted as they are bound to be for the ADF, they are more likely to be extortionately priced museum pieces rather than operable weapons of flexible deployment.

This latest tank infatuation is yet another example of how parts of the ADF and the Australian public service can never be accused of being historically informed, at least in any meaningfully accurate way. The same goes for the current defence minister, hardly a bookworm of the history muse Cleo.

The last time Australia deployed tanks in combat was during the Vietnam War, that other grand failure of military adventurism. They were never used in Australia’s engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite being lauded as being a necessary vehicle in beating down insurgency movements.

The 2016 Defence White Paper left room for a range of scenarios that make little mention of tanks. It labours over the US-China relationship, “the enduring threat of terrorism” emanating from “ungoverned parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia,” notes the threats posed by “state fragility” and the “emergence of new complex, non-geographic threats, including cyber threats to the security of information and communications systems.” At best, it throws away a line without elaboration: that the ADF will need “tank upgrades and new combat engineering equipment.”

Critics of the purchase have included otherwise hawkish pundits such as Greg Sheridan of The Australian, who spent some of last year shaking his head at the proposed acquisition after it was announced by the US Defence Cooperation Agency. The decision, he opined unleashing his talons, was one of “sheer idiocy,” an “anachronistic frivolity.” Tanks and other heavy, tracked vehicles would “never be of the slightest military use to us.”

Sheridan poses a range of questions. In any confrontation with China, could a tank defend shipping in the South China Sea? Or “take out enemy submarines?” Or “deliver attack missiles over hundreds of kilometres?” His solutions: buy more jets, manufacture more drones, and address naval capabilities.

Others also argue that Dutton, were he to be genuinely interested in Australia’s security and safety, would be spending more time on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and coping with the threats posed by climate change, or investing in pandemic responses. Now that would be a big ask.

The tank fraternity, a gathering of near cultic loyalty, are swooning in triumph. As Peter J. Dean, director of the Defence and Security Institute at the University of Western Australia remarked last year, their membership has never proven shy. Cults tend to show that utility is secondary to the importance of steadfast faith.

January 10, 2022 will be remembered as one of the odder days in the annals of sport. For one, it had little to do with physical exertion. Tennis proved secondary to the claims of one Novak Djokovic, currently the world’s number one ranked player. Instead of finding himself training on court in preparation for the Australian Open, he found himself with a legal team in the recently created Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. His purpose: to challenge the decision to cancel his Temporary Activity visa (subclass 408 in bureaucratic lingo), after his arrival in Australia just prior to midnight on January 5.

The visa was granted on November 18 last year and, according to his court submission, “was subject to no condition having the effect that his right to enter and remain in Australia was qualified in any way in regard his vaccination status.” On December 30, 2021 the player received a letter from the Chief Medical Officer of Tennis Australia noting that he had been granted a “Medical exemption from COVID vaccination” on the grounds that he had recently recovered from COVID-19.

The letter also noted a range of salient points. Djokovic, for instance, recorded the first positive COVID PCR test on December 16, 2021. Fourteen days had expired; the player had shown no relevant symptoms of a fever or respiratory symptoms in the last 72 hours. The exemption certificate had been provided by an Independent Medical Review panel commissioned by Tennis Australia and duly reviewed and approved by an independent Medical Exemptions Review Panel of the Victorian State Government. These exemption conditions were also deemed consistent with the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI).

On January 1, 2021, the Department of Home Affairs informed Djokovic that his Australia Travel Declaration had been assessed and approved. His “responses [i]ndicated that [he met] the requirements for a quarantine-free travel into Australia where permitted by the jurisdiction of your travel.”

It then came as quite a shock that his visa was cancelled after arriving in Melbourne International airport by a delegate of the Australian Border Force. He had been held, incommunicado, for eight hours (till approximately 8 am, January 6). After being notified of the decision, Djokovic was hurried off to the infamous Park Hotel in Melbourne where he, in his defence team’s words, was detained “notwithstanding his requests to be moved to a more suitable place of detention that would enable him to train and condition for the Australian Tennis Open should this present challenge to the Purported Decision be successful.”

