The Prime Minister’s National Press Club address

No, it isn’t the most straightforward job on earth. The hours are horrendous, and the expectations unimaginable. No one would take it on thinking it was a piece of cake. That’s why people are paid an enormous sum. Some do so for the power it gives them; others are genuine in their desire to create a better place. Whatever it is, you must accept the responsibilities that go with it.

Sometimes when things go pear-shaped, a leader has to stand before his distracters and confess his wrongdoings. Scott Morrison went partway in doing just that when he addressed the National Press Club last Tuesday. Did he show enough contrition equal to his deplorable governance? Well, opinions might vary, but for me, he showed little that would match his inability to govern with any quality of leadership.

His speech wasn’t an apology, nor was it a confession that he had made many mistakes and shown little foresight in confronting the issue of COVID-19. It was a grim speech, never mentioning climate change and produced little to excite a nation worn out by the invading pandemic and its variants.

Morrison had his back to the wall. One could cut a knife through the suspense. There was an expectancy on his part that the audience would be understanding of the difficulties of governing. He toyed with a self-desired sympathy for his efforts that weren’t forthcoming.

Then he suggested that the devil you know is better than the one you don’t. The Coalition was still the better money manager, and their born to rule right still applied.

For me, many factors explained his unpopularity. Before giving his address, I believed that the media in general only attributed his handling of the virus to his recent bad polling. After question time, I concluded I was wrong. The journalists were ruthless in their cross-examination of the Prime Minister, covering a wide range of subjects of a controversial nature.

The air between them and the Prime Minister was as thick as I have experienced. Maybe they were sick of being lied to.

The Guardian reported on one of those ruthless questions:

“Laura Tingle (not exactly a favourite of the PM) asked Scott Morrison if he was going to apologise for ‘the mistakes he has made as prime minister’, citing the Government’s handling of the pandemic but also Morrison’s holiday to Hawaii during the black summer bushfires in 2019 and cuts to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).”

He didn’t directly answer the question but did admit that:

“I haven’t got everything right. And I’ll take my fair share of the criticism and the blame… We’re all terribly sorry for what this pandemic has done to the world and to this country.”

An excellent example of not answering the question.

Defence involved in rollout of vaccine

The Prime Minister didn’t say sorry; he did say that if he had his time again, he’d have done the vaccine rollout differently:

“If I had my time over, I would have put [the rollout] under military operation from the outset, and not later in the year,” he said.

“As we went through those early months and we had the challenges that we had with the Health Department… I took the decision to send in General (John) Frewen and change the way we did it.

“[We] set up a change in the command structure, how logistics were managed, how it was planned.

“And it worked but I wish I’d done that earlier, and that’s a lesson.”

“Mr Morrison also said the confusion around whether and when aged care patients could be taken to public hospitals was another issue that proved challenging during the outbreaks in 2020.”

Lieutenant General John Frewen was responsible for the oversight of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout.

Safety in Parliament

The Prime Minister was asked what changes had been made to make Parliament and its political offices safer this year than last year.

Morrison answered that the most crucial difference this time around was the independent complaints body that was in place for anyone who was previously too worried about coming forward.

“That, I think, assists everybody who works in that building,” he said. “Not enough,” l thought.

Unemployment rate

Mr Morrison was exuberant when talking about the difference in the unemployment rates between now and the last time he addressed National Press Club a year ago.

“Unemployment is at 4.2 per cent. When I stood here a year ago, it was 6.6 per cent,” the Prime Minister said.

I find the unemployment figures being thrown around at the moment almost unacceptable, including folk who work one hour a week as in full-time employment totally inappropriate. A new method of measurement needs to be found.

Cost of living

When asked about what his Government would, or could, do to ease the rising cost of living for millions of Australians. Mr Morrison’s answer was an off the shelf one:

“That is why good economic management was more important than ever.”

The truth is that the cost of living will be a significant item in this election.

When asked a standard stock question on how much a loaf of bread, a litre of petrol and a rapid antigen test cost, Mr Morrison replied that:

“I’m not going to pretend to you that I go out each day and I buy a loaf of bread and I buy a litre of milk.”

“The point is that I do my job every day to ensure that those things are as affordable as they possibly can be for Australians every single day.”

In any campaign, an answer is essential, and candidates should know it off the top of their heads. Indeed, he drives past a servo in his travels.

How do you know if he is telling the truth?

A long line of journalists asked further questions about the public anger with the PM, a few on aged care, a royal commission question on COVID-19 to which Morrison gave a non-committal answer.

Samantha Maiden asked about government members claiming expenses when staying in their own homes. He was okay with it so long as they weren’t breaking the law. David Crowe queried the availability of RATs.

Andrew Probyn asked why the prime minister thought he was the best person to lead the country. Still, the most controversial was by Peter van Onselen about tweets concerning the former Premier of NSW Gladys Berejiklian. It caused a bit of a stir that forced the Prime Ministers eye blink rate into overdrive. I’m sure there is more to come on that one.

All in all, it was a most unsatisfactory performance by a Prime Minister with his back to the wall. His Ministers, who would remain much the same if he wins the election, need shoulder much of the blame. It is as well the National Press Club address isn’t a viewing highlight of the week for the general population. They would have been very disappointed.

To those who say Albo doesn’t have charisma, I ask which of the following. Did:

John Howard, Julia Gillard, John Hewson, Bob Hawke, Gough Whitlam, Bill Shorten, Kim Beasley, Kevin Rudd, Malcolm Fraser, Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison?

There are three, and they are all Labor.

Election diary No 9. Wednesday, 2 February 2022.

1 All governments make mistakes, but this one’s capacity for cock ups is becoming legendary. So consistent are they that they are like a daily thunderstorm of crisis downpours.

This time, pharmacists have their knickers in a knot over the prime minister’s “free” rapid antigen test program.

News.com.au reported that they have dubbed the RAT test debacle as “reckless and negligent.” If this is so, it could cause trouble for the Government.

According to pharmacists, the so-called “free” rapid antigen test program with a $10 rebate that won’t cover the wholesale cost and won’t be refunded for weeks.

It means that the Government expects the pharmacists (small businesses) to hand out the tests free to concession cardholders, leaving them out of pocket.

The crux of the matter, according to the pharmacists, is that had the Government ordered the tests directly from wholesalers in November and December, it could have handed them out free or at a cost to taxpayers of $5 per test.

Conversely, the Government is:

“… offering a rebate of double the amount – $10 for a single test to chemists – when soaring demand means that the wholesale price is now more than the rebate.”

How stupid is that?

The wholesale price has risen to $12 “off the back of” huge orders placed by state and federal governments during January:

“Pharmacists say they are paying as much as $12 or more for the tests wholesale in some instances, as demand soared off the back of massive orders from state and federal governments in January.”

Adding to the frenzy, the scheme started last Monday with pensioners and concession cardholders unable to sauce the “free” tests.

It was last August that Scott Morrison first raised the issue of RATS tests. No excuses on this one.

Chalk this up as a massive fail.

The campaigns

2 The Prime Minister continues his preliminary Clayton’s campaigning, trying to convince all and sundry that he is responsible for everything good that happens as if it is a gift from a higher order. At the same time, he refuses to “risk his parliamentary majority” by condemning ministers in his party who cross the fine line of incompetence. The hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed.

3 Last Sunday, 30 January, the consensus on the first Insiders panel seemed to be that although Labor was well ahead in the polls and would win if an election were held now. The Coalition still had plenty of time to recover.

Later the same day, Newspoll released its first poll for the year and described it as a horror result for the Government. 56-44 to Labor. Read more at The Poll Bludger.

