We continue the countdown to our Top 5 most viewed articles in 2021. Number 4 goes to Dr Jennifer Wilson for this article from March 2021.

Morrison (inadvertently) admits he knew?

The following information was reported by Channel Nine news on the evening of Friday March 26, and has so far escaped the attention it deserves.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison states in this interview that when Brittany Higgins expressed her intention to resign from the office of Michaelia Cash in January 2021, she was offered the opportunity to speak with him before her allegations of rape by a senior staffer in Parliament House were aired in the media.

“At the time just before she departed she was offered the opportunity to come and speak with me with Minister Cash,” he says.

The Higgins story broke on February 15 2021. Morrison has steadfastly denied that he knew anything about the alleged rape of Ms Higgins until that day.

Ms Higgins left Cash’s office on February 5 2021, ten days before the story broke.

Why would the Prime Minister offer to meet with Ms Higgins prior to her departure from Cash’s office, if, as he has maintained for the last two months and stated several times in Parliament, he knew nothing about the alleged rape until it was aired in the media?

Facing intense questioning on the involvement of his department and himself, Morrison instructed Secretary Phil Gaetjens to conduct an inquiry into when the PMO knew about the alleged rape, and who had been informed. This inquiry has since been halted, though Morrison did not notify Parliament of its cessation, leading the House to believe it was still underway.

Senator Cash has denied that she knew the “full details” of the allegations until Ms Higgins indicated her intention to resign at the end of January.

Why would Cash consider accompanying Ms Higgins to a proposed meeting with the Prime Minister if Cash believed Morrison knew nothing about the alleged rape and indeed, had only just found out herself?

Ms Higgins, by the way, says she was never informed of this invitation from the Prime Minister.

It’s not clear if Cash was ever informed, either.

Morrison has gone to extraordinary lengths to convince Parliament and the general public that he was ignorant of the rape allegations until the story appeared in the media on February 15. He claims his office was unaware until February 12.

In one sentence, the Prime Minister has done irrevocable damage to this narrative. He has also exposed the unreliability of all other accounts that have been tailored to support his own, accounts from ministers, senators, senior public servants and staffers.

Morrison’s one sentence has the power to bring the entire dysfunctional edifice crashing down, if the press gallery will follow it up.

If the Prime Minister didn’t know, why would he extend an offer to meet with Ms Higgins in January?

If the Prime Minister did know, he’s been lying to Parliament and the public.

Either way, he’s a liar.

This article was originally published on No Place For Sheep.

We begin the countdown to our Top 5 most viewed articles in 2021. Number 5 goes to Steve Davies for this article from February 2020, which narrowly missed out last year coming in at Number 6.

Hardly a week goes by on Twitter where I don’t seen this article being tweeted and its popularity continues to grow.

Pentecostalism – The decline, infiltration and fall of Australian Democracy

There is a strong sentiment that there’s something not right with the Morrison Government. There is also a sentiment something is not right with Prime Minister Morrison’s leadership.

These sentiments and concerns have gradually increased since Morrison’s “miracle” election win in 2019. Broadly speaking, that increase is due to the aggressive and arrogant manner in which this government has pursued its agenda.

As important as they are, set aside the many policy issues for the moment and you are left scratching your head. What is driving this government to behave so aggressively and arrogantly after an election win?

All of these questions, sentiments, views and concerns have increased further due to the reactions of this Prime Minister and that of his government to Australia’s bushfire disasters and its ongoing denial of the global climate crisis.

There have been recurring questions and reports in both the mainstream media and social media concerning Morrison’s religion – Pentecostalism. Some of these reports highlight the secrecy of the Pentacostalism.

“ … it is also a characteristic of Pentecostalism itself. Little more than a century old, this highly distinctive expression of Christianity has flourished in the spiritual marketplace by selling a feel-good message to seekers while keeping the full truth for trusted true believers.”

However, there is actually quite a lot of information that lifts the veil on the nature of Pentecostalism. In particular, the ideas and strategies that drive its ‘influence’ in the world of politics and government.

The conclusion I have come to is that serious questions need to be asked of the Prime Minister and his government.

We, the people, need to demand transparency from government on these issues. Religious influence is one thing. Dominance another.

The conversation that we must have

It is well known that the Christian Right seeks to shape government and society. The question is to what extent is the Australian Government is in the grip of dominionism and Pentecostalism? Arguably you can see this influence in this government’s stance on climate change, social welfare, employment policies, religious freedom and education.

Morrison has made no secret of his religious beliefs and affiliations – Pentacostalism. In addition, there have been questions about the influence of his religion in the press, social media and the wider community. Questions about his religious beliefs and affiliations have been further amplified by his response, as Prime Minister, to the bushfires that have ravaged Australia since September 2019.