Judge Anthony Kelly had to confront a veritable blizzard of legal grounds, eight in all. Among other things, these focused on the purported invalidity of the notice given to Djokovic in cancelling the visa. The immigration minister could only exercise a discretion to cancel the visa after considering that notice. There were also time constraints in making that decision, and considerations of natural justice.

The cardinal point remained the differing readings by Djokovic and the Commonwealth government on the nature of the medical exemption. For the tennis player, testing positive on December 16 exempted him from the vaccination requirement for six months, a reading based on ATAGI’s statement to that effect.

The Commonwealth rejected this interpretation, claiming that having a previous infection did not dispense with the need to be vaccinated before entering Australia. A deferral of vaccination should not have been read as an excuse not to get vaccinated. Placing such heavy reliance on the Tennis Australia exemption letter did not constitute sufficient information for the purpose of entering the country unvaccinated. The government also disputed whether Djokovic had an “acute major medical illness” last month. “All he said is that he tested positive for COVID-19. This is not the same.” (Djokovic did himself few favours in that regard, having been photographed at public events following the positive test.)

In terms of the constitutional pecking order, the government lawyers were eager to pull rank. It did not ultimately matter what Tennis Australia had concluded, or, for that matter, what the Victorian government had done. In submissions to the court, the government asserted that there was “no such thing as an assurance of entry by a non-citizen into Australia.” The Commonwealth had the final say.

Remarkably, and disturbingly, it is also clear that the same thing applies to Australian citizens, who have no formal constitutional guarantee of a right to return or re-enter their country despite such a position being protected at international law.

At points, the denseness of the legal argument struck a nerve. The number of acronyms used stirred the judicial bench. “You’re going to have to drag yourself back to the last century,” stated the judge pointedly to Djokovic’s lawyer, Nick Wood. “I hate acronyms.”

But the government lawyers fared worse, being told witheringly that, “Here, a professor and a physician have produced and provided to (Djokovic) a medical exemption. Further to that, that medical exemption and the basis on which it was given was separately given by a further independent expert specialist panel established by the Victorian state government […] The point I am agitated about is, what more could this man have done?”

Both sides eventually agreed that the notice requirement for Djokovic had not been adequately satisfied. In the words of the court order, the “decision to proceed with the interview and make a decision to cancel the applicant’s visa pursuant to s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was unreasonable.” This was because Djokovic had been told at 5.20am on January 6 that he would have until 8.30am to “provide comments in response to a notice of intention to consider cancellation” under that same provision. Impatiently, the authorities had sought comments at 6.14am, with the decision to cancel the visa being made at 7.42am.

Despite quashing the cancellation decision and mandating that Djokovic be released from immigration detention “without limitation thereto […] by no later than 30 minutes after them making of this Order,” counsel representing the Commonwealth made an ominous promise. The Minister for Immigration “may consider whether to exercise a personal power of cancellation” under the Migration Act.

In response, Judge Kelly insisted that he be “fully informed in advance” of such developments, warning that “the stakes had risen rather than receded.” Any cancellation will promise further litigation and the prospect that Djokovic be barred from entering the country for three years, though this requirement can be waived.

In this episode of pandemic bureaucracy has seen a number of inglorious achievements. The Commonwealth has done its bit to conjure up a monster of its own making. It failed to follow its own notice requirements of visa cancellation in shabby fashion. It created an exemption system lacking in clarity and liable to be interpreted, at points freely, by state and sporting bodies. It aided the tarnishing of tennis and an international tournament whilst almost causing a diplomatic incident with Serbia.

Even as the threat of cancellation for Djokovic hovers, the one thing that will not be cancelled will be the indefinite detention regime for refugees of which the tennis star sampled, if only briefly. That the prominent Serbian was ever asked to be an impromptu spokesman for those detained for years in Australia’s very own minted concentration camp system suggested, in Behrouz Boochani’s words, “that politics is broken there.” His advice: that true power lay within the borders of a country with its citizens, rather than that of a celebrity.

We will never know the full extent of what our government has signed up to with their AUKUS deal but it is increasingly looking like we are to become the dumping ground for obsolete armaments.