The importance of this poll is that it is the first one close to the election that signals how people will vote. Generally, in the election cycle, polls only measure how people are thinking at the time. From here on in, they measure peoples voting intentions.

Albanese speaks to the National Press Club

4 In a very down to earth speech to the National Press Club the Opposition Leader impressed with his sincerity.

During the questioning period, the ABCs, Andrew Probyn, asked Albanese to explain who he was. The obvious inference was that nobody knew him. He gave his standard stock answer that he will probably repeat a hundred times during the campaign, but I would make the point that there isn’t a lot to know. And I would add to that, that ALP campaign strategists should make a virtue of it.

Compare Morrison, a Prime Minister embroiled in corruption, an unhealthy attitude toward women with a fundamentally conservative narrow world view versus Alabanese, a clean skin with no hint of controversy, a progressive who sees things as they are and could be. A man for the times.

Accountability

5 Worth repeating this from January 2020, but a few months after the 2019 election, the McKenzie Sports Rorts scandal seems to be growing legs by the day. With the PM making a major speech at the National Press Club on Wednesday, he won’t want this on his head unless he wants to face a line-up of the best journalists in the land.

For me, it is inconceivable that in the process of making announcements daily during the election, he knew nothing of how they came about. He must have taken part in the process to have authority over his statements.

It still follows him everywhere here he goes.

Uncoloured waters

6 Another ongoing crisis has been the state of the Great Barrier Reef. It has been in crisis for as long as I can recall, yet the Morrison Government now decides on the eve of an election that they can spare a billion dollars over ten years to fix things up.

Pub test, anyone?

7 The response has been a resounding voice of disbelief from the scientific community, who with raised voices of a resounding crescendo saying, “you fix it when you fix climate change, you fools.”

And whatever happened to the $440 million Malcolm Turnbull gave to some little tinpot show up north with liberal party connections?

Responsibility

Let’s be serious. Richard Colbeck would not be the Aged Care Minister if a better person were available. Instead of giving his portfolio his full attention when asked to attend a Senate Enquiry, he said he couldn’t justify diverting his time. He was at the cricket for three days. There wasn’t a crisis at the cricket, but there is in aged care.

Cartoon by Alan Moir (moir.com.au)

Writing in The Monthly, Rachel Withers reported the Prime Minister’s response in unglowing terms:

“Morrison defended his minister against the “knockers”, insisting that Colbeck – who has been slammed in the past for not knowing how many aged-care workers had been vaccinated or how many residents had died – works very hard. Pushed on the fact the incident did not pass the pub test, the PM insisted that Colbeck had taken the feedback “on board”. “He will take that criticism on the chin,” Morrison said, “and he’ll get back to work, which he does every single day.” One wonders whether those “knockers” who have lost loved ones in residential aged care (415 residents have died this year alone) or the overworked staff will also be willing to take it on the chin.”

9 When he was elected, Tony Abbott was quick to have a Royal Commission into four pink batts deaths. Still, a more practical examination of the occurrences of covid would be to look at the separation of the politics from the event to find the best path forward should a future event occur.

The Coalition stakes a lot on the perception of them as better managers of the economy. In the past, they have relied on ‘debt and deficit disaster’ rhetoric with promises of surpluses. That’s out for the foreseeable future.

They are now spruiking a low unemployment rate without ever acknowledging the impact that no foreign workers may have had on that. Nor do they ever speak of the precarious nature of employment and stagnant wages. They speak proudly of growth in GDP, not admitting that government spending (read debt) is driving it, and glossing over the increasing cost of living that inflation brings.

Another tactic they persistently use to undermine Labor policies is asking how much they will cost and how are they going to pay for them.

At the last election, Labor had excellent policies for taxation reform that a misinformed electorate rejected. It was too much for people to comprehend and, as such, was easily weaponised with the old adage about Labor will tax you more even though what they were mainly doing was closing loopholes and distortions thrust on us by the profligate Howard government.

The Coalition were able to get away with asking how much action on climate change would cost while never answering how much inaction would cost.

Well this time around, Labor could have an easy answer to how they will pay for policies whilst reducing debt if they are brave enough to use it – delay/abandon the stage 3 tax cuts.

The cuts, set to come into effect in 2024, apply a standard 30 per cent income tax rate to those who earn between $45,000 and $200,000 a year.

The reason given for this is to reverse bracket creep – where a pay rise puts an individual’s income over the threshold for the next tax bracket.  (It should be stressed that the higher rate only applies to the excess over that threshold, not your whole income.)

The only way to truly eliminate bracket creep is to make annual adjustments to the thresholds as explained by a very interesting paper from the Parliamentary Budget Office, Bracket creep and its fiscal impact, released in September last year.

“In the absence of the Stage 3 tax cuts, bracket creep over the next decade would be projected to reduce net debt in 2031‑32 by $276 billion.”

What the government is proposing is “projected to add around $197 billion to net debt in 2031‑32.”

That’s a $473 billion difference in net debt, and it doesn’t keep up with bracket creep anyway.

“The impact of the Stage 3 tax cuts will be more than offset by bracket creep by 2031-32. In that year, the tax cuts are estimated to cost just over $30 billion, while bracket creep is projected to have added $57 billion in additional revenue.”

Research by The Australia Institute shows the benefit from the cuts would predominantly go to high income earners.

“In 2024-25, when stage 3(a) first comes into effect, almost a third of the benefit goes to the top 10 per cent of taxpayers and the top 20 per cent will get more than half of the benefit. At the other end of the distribution the bottom 10 per cent gets none of the benefit while the bottom 20 per cent gets less than one per cent of the benefit.”

As most women are middle to low income earners, these cuts disproportionately favour men according to analysis prepared by the parliamentary budget office for the Greens.

“Men will receive about $2 for every $1 women receive between 2024 and 2031 under the tax plan, receiving a total of an extra $121.7bn compared with $62.4bn for women over the period.”

The wealthy have already been doing quite well out of the pandemic with property and share prices ballooning. Low interest rates and government stimulus have made an ideal environment for those able to take advantage.

Giving the rich more isn’t necessary to stimulate an economy with low unemployment and growth in the target range.

Lifting the tax-free threshold would have a far more beneficial flow-on effect giving assistance where it is most needed, knowing it will be spent, and saving more people from having to fill in a tax return for the ATO to process.

Governments face a trade-off between returning bracket creep and allowing bracket creep to reduce debt faster.

With December’s MYEFO projecting net debt will peak in 2025 at $915 billion, it would be fiscally responsible for Labor to say now is not the time for this tax cut, which would then put their second term budget in far better shape than the Coalition’s.

As the Coalition goes to an election promising to spend hundreds of billions on obsolete and inappropriate armaments and hundreds more on tax cuts for the wealthy, perhaps it’s time to ask them about everything else they promise…

How are you going to pay for it?

Labor Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has come under fire from the Conservative Coalition Government for suggesting on the ABC’s ‘Insiders’ program that extra funding may be made available for Aged Care, Health, and perhaps welfare reform. This in a context where billions of subsidies have been provided to businesses due to Covid, and yet many businesses who managed to remain profitable regardless of Covid have simply kept these subsidies provided for them in the form of pure profit. While the Federal Government ruthlessly pursues welfare recipients over any debts incurred (and even some that have turned out to be unreal), corporations enjoy public money without accountability.