What I am writing here is not an attack on the religious freedom of politicians as private citizens. The information I am presenting concerns dominionist strategies associated with the Pentecostalist movement and Christian Right. Strategies intended to shape and dominate governments and societies.

The strategies in question are known as the Seven Mountains Mandate. The Seven mountains mandate has a long history. It is a dominionist strategy for transforming nations and with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The advocates of this strategy have taken to using the term sphere’s of influence rather than mountains. They are doing so to soften the language. Why? To slide under the radar. To minimise resistance.

The marketing and communication is very clever. However, at the end of it the agenda is the same. To conquer the seven mountains to transform nations in the image of a particular brand of Christianity.

These strategies and their underpinnings raise serious questions concerning the infiltration of Australia’s system of government – the policies it sets and, indeed, its behaviour. Seeking to influence is one thing, seeking to dominate another.

The ideology of dominionism remains a divisive issue within the broader the fundamentalist movement itself. It has been reported that attempts have been made to recast dominionism as a benign influence (to soften the language), in order to deceive people. There is more detailed information in this Church Watch Central article; Is your church part of Houston’s NARpostolic Australian ‘Christian Churches’ (ACC) network?

Church Watch is essentially a religious research group:

“Founded by pastors, elders and members from various denominations around Australia (now with pastoral contributors from around the world), CWC investigates and publishes news on controversies, reports on scandals, resources on discernment and tools to identify cults and sects.”

They state:

“We wish to be factual as we can on Church Watch Central. If there is any information on ChurchWatch Central that you think is not accurate, please contact us at c3churchwatch@hotmail.com. All constructive criticism will be appreciated.”

There has always been tension over the separation of church and state in Australia. In view of the activities of what is broadly coated the Christian Right and the dominionist ideology we need to revisit that issue in 2020 with a particular focus on the degree of infiltration and the influence of the Seven Mountains Mandate on government policy making.

Decline

Between 2010 and 2018 public trust in Australia’s democracy, its institutions and leaders has more than halved. Research undertaken by the Museum of Australian Democracy predicts that:

“By 2025 if nothing is done and current trends continue, fewer than 10 per cent of Australians will trust their politicians and political institutions — resulting in ineffective and illegitimate government, and declining social and economic wellbeing”.

The decline in trust was sparked by conflicts within the Rudd Government. Those conflicts became public and resulted in the removal of the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the installation of Julia Gillard as Prime Minister.

The Liberal Party under Tony Abbott exploited those divisions to win office in 2013. The tactics used by the Liberal Party to gain power emboldened them to aggressively pursue a policy agenda that did not match the promises it made during the election. That resulted in a further decline in public trust.

Due to the falling popularity of the government Tony Abbott was removed from the Prime Ministership. He was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull. Prime Minister Turnbull attempted to shift and soften policy directions. Contrary to expectations within the Liberal Party Turnbull barely won the election. Hence, the seeds of conflict festered and grew within the Turnbull Government.

Conflicts between the extreme right and moderate wings of the Liberal Party resulted in two leadership spills. The eventual result of these leadership spills was the installation of Scott Morrison as Prime Minister on 18 August 2018. Scott Morrison called an election for May 2019 and won with a wafer thin majority.

The Morrison Government has continued with a policy agenda driven by its extreme right. Public disquiet with its policies and approach has grown. The Morrison Government’s weak approach to climate change, coupled with its reaction to the bushfires that have devastated large areas of Australia and have outraged Australians and the world.

Public trust is still at an all time low. The tipping point alluded to by the Museum of Australian Democracy in its December 2018 report Trust and Democracy in Australia remains.

Indeed, we are arguably past the tipping point due to the arrogance shown by the Morrison Government since the last election. An arrogance underlined by the horrific impacts of the bushfires, the government’s refusal to accept the science of climate change and listen to the public.

The gulf between the government and the community is clear – Australia found to be much less divided on need to tackle climate change than US.

Infiltration

The community and media are scratching their heads over the reaction of the Prime Minister and his Government to climate change and the bushfires. This is on top of disquiet over policies as diverse as those associated with financial institutions, Newstart, Aged Care, health and more. Increasingly the  sentiment is that we do not have a normal government.

There are also deep concerns over the behaviour of government politicians and, to this day, concerns about the influence of Pentecostalism within the Morrison Government. Concerns about dominionism and the Seven Mountains mandate have been raised some media reports.

An excellent 2011 report by Chrys Stevenson; Is the Australian Christian Lobby dominionist? states:

“They say when the United States sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold. And so it is with dominionism. Now an international movement, dominionism is thriving in Australia.