On Monday, Peter Dutton issued a press release announcing that Australia has locked in the purchase of more than 120 tanks and other armoured vehicles from the United States, at a cost of $3.5 billion.

“Army will receive up to 75 M1A2 SEPv3 Abrams tanks, 29 M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles, 17 M1074 Joint Assault Bridge Vehicles and an additional six M88A2 Armoured Recovery Vehicles.”

One wonders why Dutton waited till now to make that announcement since the US government let the cat out of the bag last year, as reported on June 1 in The Australian.

“The only reason any of this is known is because major US arms exports have to be notified to Congress – and on April 29 the world learnt of a possible sale to Australia of 160 M1A1 hulls and a great deal of related hardware.”

To give some context, Australia’s last deployment of tanks was in the Vietnam War.  In 2007, we bought 59 Abrams M1A1s which have never seen combat.  As one commentator quipped, “It is almost as if army buys these things and then doesn’t want to scratch the paint.”

According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Abrams tanks are too heavy for our amphibious landing boats and for many of the underdeveloped or degraded roads and bridges in our near region, as well as in large parts of northern Australia.  Which begs the question, how would these tanks be used?  Should there be a major conflict in the Asia–Pacific region, it would likely be fought mainly by air and naval assets.

Marcus Hellyer, a senior analyst with ASPI, said the Australian government had decided that it wants to maintain the ability to engage in “close combat” in urban environments as part of counter-insurgency operations.  If they didn’t use them in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, how likely are we to be doing that in the future?

But the real kicker is that, rather than being new builds, these tanks will be made up of various refurbished and overhauled items in the US inventory.

This is because the production line for the Abrams series ended in 2013, but with 3000 of them in storage since the end of the Cold War, there is plenty of hardware around that can be rebirthed by American companies for customers such as Australia.

Meanwhile, other countries are developing unmanned tanks with drone launching capability and autoloaders, or opting for lighter alternatives, such as the US Army’s light tank ‘mobile protected firepower’ program.

Instead of just upgrading our current fleet, as South Korea is doing, whilst new technology is further developed, we have chosen to buy fully imported refurbished and upgraded platforms that are nearing the end of life-of-type, with billions of dollars heading to the US.

How good is AUKUS.

PS:  Just a thought for Peter Dutton.  Is there any good reason why we are not using the army to help distribute supplies at the moment?  That would be a more welcome announcement.

Rarely can the treatment of a grand sporting figure by officialdom have caused such consternation. Novak Djokovic, the tennis World Number One, has always had a tendency to get under skin and constitution, creating a large following of admirers and detractors. But his current treatment by Australian authorities, and his subsequent detention as an unlawful arrival despite being granted a visa to participate in the Australian Open, had the hallmarks of oppression and incompetent vulgarity. In time, it may well also prove to have been another example of provincial opportunism and crass stupidity.

It all began with the thick cloud of doubt over whether the Serbian tennis star needed to show proof of vaccination or otherwise in entering Australia. The Australian Open had become the first grand slam tennis tournament to require mandatory vaccination for all athletes subject to exemptions. This was a position also taken by the Victorian government. What remained unclear was whether dispensations could be granted, and under what conditions.

Djokovic was always unwilling to reveal his vaccination status. His response to the pandemic has also been patchy, even cavalier. The Adria Tour in June 2020, created as a response to the cancellation of various sporting events, proved disastrous. Organised by the Novak Djokovic Foundation as a “charity tour to help the coronavirus victims,” it saw players, spectators and officials contract COVID-19, including Djokovic himself, resulting in the abandonment of the tournament.

Along with other tennis players, his application to participate in the Australian tournament, assessed anonymously, was accepted, leading him to confirm his departure for Melbourne earlier this month. Two bodies were involved in conducting the review: Tennis Australia and an independent medical exemption review panel. The Victorian Department of Health confirmed that the exemptions had been granted to those with a “genuine medical condition.”

The next part of the story is revealing about Australian officialdom. On arriving in Melbourne, Djokovic encountered the nastiness that has made the Australian Border Force famous in celluloid, social media and print. It was all good to have received an exemption from two bodies; but the ABF retained the discretion to ask for further particulars and revoke any visa at their discretion. The Commonwealth, after all, is the final arbiter as to who crosses the border.