The simple fact is that public spending commitments in social services and infrastructure are not necessarily ‘irresponsible’ or ‘wasteful’. Often Government needs to invest in the health and happiness of the people to ensure the best outcomes. What needs to be understood is that social spending is a form of ‘collective consumption’ where we gain a better deal in areas like health by purchasing crucial services more efficiently and collectively as taxpayers, rather than being isolated and fleeced as private consumers. Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are important examples of collective consumption.

Albanese has spoken of the “habitual buck passing” of the Morrison Government on Aged Care. Failure to attract new workers into the field with fair wages and conditions, and respect for workers; and failure to ensure necessary staffing levels including the presence of Registered Nurses – remain sore points even after the Conservatives’ response to the Aged Care Royal Commission. The training, wages and conditions of Personal Care workers who help many elderly remain in the community are also in need of further funding; and packages must be available to all with the need upon demand; and without cruel waiting queues.

The reality also is that Aged Care reform needs to go beyond the bare essentials to address broader quality of life issues; so that in the future Aged Australians with have access to social engagement; and where those in residential care will enjoy privacy, access to information technology, access to gardens and pleasant surrounds. They must not just be locked in their rooms or sat down in front of TVs in common rooms all day. Our vulnerable elderly need social engagement. Everything from discussing their lives to enjoying games, listening to music, or discussing the issues of the day. Dementia training is also essential to ensure the best quality of life to those affected; and those around them. Quality of food also needs to be monitored closely; and without meeting staff quota targets, Aged Care workers will remain rushed in the business of helping to dress and shower residents daily; or may not be able to respond in a timely manner to situations such as where sheets are soiled. The consequences of under-resourcing have been trauma and suffering for vulnerable aged Australians.

Yes, this will cost billions on top of those limited initiatives already announced. But most of us will grow elderly and frail one day; and even if ourselves we do not experience this, surely we will have family who are affected by a neglected Aged Care sector. Rather than backing down, Albanese needs to ‘step up to the plate’ and confidently put the case for progressive collective consumption of Aged Care; and a much better deal for both ‘consumers’ and for workers in the broader Health sector.

There will also be a significant backlog in waiting lists for supposedly ‘elective’ hospital procedures thanks to the pressure Covid has placed the health system under. This was already a crisis; but has been significantly magnified with Covid. Medicare needs to be extended into dental, optical and prosthetics; but the broader health system needs to be expanded to ensure timely care, breadth of coverage and quality of care.

Australian of the Year, tennis star Dylan Alcott has also highlighted the high unemployment levels (over 50 per cent) for disabled Australians. The focus here was mainly on those with physical disability ; but exclusion from the labour market also applies to those with psycho-social disabilities. Exclusion is a vicious circle which needs to be broken. Sometimes it goes on for years. Often it is permanent. Government needs to intervene directly to provide opportunity for all; and employment needs to be made more viable by lessening means tests for Pensioners in the workforce. Also there need to be viable career paths, and not merely ‘dead end jobs’.

Importantly, Labor needs to pitch to ‘average’ workers as well. Labor needs to pitch to the majority to enjoy electoral success; and provision for equity groups alone will not win government. Delivering wage gains and improving the bargaining position of average workers in the labour market is important here. As is a restructuring of the broader tax system: delivering distributive justice outcomes not only for the most vulnerable, but also the majority of workers. Further; improvement of the Aged Pension could act as a ‘bridge’ which enhances the case for reform of other pensions. Labor needs to build a ‘bloc’ based on solidarity and mutual recognition rather than allowing the Coalition to ‘Divide and Rule’ – which so often has been the case.

So come on, Albo, ‘step up to the plate’. A ‘small target’ can take us so far; but as the campaign progresses voters will want a clearer sense of what Labor is going to do. Labor will need to have answers. And it must not ‘back itself into a corner’ where it cannot deliver significantly to its constituents. Early signs suggest some hope.

This article was originally published on ALP Socialist Left Forum.

Politicians, predominantly on the right, have repeatedly been caught lying in direct contravention of video evidence. The falsifications aren’t minor.

In Canberra at the moment there is an almost total lack of accountability. Any effort to confront Prime Minister Scott Morrison or his cabinet with their lies, corruption and ineptitude is met with deflection to a disingenuous list of “achievements” or more lies. Without effective supervision and repercussions, the threat this poses to our democracy will only become more dire.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is potentially facing repercussions after years of lying to the electorate. Whether or not he does so, the damage to British democracy taking place under the Tories is confronting. In the US, Donald Trump’s lies have been embraced by the party he led and the majority of Republican voters. Deception is widespread in that party’s efforts to subvert the possibility of Democrat victories in the future. The American Republic’s democratic processes are already undermined; whether they will survive the next decade is in doubt.

From Plato’s time, philosophers have noted the instability of democracy. Its freedoms – including freedom of speech – are the seeds of its own destruction. Would-be tyrants and their propaganda have the capacity to end the system we prize, even without us noticing. Truth, and trust in what is being said, is crucial to the democratic system.

Deceit is at the heart of the problem. Sometimes it is the insidious propaganda that aims to (mis)represent our nations as well-run liberal democracies. At other times the stratagem is outright demagoguery that seems likely to end in bloodshed.

In Australia, Crikey in particular has been tracking the lies that mark Morrison’s government. While there has long been an expectation that politicians aren’t always truthful, the scope of deceit that has besmirched the performance of the Coalition, just like this era’s Republican and Tory parties, is enough to shove the timid media beyond euphemisms.

The brazenness of the deceit is the factor that has provoked that shift. Politicians – predominantly on the right – have repeatedly been caught lying in direct contravention of video evidence of their own previous statements. The falsifications aren’t minor: some are complete inversions of earlier positions. In America some Republican politicians supporting Trump’s Big Lie do so because they literally fear for their lives. Without an armed and angry base to threaten them back into line, Australian and British leaders have little justification beyond knowing that there are no consequences any more.

In January 2022, as Australians largely fail to find the rapid antigen tests (RATs) we need to participate in society in a pandemic, the government is running advertisements that boast it has them. Nobody is sure whether these are the collation of RATs that have been taken from private and public sector organisations’ deliveries, or an inflated boast. As with so many other (in)actions of this government, the disaster follows supply offers and warnings made months before, instructing the government that millions would be necessary. According to the AMA, the government refused to purchase them, wanting to let the private sector profiteer.

In the wake of the Park Hotel Djokovic drama, Morrison misinformed radio listeners about the refugee status of the people imprisoned for months in the Alternative Place of Detention (APOD). When confronted he disingenuously asserted he hadn’t “said” what he’d clearly implied. Given that the innocent men (some then boys) were placed in indefinite detention by Morrison as immigration minister eight years ago, his claim to vagueness on the cases seems disingenuous.

Over COP26 in Glasgow last year, the Australian delegation was reviled for its blatant climate action disinformation. French President Emmanuel Macron’s assertion that Morrison is a liar was confirmed by the Prime Minister’s former colleagues. It’s not just our own civic space under threat from constant deceit, but our standing among nations.

Part of the dissimulation is intended to suggest that the system is functioning well. In none of the three countries is that the case, and healthcare workers have been bearing the brunt of the pandemic mismanagement. NSW nurses held a stopwork protest in mid-January because their workplace is unsafe for them and their patients in the Omicron surge. Their exhaustion and the nurse-to-patient-ratio blowout are making hospitals dangerous. In the face of constant federal and state government mantras that they are coping, the nurses’ signs said they are not.

Rather than listening to poorly paid frontline workers exhausted by the third year of bearing the brunt, Josh Frydenberg mislabelled them “militant unions”. He hoped thus to nullify a cry for help for his voter base. The former “essential worker” praise was quickly inverted to disdain when the nurses drew attention to being Sisyphus borne down by the weight of government “let it rip” apathy.