From local parents and citizens associations to regional councils, from our previously secular state schools to state government departments and even within Parliament House, Canberra, this particular clique of evangelical Christian extremists is working quietly but assiduously to tear down the division between church and state, subvert secularism and reclaim this nation for Jesus.

But, is there sufficient evidence to suggest that the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) is at the forefront of this ideological holy war? In order to achieve their aim, dominionists plan to infiltrate, influence and eventually take over seven key spheres of society: business, government (including the military and the law), media, arts and entertainment, education, the family and religion.”

The Seven Mountains Mandate is essentially a Christian Right strategy of political and cultural infiltration and conquest.

The mandate has a long history and is also a means of unifying and growing the Christian Right. Some say, of dominating Christianity itself. The Christian right and neo-conservative politics increasingly work hand in glove. The mandate is a strategic theocratic weapon.

The convergence of interests between the Christian Right and neo-conservatives was reflected in the election of Donald Trump and, indeed, in the election of Scott Morrison.

“The parallels between Donald Trump’s unexpected triumph and Scott Morrison’s “miracle” election win are remarkable. A week on, it’s increasingly apparent this was a Trump-like victory.”

This convergence is so strong that after Scott Morrison’s election victory:

“Some of Australia’s most extreme Christian-right parties have withdrawn from politics, claiming the election of Prime Minister Scott Morrison had rendered them redundant.”

In Australia, as in America, it is evident that:

“Dominionism, like the Christian Right itself, has come a long way from obscure beginnings. What is remarkable today is that the nature of this driving ideology of the Christian Right remains obscure to most of society, most of the time. Dominionism’s proponents and their allies know it takes time to infuse their ideas into the constituencies most likely to be receptive. They also know it is likely—and rightly—to alarm many others.

It is time to ring the alarm bells over the influence of dominionism in Australia and the very real threat it poses to our system of government, democracy and society.

Fall

In a very real sense Australian democracy has already fallen. Public trust in our institutions has collapsed. We have a government that simply does not listen.

We have a government under the influence of a religious ideology that advocates the establishment of a theocracy. Capturing the Government Mountain through “Archangels” is one of the keys to that.

We have a government whose behaviour and actions suggest that it has adopted the strategies and intent of the Seven Mountain Mandate. One indication of that is the Religious Freedom Bill.

One thing is certainly clear in all of this. This government needs to come clean on the influence of this religious ideology on its behaviour, policies and actions.

I will be writing more about these matters in the very near future.

After a quite chaotic last few months, I am back to contribute once more to this fine project. I trust you have all kept safe and well (mentally as well in these trying times). The issue I want to look at this time is the Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS). Specifically, I want to look at suggestions from certain Democratic lawmakers and commentators that additional Justices be added to the Court.

The Argument, Part One: A Court Hijacked

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, commentator EJ Dionne begins to make the case for Court expansion. The insightful opening of the piece is worth quoting in full

What do We Make of This? Part One: They Did it First!

It is difficult to see past a charge of ‘but they did it first’ in the justification for this Court-packing suggestion from Dionne, Senator Elizabeth Warren and others. The difference is that McConnell did, in fact, do it first. His considered decision to place power over institutions was (or perhaps is) the cause of the current situation. But does that legitimise the Democrats doing the same thing? Dionne mentioned this too: does ‘packing the Court’ in emulation of McConnell legitimise his behaviour? He disagrees, but I am not so sure; particularly in light of what we said above about adding precisely the number of Justices to the Court necessary to flip the majority.

What do We Make of This? Part Two: Knife to a Gun Fight

The other side of the coin here is that Democrats’ ongoing insistence on what is essentially insutitonalism, with its focus on norms (good Sir), decorum and all that is the political equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight. The Republicans simply do not care about all that crap you prattle on about. They care about power, and will do what is necessary to gain and perpetuate it, institutions be damned.

This brings to mind for me an aspect of the politics of the Late Roman Republic: so much of their politics was grounded in custom (mores) and expected patterns of behaviour. A form of institutionalism if you will. The arrival on the scene of a young man named Julius Caesar who said ‘the Republic is but a word; a concept without substance’ was the true death knell of the Republic. Caesar saw through the crusty old elitists who insisted on tradition for its own sake. The analogy is not perfect, but the Republicans have seen that power can be gained and maintained if you utterly ignore institutions that have only expectation and custom backing them.