A statement by the ABF, never paragons of thoroughness or justice, claimed that “Mr Djokovic failed to provide appropriate evidence to meet the entry requirements to Australia, and his visa has been subsequently cancelled.” In the cobwebbed mind of bureaucratic reasoning, this could mean, and be, anything.

In the right royal mess that ensued, the Victorian government, on being asked by the federal government to supply evidence of Djokovic’s exemption, declined to sponsor him. Prime Minister Scott Morrison, showing that exemptions are viewed differently depending on which authority in Australia provides them, was satisfied that the right decision had been made. In his particular reasoning, “Rules are rules, especially when it comes to our borders. No one is above these rules. Our strong border policies have been critical to Australia having one of the lowest death rates in the world from COVID, we are continuing to be vigilant.”

Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews also stated that all arrivals in Australia had to “provide acceptable proof that they cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.” Absent that, Djokovic “won’t be treated any different to anyone else and he’ll be on the next plane home.” Such words are rich coming from a government addicted to subverting the rule of law, convention and due process.

The view also went some way in making a mockery of the assessments by both Tennis Australia and the medical review board. As Australia Open director Paul McNamee explained to the ABC, “every player and support member fills in a form, visa 408, and everyone does that, you are guided through it by Tennis Australia, every step of the way, and then you get approval, that is the process.”

McNamee stressed that Djokovic “was following the rules. You might be angry that he was given an exemption, but players need to have confidence that the rules they abide by going are to be enforced, so if this is something to [do] with the vaccination in the exemption, for me that’s not fair.”

The legal challenge by Djokovic makes various assertions. The player received, the defence argues, a temporary activity class visa on November 18. Djokovic had tested positive to a PCR test on December 16 and was subsequently granted the exemption. It was then claimed that the Home Affairs Department had sent a note on January 1 informing him that he had met “the requirements for a quarantine-free arrival into Australia.”

The submission is in stark contrast to correspondence from the Health Department and the Commonwealth. The former’s First Assistant Secretary Lisa Schofield had informed Tennis Australia Chief Executive Craig Tilley that, “People who have previously had COVID-19 and not received a vaccine dose are not considered fully vaccinated.” Health Minister Greg Hunt, on following up Schofield’s observations, also confirmed that those who had contracted COVID-19 “within six months and seek to enter Australia from overseas, and have not received two doses of a Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)-approved or TGA-recognised vaccine … are not considered fully vaccinated.”

Most tellingly, the Morrison government, and a good number of Fortress Australia types, have made it clear that the very concept of any right of entry, notably during times of emergency such as a pandemic, is irrelevant and has no bearing in a court of law or before any tribunal of justice.

While it will be of little comfort to Novak, he should not be surprised that Australian government officials are equally contemptuous of any right of return for Australian citizens, who remain at the mercy of a spray of weak High Court judgments and a total absence of constitutional protection. Tens of thousands have been stranded in other countries since 2020, left at the mercy of menacing poverty, lack of safety, reviled and mocked as disease ridden and undeserving of sanctuary. The Commonwealth and State governments have all done their bit to prevent such returns, imposing onerous requirements and even, in some cases, threatening punitive fines. The Australian passport has become a form of debased coinage.

The cancellation of Djovokic’s visa also led to another brush with institutional savagery. The tennis player is being detained at Carlton’s Park Hotel, a facility that has been used for refugees more than acquainted with the concentration camp system reserved for “unlawful” naval arrivals. He can at least count himself fortunate not to be rendered to the tropical torture centres of Nauru or Manus Island, two favourite destinations for Canberra’s undesirables.

When it comes to Australia’s refugee concentration camp system, celebrity or standing provides little by way of salvation. As former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull explained to his counterpart President Donald Trump in discussing a refugee transfer between the countries, Australia would be more than happy to jail Nobel Prize laureates if they did not have the requisite paperwork. “So, we would rather take a not-very-attractive guy that helps you out than to take a Nobel Peace Prize winner that comes by boat.”