The moment where the crisis of truth in “conservative” Anglosphere politics and some parts of the media became obvious might be pinned in 2016 when “post-truth” became word of the year. The fact that Trump’s victory and the Brexit referendum occurred in that year is not unrelated.

Many factors made the truth harder to detect at that moment: the swirl of social media disinformation; its targeting by bad actors like Cambridge Analytica; increasing competition in the attention economy; and the internet’s devastating impact on legacy media (partly celebrated initially because of the establishment’s own failures to convey truth, such as The New York Times and its assertion of the presence in Iraq of WMD).

It did not begin that recently, though. In 2004 George Bush adviser Karl Rove was alleged to have said that the US government did not function in the “reality-based community,” instead having the ability to “create our own reality.” Fittingly, he denies having said it.

The following year, commentator Stephen Colbert coined the word “truthiness” which became the American 2006 word of the year. It is intended to cover the sense or feeling that something feels true on intuition rather than requiring data to bear it out. It was meant to satirise the Tea Party development in Republican politics and its unhinged assertions. In Trump’s era, Kellyanne Conway called truthiness “alternative facts.”

Now Republican politicians and pundits spew the “blue lies” that divide tribes, and even the “accusations in a mirror” of total inversions of truth that precede horrors. Their followers often appear to see lies as weapons of war rather than necessarily a matter of sincerity. Verifiability does not matter as much hurting the loathed enemy.

The internet has unleashed those alternative realities. Right-wing thought leaders such as Joe Rogan on podcasts and YouTube and social media speak to millions around the world. They have a much more powerful impact than radio shock jocks or “conservative” media pundits. Provocative communications are shared to provoke “lib tears” and then these right wing figures “rage farm” the resultant furore.

Part of the long-term crisis is based in the role of PR in politics, with the right over the decades deploying increasingly effective marketing and communications strategies. Funded by the ultra wealthy and honed through free-market think-tanks, this strategy was intended to counteract alienating policies meant to benefit only the donors.

The Coalition government is much more concerned with messaging than being able to do the job of creating policy that benefits the country. It is aided by co-operative media that is satisfied to echo government talking points in gormless stenographic journalism. The fact that Morrison’s own marketing background is not strewn with successes might explain lacklustre efforts such as under-age forklift drivers.

Rather than finding strategies to solve the massive challenges of living through a pandemic, the government is involved with the spin project of their religious “freedom” bill or the ability to unmask anonymous “trolls” on the internet. This is intended to enable Coalition politicians to sue internet commentators for defamation if they expose government misdeeds. The point is to chill criticism of government (in)action, hardly consonant with their posture as “free speech” warriors. It sits well, however, with the government’s many efforts to prevent transparency over the years, including working to silence charities.

Structuring a narrative to sell a government as successful and a country as efficiently navigating difficult times is not the same as being successful or dealing with challenges. Lies and misleading messaging buttressed with strategies to silence criticism leave us with a crisis of trust, and with cynicism. This is combined with the swirl of internet misinformation centred in America but with enthusiastic adherents here. The result is a total inability to agree on a shared data-based reality that must ground our decisions as we face the much bigger crisis of the climate emergency.

The Coalition must confront its decision to pursue the American right into a focus on culture wars and spin. The US is proving to us that this divisive propaganda can only be destructive. We must transform the supervision of Australia’s federal government to ensure truth, integrity and accountability. Without those steps, we too risk losing our liberal democracy.

This article was originally published on Pearls and Irritations.

When the Prime Minister chooses his Ministry, he has many things to consider – reward for support, factions, states, urban/country, diversity, longevity of service.

Merit doesn’t get a look in.

Or perhaps this bunch are the best the Coalition has?

“If you vote Coalition, you get Barnaby Joyce as Deputy Prime Minister” has become a campaign on its own and, for mine, that alone is sufficient reason to change government.

Until recently, we had an Attorney-General who thought it was fine to take anonymous donations to fund a private lawsuit against the national broadcaster.

He has been replaced by a woman who threatened to slut shame parliamentary staff, to “noim noims”, a Minister who refused to co-operate with police regarding the illegal tipping off of the media about an impending raid on union headquarters.

The Minister for Education and Youth has been stood down pending an investigation into allegations of domestic violence by a staffer he admits to having had an affair with.

Not that being stood down means much.

Bridget McKenzie was stood down for using sports rorts to give money to her gun club in 2020. In 2021 she was promoted to Minister for Regionalisation, Regional Communications and Regional Education plus Minister for Emergency Management and National Recovery and Resilience.

Likewise Sussan Ley, who was forced to quit as Health Minister amid investigations into expense claims which included billing taxpayers to attend two New Year’s Eve events hosted by a prominent Queensland businesswoman and donor and the “impulse purchase” of a luxury Gold Coast apartment while on a taxpayer funded trip. She is now Minister for the Environment.

Her predecessor in the portfolio, Melissa Price, will be remembered for insulting the former President of Kiribati by saying, when introduced to him at dinner by Pat Dodson, “I know why you are here, it’s for the cash. For the Pacific, it’s always about the cash. I have my chequebook here, how much do you want?” After being dubbed the “Invisible Minister” for her obvious disinterest in the environment, Price was “demoted” to Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for Science and Technology. Because that’s what happens when you do a crap job?

Take Linda Reynolds, who had to give Peter Dutton Defence after calling Brittany Higgins a lying cow. She only got the gig to keep her quiet after she made a speech in the Senate about the bullying during the leadership spill which she completely forgot about with her short-lived promotion. She is now Minister for Government Services and Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Which I thought was Stuart Robert’s portfolio but I am so yesterday. Since the 2013 federal election, Robert has been appointed the Assistant Minister for Defence, the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Minister for Human Services, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, Assistant Treasurer, Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, Minister for Government Services and, most recently, Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business, with responsibility for whole-of-government technology through the Digital Transformation Agency.

He is most remembered for Robodebt and charging us tens of thousands for his home internet. Oh and being a fellow Pentacostal who, along with Hillsong attendee Alex Hawke, did the numbers for Morrison’s leadership coup.

Hawke, who has only ever worked for the Liberal party (unless you count Woollies in uni holidays), was rewarded with Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. Alex has the certainty that being a religious conservative Young Liberal bestows, which didn’t go over so well in his previous gig when he tried to convince Pacific leaders that Australia was doing more than enough on climate change.

I mean look who we have taking care of it for us – Angus Taylor who entered politics to protect his family’s view from wind farms and their right to poison whatever damn grass they please. Angus, who writes Facebook messages congratulating himself (whilst forgetting to change his name), will be most remembered for giving a forged document to the Murdoch press, and quoting it in parliament, to try and belittle an opponent’s attempt to reduce emissions. The police couldn’t work out where Angus got the document because they didn’t ask him. Case over.

As Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, we have the archetypal dilettante Tim Wison, well suited for the job after his apprenticeship with the IPA where he penned a glowing review of Ian Plimer’s climate denial book. Tim now wanders around the country having his photo taken with solar panels.

Keith Pitt’s combined water and resources portfolio is presumably to make sure the coal mines, and nuclear power plants if the Minister gets his way, have all the water they need.

We have a health Minister who tells us that Australia has done the bestest in the whole wide world in dealing with the pandemic as our infection rate surges past the US, UK and India, RATs become rarer than numbats, and daily deaths hit new highs.

We have a Treasurer who thinks the most important part of his job is a slide show of cherry-picked graphs and smiling photo ops with the latest brochure.

We have a defence Minister, who talks very loudly and carries a tiny widdle stick, eagerly agreeing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to take obsolete weapons off the hands of the US and UK armaments industries.

The Minister for Aged Care has given up all pretence of knowing or caring what he is doing and gone to the cricket instead.

If, as the old Gillette ad goes, these are “the best a man can get”, a change of government isn’t just desirable, it’s a national imperative.

Election diary No 8. Saturday, January 29 2022.

As one summers day oozes into the next and the heat on small bald feet diminishes, kids, prepare for the start of another school year, having learned that it isn’t as bad as they thought.

Having downed his last stubbie and Mum having prepared her last meal in unfamiliar surroundings, both give their thoughts to returning to work.

Unlike most years, this one is different. Mum and Dad and all those 18 and over will have to vote, some for the first time. And others like my wife and I will be doing so for the umpteenth time.

Some take it seriously. Others do so because they are expected to. Most vote for the same party every time. Too many, because they are dissatisfied with the system, don’t vote at all. And then some vote after giving serious consideration to why they are doing so.

With a likely May election, now is the time we all pay more attention to what our politicians are doing and saying. Given that the stakes are so high in this election, people may give their thoughts over to things like integrity now that the current media focuses somewhat on politicians’ behaviour.

When l say the stakes are high, I’m not kidding. This Government collectively is a bunch of the most corrupt, self-serving politicians who will further destroy our democracy if given the opportunity.

There is an abundance of evidence to support my claims. Even now, we have a repetitive TV commercial that claims emissions have come down by 15%, whereas The Guardian reports they have risen by 7%. It might just be me, but I’ll take The Guardian‘s word over the Government’s any day.

The pre-election period is when the Government thinks it’s perfectly alright to spend our taxpayer’s money on falsehoods that make them look good. The budget for this lying rises considerably before each election.

If you live on a hill, look out for the pork barrels

There is always the temptation to use taxpayers’ money in marginal seats in the pre-election period. No doubt, most will recall the Sports Rorts affair when in the lead-up to the 2019 election, the Government used the $100m community sports grants program to prop up many seats. Later a massive scandal broke when the Auditor General found the grants were not awarded consistent with assessed merit and were biased in favour of marginal electorates.

This was followed by the revelation that the Auditor General also had a problem with $660m allocated to 47 sites for commuter car parks. 77% were located in Coalition electorates. Headlines like; Sports rorts on steroids’: scathing report finds Coalition car park program not effective or merit-based followed.

With a significantly increased war chest of $15.9bn in unidentified spending for “decisions taken but not yet announced,” a whopping increase on the previous year’s December budget update figure of $1.5bn.

We must be vigilant and watch out for the Government’s pork barrelling attempts in marginal seats. It is difficult to see them trying to put one over on the electorate again, but it isn’t beyond them.

The money rolls in

Political donations begin to roll in during the pre-election period to back the winner and buy influence into the future.

The big story in the 2019 election was Clive Palmer’s $60m to fund his own campaign. There wasn’t a suggestion of illegality, and he failed to win a seat; however, there can be no doubt that his repetitious anti-Labor advertising made a considerable difference to the Coalition’s vote.

Yes, you’re correct. Grattan Institute analysis tells us that the parties’ top 5% of donors account for more than half of their declared donations. And guess who they might be.

We all know of the subsidies given to the gambling companies property, mining and construction companies that would be better spent elsewhere. No wonder their donations are so sizable.

Something urgently needs to be done about political donations and their disclosure. An excellent first step to squashing this grey corruption is making it more visible.

Real-time disclosure is a must. The Grattan Institute reports that:

“… we won’t find out where the money came from until February 2023 because donation disclosures are only published annually. And even then we will only get a partial picture because high declarations thresholds and big loopholes mean that the major parties generally declare less than 60% of their total private funding.”

Taxpayer-funded political advertising

Governments frequently significantly bolster taxpayer-funded advertising in the months before election campaigns.

The guidelines are supposed to restrict taxpayer-funded advertising for political purposes. However, the Grattan Institute examinations tell us:

“… that over the past five elections, federal governments have doubled their spending in the two-to-three months before an election, compared to the previous three months.”

With a budget in March, goodness knows what they will throw into their electioneering.

The analysis published in The Guardian suggests another 59 million dollars will be spent on advertising.

The “positive energy” campaign and advertisements about the Government securing more rapid antigen tests have already hit our screens. Both are full of inaccuracies, I suggest. Or just plain propaganda.

Government appointments galore, or is that galah?

The Grattan Institute reports that:

“Ministers are responsible for filling hundreds of positions on independent government boards and agencies. In the lead-up to an election, there seems to be a rush to fill these spots – even some of the ones that aren’t currently vacant.

Governments like to control who sits in powerful positions, even more so when these positions are prestigious or well-paid. A forthcoming Grattan Institute report will show that appointing “political mates” to these positions is becoming more common.”

There isn’t much to be done except to highlight the hypocrisy. These appointments of former politicians and staffers need to be forensically examined by the media and Labor. Hopefully, the press will provide background on those who get a position.

Looking at a way to boost integrity?

Opposition leader Anthony Albanese, in his address to the Press Club on Tuesday, January 25, placed great emphasis on the restoration of the dignity that once was the Australian parliament. Making things transparent that have been allowed to disappear will take more effort, and still more challenging will be the replacement of those who have made it all possible. It won’t be easy to suppress the influence of money and corruption after it has flourished carte blanche for a decade or more. But all of it must be done.

Elections allow all of us a chance to change things. They afford us the opportunity to right wrongs and start afresh.

In his speech, Albanese said:

“A country and a people as extraordinary as ours deserve a government to match. A government of competence and a government of integrity. A government that doesn’t get out of the way but helps to create the way.”

Hear hear, Albo. Hear hear.

By Andrew Wicks  

The last time Richard Colbeck made headlines was the discovery that no one knew how many aged care workers were vaccinated.

Richard Colbeck has done it again. As reported by Josh Butler of The Guardian, “Scott Morrison has backed the embattled aged care minister despite saying he can ‘understand the criticism’ of Colbeck, who attended the Ashes cricket match in Hobart on the same day he failed to front a parliamentary inquiry into the Covid crisis. The finance minister, Simon Birmingham, also defended Colbeck on Friday, saying people could ‘walk and chew gum at the same time’. He noted the aged care minister – who is also the sports minister – had held Covid meetings earlier in the day before attending the Test match a fortnight ago.

“Colbeck declined to attend the Senate Covid-19 committee on 14 January. He cited the need not to divert health department officials from their “urgent and critical” work but it was revealed this week he attended three days of the Hobart Test from Friday 14 January to Sunday 16 January.”

In June of last year, Colbeck hit the headlines, as the nation realised that we didn’t know how many aged care workers had been vaccinated, as there was no one keeping track of who has received the vaccine, and who hasn’t. After sustained backlash, the Department of Health said that work was “underway” to survey aged care workers at the nation’s facilities (read: literally counting heads).

At the time, we wanted to know who was responsible for this monumental cock up. According to Aged Care Minister Richard Colbeck, it’s not him. Fronting a senate committee this morning, Colbeck was asked by Senator Katy Gallagher whether he thought he was responsible, yes or no. Colbeck proclaimed that it wasn’t “a yes or no answer.”

Interestingly, Birmingham appeared in this issue as well, telling ABC News Breakfast, “I do accept that it has not gone as we would have hoped.”