Irate detainees, some having been in captivity for almost a decade, have also noted the sudden spike of interest, if only because of the celebrity calibre attention being paid to Djokovic. Protests in Serbia, Montenegro and Australia have taken place. Carlton’s Park Hotel has been the site of a hearty gathering of supporters. Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić has urged that the tennis player not be held “in that infamous hotel”.

This could but induce sadness on the part of Mehdi Ali, an Iranian immigrant who was fifteen when he sought sanctuary in Australia and is also being held at the Park Hotel. “I’ve been in a cage for 9 years, I turn 24 today, and all you want to talk to me about is [Djokovic],” he tweeted on January 7. “Pretending to care by asking me how I am and then straight away asking questions about Djokovic.”

To the hosts of an Australian television program The Project, Mehdi did take some heart that attention was finally being showered upon the grim conditions in the detention hotel. Those who “came here for Djokovic … found out about our circumstances and they were shocked.”

The appeal hearing against the decision by the ABF is taking place today (January 10) where some sense of the brutish nonsense that has transpired may be made. But for the likes of Mehdi, the Djokovic storm, whether it results in him playing or not in Melbourne, will pass. A country filled with the descendants of convicts and their gaolers will continue working to form.

As the beginning of the new school year approaches, politicians, doctors and journalists are racing to tell us all that school must go back on time and stay open regardless.

They rightly talk about the effect that school closures have had on kids – none of us would disagree.  It’s been a devastating time for all of us.

But the idea that, as we approach what will be a calamitous peak in infections, schools can carry on as normal is ludicrous.

SMH education editor, Jordan Baker, penned a piece today on “How to keep schools open in the age of Omicron.”

According to Jordan, who has patently never been employed as an educator, “schools will have to work out ways to operate with significantly fewer staff until the wave of disease peaks, and case numbers begin to fall.”

“Teachers, even those who are double vaccinated and boostered, are likely to fall ill (although the vaccination will protect most from severe illness) and this poses serious workforce issues for their bosses.”

This is not just some sort of esoteric issue for school principals to solve. You cannot open schools unless there are sufficient well teachers to staff them.

“In the United Kingdom, there have been predictions that around a quarter of teachers at any given school could be off sick or furloughed at once. NSW’s school system is already suffering a chronic shortage of casual teachers, so this could make operating schools difficult,” Jordan concedes.

Paediatrician and epidemiologist Fiona Russell says the education sector would, like all sectors, need a workforce plan.

“The UK has asked retired teachers to return. The Australian health sector is using medical students. If teachers have COVID but are asymptomatic, they could still deliver lessons remotely.”

That’s fab. Except retired teachers would presumably be older making them in the more vulnerable cohort for infection, and would be unlikely to have current ‘working with children’ accreditation. Trainee teachers, one or two years out of school themselves, cannot be expected to leave their studies to fill in for absent staff, and who is going to supervise students when infected teachers are delivering lessons remotely? Does she think the class will sit there nicely on their own listening to a talking head on a tv screen?

Russell’s colleague at the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Professor Sharon Goldfeld, said children have “carried the can for adults. We’ve kept them away from school and childcare. Now that COVID is in the community, they can no longer carry the can for adults. Schools are the epicentre for children’s health, wellbeing and learning.”

Yup.  But where is the concern for the teachers who look after your children every day? Where is the regard for their expertise? You can’t just drag people off the street to replace them if they get sick.

These non-education experts talk about “keeping cohorts together” to minimise the spread.  Have they forgotten that a high school teacher’s cohort is everybody who does that subject? 150 different kids a day?  They talk about combining classes like it’s no problemo. Do they understand how hard it is to teach maths to 30 adolescents? Make it 60, make it 100…and carry on?

We all want our kids to be back at school, learning and playing and doing all the normal kid stuff. But these are not normal times and teachers are not easily replaceable babysitters.

Election Diary. 2022. No2. Saturday, January 8 2022. “Now let’s get this straight: We don’t have the best…”

1 Who is paying for our Covid programme? Socialism is. The Government is borrowing money that the people will have to pay back. It is the public debt. At the same time, the rich and privileged are getting a tax cut. Work that out.

What do we want from this election?