However, Birmingham was quick to shift blame, stating that the rollout was primarily hampered by the availability of vaccines. Birmingham took it further, claiming that the reason why 600 aged care facilities haven’t been vaccinated was primarily down the 12 weeks period between jabs with the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Yet, prior to the rollout, residents and workers in aged and disability care were told that they’d receive the vaccine within the first six weeks.

As journalist Christopher Knaus noted, “…a key area of responsibility for the federal government is vaccinating aged care staff and residents who are both in the highest priority group for vaccinations – phase 1a. Initially, the government said it had planned to complete phase 1a within roughly six weeks of the program’s commencement on 22 February. That included vaccinating 190,000 aged and disability care residents and 318,000 aged care and disability staff.”

“We know we aren’t where we want to be but we don’t know where we are,” Gerard Hayes, secretary of the Health Services Union in NSW, said of record-keeping in the sector’s “haphazard” rollout last year.

In early April, Health Minister Greg Hunt said that the program was “accelerating as intended” and “We were conservative in our estimates.”

Hunt also mentioned at that time that “we remain on track to complete first doses for all Australians who seek it by the end of October.”

As The Big Smoke reported, “Pre-rollout, Prime Minister Scott Morrison suggested the rollout capacity will start at around 80,000 doses per week and increase from there. That’s 16,000 a day (over five-day weeks), well short of the required 200,000 a day. The planned peak capacity hasn’t been announced, but even back-of-the-beer-mat calculation would suggest a minimum of 167,000 vaccines per day to give two doses each to 20 million Australians in the eight months between March and October 2021. The longer it takes to reach such capacity, the higher that daily number will get – or we will not reach the target vaccination percentage this year.”

In conversation with The Guardian, The Council on the Ageing chief executive, Ian Yates, claimed that the government overpromised, and underdelivered the vaccine. Yates also highlighted the lack of a plan for vaccinating aged care workers a month into the rollout.

Cartoon by Alan Moir (moir.com.au)

This article was originally published on The Big Smoke.

The media has made much of ‘that photograph’ of 2021 Australian of The Year Grace Tame glaring daggers through The Lodge Occupant. The Good Dr. Jennifer Wilson has penned a great piece for this website about the photo and the amazing cultural subtext, and I encourage you to check it out here. I want to focus on the media reaction, and discuss the breathtaking hypocrisy on display from those on the right. I also want to look at an excellent piece by Samantha Maiden on news.com.au (of all places). Maiden rightly puts Tame’s critics in their place.

The response from the media, by and large, has been to condemn Ms Tame as ‘uncivil’ (consider Peter Van Obsolete as Dr Wilson called him). Essentially, this photo-op is a yearly tradition and Ms Tame ruined it by refusing to be a good girl and ‘give us a smile, sweetheart’. It is worth noting that neither Ms Tame, nor anyone else, is obligated to give Scotty from Marketing a good photo-op. She, like most people, has a political stance, specifically an opinion on The Lodge Occupant. She conveyed that opinion and it is somehow a problem.

First, Have No Standards: The Hypocritic Oath, Part One: Free Speech

Many of Ms Tame’s most vocal critics on the right (including Miranda Divine) are part of the ‘free speech’ crowd. As is becoming increasingly clear, the conservative definition of this ‘right’ (which Australia does not have by the by, we never quite got to the whole ‘bill of rights’ thing) is ‘we get to say what we want and the rest of you fall in line’. In other words, for me and mine, not thee and thine. Standard practice? Maybe, but it still reeks.

Ms Tame expressed her political opinion of The Lodge Occupant in the most public and viral way possible. As we will see in the Samantha Maiden piece, Ms Tame knew exactly what she was doing. But back to the point: Ms Tame does not have ‘muh freeze peach’? Or does that sacred concept only apply to certain opinions? That consistency has never been the strong suit of the right is well known, but this gives whiplash.

First, Have No Standards: The Hypocritic Oath, Part Two: The Media and The Office of The Prime Minister

The Murdoch Media Menagerie has made much in the last day or so of ‘respect for the office of The Prime Minister’. The idea here is that even if you dislike the occupant, you show respect for the office. Anyone inclined to make such a suggestion regarding Ms Tame I direct to the following image, borrowed from the Facebook page of a Mr. Kevin Rudd:

Seems the ‘respect’ due to the office of The Prime Minister changes according to whether or not the occupant is from the right party. The brass b*lls it takes to bellyache about ‘disrespecting the office of The Prime Minister’ only when your guy is in there is something to behold. There is a real sense of ‘know your role, shut your mouth’ here that is most unbecoming. Now, am I suggesting that, as a sexual assault survivor and advocate that Ms Tame is insulated from any and all criticism? No. But of all the things to criticise someone with her past about, smiling? Seriously?

But Why So ‘Untamed’?  

It should be clear that Ms Tame’s actions do not need ‘justification’ from me or anyone else. But I thought it might be useful to look at history for some motivation for her giving The Lodge Occupant the evil eye. One possible explanation for her ‘icy’ demeanour toward The Lodge Occupant might be his utter lack of action around sexual assault and family violence, specifically his defense (before the facts were known) of Non-Christian Porter around the rape of Brittany Higgins. A little detail here worth recalling is The Lodge Occupant discussing the rape of Ms Higgins with his wife, who encouraged him to think about the incident as ‘the father of two daughters’. Ms Tame rightly obliterated this nonsense when she said:

It shouldn’t take having children to have a conscience

Ms Tame does not evidently understand how the conservative mind works: something has to affect them before they care.

Now, this is but one incident, and it is not the whole story of course. But sexual assault advocacy was her issue. The Let Her Speak campaign was what brought her to prominence in the first place. Of all the issues for The Lodge Occupant not to act on, this was likely to poke the bear

Play it Again, Sam: Samantha Maiden to The Rescue

In a fantastic piece for news.com.au, actual journalist Samantha Maiden eviscerates the right wing narrative around this incident. She notes the hypocrisy of the government by pointing out (with photos) times when LNP cabinet members were playing on their phones while turning their backs on Tanya Plibersek as she addressed the House. Maiden also notes the utter non-issue that was Justice Kenneth Hayne of the Banking Royal Commission saying ‘nope’ when asked to shake hands with Treasurer Josh Frydenburg in 2019. But Grace Tame is the issue because she refused to ‘be a good girl and give us a smile, love’ to The Lodge Occupant? Spare me.

Maiden notes that the critics of Ms Tame are actually attempting to control her behaviour, a harkening back to the abuse she suffered as a child. I had not thought of it this way, and the suggestion is intriguing. But what is the most interesting part of Maiden’s piece is the comment that, through her facial expressions, Ms Tame has taught us something about activism.

The suggestion seems to be that activism comes in many forms, and this was a powerful one for Ms Tame. Her knowledge of how much The Lodge Occupant loves his photo-ops doubtless made this a tempting target. Maiden comments that Ms Tame ‘knew exactly what she was doing’ and I am inclined to agree. She hit The Lodge Occupant where she knew it would hurt him: public image. His obsession with marketing (despite his seeming incompetence at it) made him vulnerable there. She exploited that.

Conclusion: Nous Sommes Grace Tame

The lesson from this is that activism need not be bricks through windows, or even fiery rhetoric. Through her simple facial expressions and the fire in her eyes, Grace Tame has conveyed the outrage of the considerable segment of the population that has, to put it mildly, an unfavourable opinion of The Lodge Occupant. As much as her critics like to complain about her ‘lack of civility’, it is precisely that lack of civility, the idea of not being ‘the good little girl’ that makes her statement so powerful.