2 Have we listened to the stories in the Child Abuse report? Of those in aged care. Those who have died or are dying from Covid. Or the treatment of women – we cannot escape their anger.

The horror that is our national shame. The dead are many. When will we govern with some form of proactive planning instead of reactive negativity? Did we imagine another variant would never rear its ugly head.? Has the cost spooked them? Rapid antigen tests (RATs) should be free to everyone who requires one. There are many questions.

3 I find it impossible to imagine that the Australian people could be so gullible as to elect for a fourth term a government that has performed so miserably in the previous three, and is becoming worse. And it has amongst its members some of the most devious, suspicious and possibly corrupt men and women in its ranks.

It seems to me that for some time now the electorate has been giving Morrison more than just a cursory going over. Instead, they have become more analytical of the man and his policies. Forensically so.

4 A fascination of mine has always been the “we have the best whatever” statement. We have the best army, the best political system, firefighters, police force. It goes on and on. It’s impossible to have the best everything all the time.

Before the upcoming election, we must do our very best to counter the Government’s claims about these matters.

Now let’s get this straight: We don’t have the best…

5 We are the best managers of the economy, the Coalition would have us believe. Well, the simple fact is that they are not. This link to a post I wrote on the subject affirms it.

The myth created by the Coalition as long back as I care to remember and memorialised for many years since is nothing more or nothing less, a myth.

Of course, those of a conservative bent won’t have a word of it. They simply insist that the tale has God’s word of truth attached to it.

6 John Menadue, always a good read, in The myth that the Liberals are better economic managers? writes that:

“The Coalition is handicapped and hidebound by an out-dated ideology about markets and private enterprise. The tide has turned in the world that now sees the failures of the market system. The Coalition has failed to catch up. That is why we are seeing the failure of the Liberal Party in economic and business management. Its ideology has passed its use-by date.”

7 The consummate liar and How do you trust a liar? are but two articles I have written on the subject of the Government’ s propensity toward telling lies, which you may wish to revisit.

8 Scotty, in his great wisdom, has decided that Rapid Antigen Tests should remain limited to people in close contact with symptoms, pensioners etc., despite growing pressure to provide free tests.

9 On Tuesday on 7.30 Albo faced a load of questions, looking and speaking Prime Ministerial. Like every inch the man you want to lead the country.

I had read earlier in The Guardian that:

“The Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, criticised the government for failing to secure enough RATs, accusing Morrison of again offering “too little too late”.

“This has been an example of something that has characterised Scott Morrison’s prime ministership. He identifies a problem only after it becomes a crisis, and then he doesn’t act. He just seems to blame someone else,” Albanese said at a press conference in Newcastle on Monday.”

No wonder the PM, and many of his associates refused an invite to appear on 7.30.

10 I have been trying to summarise or get my head around what Scomo is talking about on any subject. You see, now he is saying that what I thought he said is only a figment of my imagination. That what I think I thought he meant is not what he meant at all. When he says something, and I take it to mean one thing, he has the option of saying that what I thought I heard was not what I heard.

Or was it only my interpretation of what he meant? I mean, did he say what he meant, or did he mean to say what he meant or was what he meant really what he meant?

Well, that’s politics. And that’s Morrison.

11 And I thought that vaccinating the public was supposed to fix everything. It’s not as if answers aren’t available. The man is totality out of touch with what the problem requires. A man without any qualities of leadership. He should resign. Given his present form, he may take the option of a half-Senate election in May with a general election in August if that’s possible.

12 Here is something you may have missed. We had our coolest year since 2012, but it was still half a degree hotter than the average.

13 Did the panel (whoever they may be) consider that the Tennis Professional Novak Djokovic is a Covid denier and anti-vaccination freak. In my view, the Australian Tennis Open will have its reputation greatly diminished by his presence in the draw. Or booing a champion on the centre court will not do our international reputation much good.

By 6 am, Thursday, the world No.1 was still dealing with Border Force officials at Melbourne Airport.

Note: I will address this update in the comments section.

14 Would you be surprised if I told you that 21 schools received $90 million in JobKeeper payments while making profits of $97 million. Of course, you wouldn’t. Most of them serve highly advantaged families.