2021 Australian of the Year Grace Tame yesterday met with Prime Minister Scott Morrison, and she did not smile at him.

In fact, Ms Tame used powerful body language and a steely side-eye to convey her disdain and contempt for the man.

Watching this act of subversion from Ms Tame was liberating. Like many other women, I recall, with equal parts rage and sorrow, the times in my life I have smiled when my true feeling was fury, or hurt, or shock or despair, or even just excruciating boredom with the men. To smile in such circumstances always cost me because it was a denial of my truth, and my authenticity. Nobody can deny their truth and authenticity without paying a price, and this particular price is extracted from girls and women from the moment we are born, and does not cease until the day we die.

Predictably, Ms Tame’s stance aroused the self-righteous ire of the civility police, notably academic and Murdoch hack Peter van Onselen, best known for using the intimate writings of the deceased alleged victim of his best friend, alleged rapist Christian Porter, in a most uncivil attempt to invalidate allegations of anal rape by the former federal Attorney-General. This gives you some indication of the man’s ethics.

Pete van Obsolete rushed to produce a thundering column in The Australian ($) decrying Ms Tame’s refusal to play the game a woman is expected to play when encountering the Prime Minister, or just about any man, to be honest. Juvenile, lacking in manners, childish, attention seeking, brazen, are just some of the adjectives Pearl Clutcher Pete used to condemn Ms Tame. He then went on to state in an interview later that evening that if Ms Tame couldn’t smile she shouldn’t have gone, and there we have it, in a nutshell.

What is required of a woman if she wants a seat at the powerful men’s table? That she smile.

This knowledge comes as no surprise to most women. What is surprising is that a man actually says it out loud. Thanks, Petey. You’ve confirmed what we’ve always known and now we can quote you.

Certain men require that women perform their ideal of femininity, an ideal that has at its centre a compliant woman. If we smile (though our hearts are aching), smile (even though they’re breaking) our smile reassures these men that whatever vile thing they’ve done to us is not really that bad because look, we are smiling!

A woman’s smile is an essential tool in the ongoing patriarchal project to minimise and deny the rampant misogyny that continues to control the lives of women and girls.  A refusal to smile is a refusal to accept the status quo. It is a refusal to play the game. It is a refusal to enable and minimise our own mistreatment and the suffering it brings. That is why they want us to smile, and that is why they are so enraged when we don’t. The refusal to smile is the refusal to be complicit in our own oppression.

Ms Tame campaigned last year for the recognition of victims of sexual assault. Scott campaigned last year for the protection of alleged rapist Christian Porter whom he (erroneously) declared to be “an innocent man under the law” Scott has also been accused of covering up the alleged rape of Ms Brittany Higgins in Parliament House in 2019. I can’t think of one reason for Ms Tame to smile at Scott.

What Ms Tame demonstrated is that it is not necessary for women to play nice with powerful misogynists. With one gesture, she smashed through conventions that only serve to keep women subjugated. The outpouring of support for her stance only proves that we are more than ready for this moment.

Those men (and women) condemning Ms Tame for what they perceive as her incivility, her lack of manners, and her impoliteness need to get out of the way, because their opinions are obsolete. Women increasingly understand how demands that we smile (and I use this as a metonym throughout this piece) work to oppress us, and are indeed designed for that outcome.

I’m not smiling. I’m baring my teeth.

Election Diary No7, Wednesday, January 26 2022

People need to wake up to the fact that Government affects every part of their lives and should be more interested. But there is a deep-seated political malaise that is counter to representative democracy.

Less informed voters, unfortunately, outnumber the more politically aware. Therefore, conservatives feed them all the bullshit they can. And the menu generally contains a fair portion of hypocrisy and lies.

Hypocrisy is one area where conservatives dwell on the unthinking individual who has no idea of the ideological beliefs of different parties: the hundreds of thousands of people that take little notice of politics.

The word hypocrisy means a pretence to have a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not possess. A façade of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude. Or a situation where someone pretends to believe in something they don’t, or the opposite of what they do or say at another time.

1 When as Treasurer Scott Morrison repeatedly said of negative gearing that there were “excesses in the system” and decided to do nothing about them, it would be reasonable to conclude that he is a hypocrite.

Not long ago, former Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull co-wrote a paper that suggested that negative gearing skewed “national investment away from wealth-creating pursuits, towards housing.”

Could we be blamed for saying “bloody hypocrite” when he did an about-turn on climate change policies that he had assured the people he believed in to attain the leadership over a long period?

Like when you profess to be fixing a problem when you are doing the opposite. Examples are many. In 2016 Malcolm Turnbull said that negative gearing was “tax avoidance”; it could be seen as gross hypocrisy in light of his support for it later on.

Another example of hypocrisy: In 2015, 500 workers who benefited from Gillard’s edict that non-faith-based workers be allowed in our schools were replaced by chaplains sourced predominantly from big Christian organisations. It is a secular public school system, and it is fundamentally wrong be you religious or not.

In 2016 it seemed that Evangelical Christians were gaining most from the National School Chaplaincy scheme, earning millions of dollars. Kirsty Needham, writing in The Sydney Morning Herald that year reported that:

Generate Ministries has won $4 million to provide chaplains to 202 of the 438 NSW schools participating in the scheme in 2016.

The Hillsong-linked Your Dream will earn $1.4 million for 70 schools (up from 50 last year), while Macquarie Life Church will provide chaplains in 20 regional schools.

We are supposed to have a secular public school system. Religious Chaplains in secular schools was hypocritical.

When in his maiden speech, the present Prime Minister alludes to good Christian commonplace values of compassion and love for his fellow humans and then behaves entirely differently toward asylum seekers; then again, I suggest he is being hypocritical:

“From my faith I derive the values of loving-kindness, justice and righteousness; to act with compassion and kindness, acknowledging our common humanity and to consider the welfare of others; to fight for a fair go for everyone to fulfil their human potential and to remove whatever unjust obstacles stand in their way, including diminishing their personal responsibility for their own wellbeing; and to do what is right, to respect the rule of law, the sanctity of human life and the moral integrity of marriage and the family. We must recognise an unchanging and absolute standard of what is good and what is evil. Desmond Tutu put it this way: … we expect Christians … to be those who stand up for the truth, to stand up for justice, to stand on the side of the poor and the hungry, the homeless and the naked, and when that happens, then Christians will be trustworthy believable witnesses. These are my principles. My vision for Australia is for a nation that is strong, prosperous and generous: strong in our values and our freedoms, strong in our family and community life, strong in our sense of nationhood and in the institutions that protect and preserve our democracy; prosperous in our enterprise and the careful stewardship of our opportunities, our natural environment and our resources; and, above all, generous in spirit, to share our good fortune with others, both at home and overseas, out of compassion and a desire for justice.”

A close observation of his words reveals the narrowness and simplicity of his thinking; his views seem to be closed to other people’s values, thoughts and ideas. His standards are those he thinks others should have, his family, church, and the community, so everyone should have them. His words seem to represent a world long gone without considering what the future offers. “Well, that’s what my father believed in, and he was a good bloke” seems to be what he is trying to tell people, but society is changing quicker than he can think. The hypocrisy of not seeing it is blinding.

2 When will an election be held?

The Government has issued a parliamentary sitting calendar indicating that it intends to hold the federal Budget on 29 March 2022. The Government can change the sitting calendar, and there is no guarantee that the Budget will be held on that day however if it is that only leaves 3 possible election days (7, 14 and 21 May).

Any 2022 election held before 7 May 2022, would, according to the proposed sitting calendar, only have the Parliament sit during the February sitting weeks (and only the first week for a 19 March election). This means that any legislation the Government wants to pass in the current term would need to be passed by both Houses by the end of that sitting. An election on 14 or 21 May would potentially allow the March and April sitting periods to also go ahead.

A total of 10 sitting days before the election. Isn’t that deplorable?

The One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, and sidekick senator Malcolm Roberts say the Coalition should not expect their votes until the Government rolls back the state-based vaccination mandates and border restrictions. It has never meant much in the past.

So, May 21 looks to be the date we will vote to see who will lead us into the future. One way or the other.

3 Weight problems.

Clive Palmer’s mind, like his body mass, is highly inflated, but he does carry a lot of weight into this election. I read recently that he plans an even bigger spend for the 2022 election. It will exceed $80 million. Yes, it is a lot of money to prevent the Labor Party you dislike from gaining power and electing a known fool instead.

As reported in the Brisbane Times, the unvaccinated mining billionaire says the United Australia Party “will run the most expensive political campaign in Australian history” at the next election. He would also lead the UAP’s Queensland Senate ticket.

4 Speaking of a strange character who is a member of the Coalition, George Christensen, as reported in The Guardian, will not be standing at the upcoming election. Still, it looks as though he will turn up the volume on his conspiracy theory and anti-vaccination commentary.

The Prime Minister has described his commentary as dangerous; however, nothing seems to discourage this thick head from his own stupidity.

In recent months, Christensen’s commentary has varied from the ludicrous to the idiotic.

His public commentary has included pushing anti-vaccination messages, climate change denial, conspiracy theories, and comments that have vandalised his own Government’s public health messaging. One headline in The Guardian read; “George Christensen advocates for civil disobedience as vaccine mandates rock Coalition.” Not a nice person.

5 On top of that, the other nutter Craig Kelly who thinks he knows more than those with the brightest minds, is set to join others to make the first sitting week of the Parliament a misery for the Prime Minister.

Neither of these (Christensen and Kelly) represent their respective parties in the usual way, speaking out against it at every opportunity. However, today’s circumstance dictates that Morrison cannot dismiss them without using some principle.

It remains to be seen who the nutters are who will replace them.

The time has come to expose the great fraud that has been perpetrated on the West in the last forty years. Once we have even a surface-level understanding of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), the great lie that is Neoliberalism will come crashing down.

Now, this has been outlined and discussed in detail by far greater minds than my own; this is not original to me. But I thought it might be useful to offer a brief description of MMT, how it works and then use these basics to expose the great Neoliberal fraud.

MMT, Part One: Currency and Its Relationships

In every economy that has its own currency (Australia, the US, the UK etc), every entity in that economy has one of two relationships to that currency. One is either a user or an issuer. Obviously, the federal government is the monopoly issuer of currency (hence counterfeit money laws). So the government issues the currency, and everyone else (including state and local governments and the citizenry) uses the currency.

Currencies such as the Australian Dollar, the US Dollar, the Pound etc are called Sovereign Currencies or Fiat Currencies. This means that when the government goes to do something, it simply goes to the central bank (the Reserve Bank in Australia or The Federal Reserve in the US) and says ‘we need this amount of money to be created’ and the bank, through several keystrokes, brings that currency into existence. Similarly, the relevant bank accounts of the recipients are also augmented using keystrokes. This may seem counterintuitive, but think about it this way. Consider the recent spending of $3.5b on tanks. Are we to believe that the government went to a physical bank vault filled with stacks of $100 notes? In light of the amount of money spent by the government on the regular, this would be impractical. Government spending is essentially EFTPOS on a grand scale.

MMT, Part Two: Tax Does Not Fund the Government

Since the government simply creates (issues) the currency it uses, government spending is not ‘paid for’ in that sense. It does not need tax to fund its spending since it is spending currency it issued itself. Tax revenue, I say again, does not fund the government. This lays to rest the zombie lie that a government has to ‘live within its means’ or ‘has a budget like a household’. Households do not issue their own currency, so this statement is a lie. Government ‘living within its means’ is naught but a lie designed to justify cutting funding for things neoliberals do not like, such as universal healthcare, education, pensions and generally anything that benefits anyone making less than $250k per year.

I should be clear: taxation does not fund federal government spending. It is true that tax does fund state and local government since these entities are still currency users (recall it is the federal government that issues the currency).

MMT, Part Three: The Purpose of Taxation

A natural follow-up might be to ask

If  tax does not fund [federal] government spending, why have tax at all?

I think the best answer to this was provided in a New Economic Perspectives article

[Another] reason to have taxes is to reduce aggregate demand. If we look at the United States today, the federal government spending is somewhat over 20% of GDP, while tax revenue is somewhat less—say 17%. The net injection coming from the federal government is thus about 3% of GDP. If we eliminated taxes (and held all else constant) the net injection might rise toward 20% of GDP. That is a huge increase of aggregate demand, and could cause inflation

What this seems to mean is that the act of ‘taxing’ a unit of currency serves to eliminate it from the economy. Taxation seems to have the purpose of being a sort of ‘inflation break’, removing a certain amount of currency from the economy to prevent too much currency from flying around which could lead to inflation.

The Other Great Zombie Lie: How Will You Pay For It?

You have doubtless heard some version of this whenever a policy is proposed that would help the peasants. Any talk of, for instance, raising Newstart is met with loud screams of ‘HOWYIGONPAYFRIIIIIIIIIIT’ (how are you going to pay for it) or ‘we cannot afford it’. It is unclear whether those asking making these asinine statements are not aware of the fiat currency the Australian Federal Government uses, or if they are being deliberately deceptive. I leave that decision up to you all individually.

Not only is ‘how will you pay for it’ a ridiculous statement, but its application is also highly selective. Have you ever heard this question, or some variant of it, asked around, say, the military budget (pick your country, but the Americans are the most egregious)? How about corporate subsidies? How about politicians’ own outrageous perks and entitlements?

It is almost like they know that they have a fiat currency and intentionally lie to the people about ‘debt and deficit’ whenever they do not like something, typically for ideological (or corrupt) reasons. Whether it is funding Medicare (consider Mr Morrison’s recent removal of more than 900 items), investment in renewables or anything else the Liberal National Coalition is (in my opinion) paid to oppose, they become penny-pinchers when their ideology gets in the way. Yet hypocritically when it comes to war, corporate looting of the treasury and their own perks, they are reckless. Enough.

Conclusion: The Great Fraud

Since the advent of Reagan and Thatcher, politics in the west has taken a very selfish, individualistic turn. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is a popular Neoliberal mantra. Government has to live within its means is another. MMT shows that the very idea that a government has ‘limited means’ has narrow basis in reality. It is a monopoly currency issuer. It is, in a very real sense, not possible for a government with a fiat currency to ‘run out of money’.

I have said this before, but it is worth repeating: When it comes to helping the people, it is not money these sociopaths lack, it is the will to do it.

Governments with fiat currencies have all the money they could ever need. They could do so many wonderful things to improve society in so many ways. Means is not the issue. Conviction is. MMT, with its focus on fiat currencies, helps to expose the great hypocrisy at the core of the Neoliberal disaster of the last four decades. In an economy with a fiat currency, the use of fear-mongering about ‘debt and deficit’ to suppress policies that could help broad swaths of the population is dishonest beyond measure.

Epilogue: Still Learning

I am very much still learning about MMT, and doubtless, I have gotten some things wrong here. I encourage you to check out this podcast for detailed discussion of the theory and its applications. I hope this piece has provided a basic discussion of MMT and given some insight into the rot that is Neoliberalism.