Conclusion

I hope I have presented a somewhat balanced view of the issue of ‘Court-packing’ here. The issue is complex, and there are arguments for and against. To not respond in some way to a crude power grab such as McConnell’s makes you look weak. But then there is the idea of responding in kind and legitimising such behaviour. The conservatives appear to have their opponents over a barrel here: do nothing and look weak, do something (which is actually more counter-institutional) and become the monster you oppose. As a side note, the concept of ‘they did it first’ is how wars start, so let us not go there.

Perhaps the compromise (the Democrats’ favourite word) between doing nothing and instituting a power grab is to add two Justices. This avoids the accusation of a crude power grab (that is actually worse than the Republicans since the Democrats will have given themselves four seats). Unfortunately, a charge of hypocrisy (which would be forthcoming if McConnel raised hell) when you do something more extreme kinda makes you look like an idiot. The Democrats are caught in a bind here, and I do not envy them their decision.

With Julian Assange now fighting the next stage of efforts to extradite him to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 of which are based on the brutal, archaic Espionage Act, some Australian politicians have found their voice. It might be said that a few have even found their conscience.

Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce was sufficiently exercised by the High Court judgment overturning the lower court ruling against extradition to demand an end to the matter. In his opinion piece for the Nine newspaper group on December 14, he argued that rights were “not created in some legal sonic boom at one undefined point of our existence nor switched off like the power to a fridge because of a fear or a confusion as to the worth of their contents.”

The deputy PM proved mature enough to admit that “whether you like him or despise him”, the importance of the case transcended his situation. “So we must hope for the British courts to do so, and we will judge its society accordingly.” (They have not and, accordingly, should be judged.)

The Nationals leader has little time for the role of whistleblowing or disclosing egregious misconduct by a State; less time for Assange as the publisher in history, the exposer of crimes by a great power. “They are a separate matter to the key issue: where was this individual when he was allegedly breaking US law for which the US is now seeking his extradition from London?”

Joyce’s reasoning, while jejune on the historical contributions of WikiLeaks, has the merit of unusual clarity. He argues that the UK “should try him there for any crime he is alleged to have committed on British soil or send him back to Australia, where he is a citizen.” Assange never pilfered any US secret files; did not breach Australian laws and was not in the US when “the event being deliberated in the court now in London occurred.” To extradite him to the US would not only be unjust but bizarre. “If he insulted the Koran, would he be extradited to Saudi Arabia?”

The move by the Nationals leader also brought a few voices of support from the woodwork. Liberal backbenchers Jason Falinski and Bridget Archer are encouraging diplomatic intervention. Falinski suggested that the Morrison government “do what it can to get an Australian citizen back to Australia as quickly as possible” though he refused to entertain “a public spat with America.” Archer believed that “he should be released and returned to Australia.”

The announcement that Caroline Kennedy would be heading Down Under as the new US ambassador to Australia was also seen as an opportunity. Former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr suggested that Prime Minister Scott Morrison take the chance to discuss the Assange case with Kennedy. (This, from a man who once claimed that Assange “has had more consular support in a comparable time than any other Australian” while admitting that he did not “know whether this is the case.”)

Morrison might, suggests Carr, point out that Australia had its own challenges in facing war crimes allegations, notably “war crimes trials pending for Australian troops in Afghanistan who might have done the very things Assange exposed in Iraq.” Washington’s treatment of the publisher could well “turn this guy into a martyr.”

Carr sees such advice as part of the capital of trust between allies. It was a “small transaction under the architecture of what each sees as a mutually beneficial relationship.” It might even show that Australia was capable of behaving “like a sovereign nation” in “one tiny corner of our alliance partnership.” If Canberra were unable to “take up the cause of an Australian passport holder, what scope for any independent action do we allow ourselves?”

The former foreign minister shows, at stages, flashes of ignorance about aspects of the proceedings (the US prosecution, for instance, made a special point in not mentioning the Collateral Murder video in its proceedings), he is at least cognisant of the monstrous defects in the case, not least the fact that a good deal of the indictment is based on falsified accounts from former WikiLeaks volunteer, Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson.

The latest stirring of principled awareness in Australia should be treated warily. Australian governments tend to protect their citizens with a begrudging reluctance, except in the rarest of cases. They are notorious in playing the game of surrender and capitulation. In the context of the US-Australian alliance, one given an even more solid filling with the AUKUS security pact, the hope that Australia would ever be able to exercise sovereign choices on any issue that affects US security is almost inconceivable.

The lamentable behaviour from Canberra regarding Assange’s welfare has also been brought to light by the tireless exploits of lawyer Kellie Tranter. Using Freedom of Information (FOI) requests, Tranter developed a timeline revealing how Australian officials were updated on Assange’s condition (legal and physical) yet did little in the way of addressing it. Kit Klarenberg, making use of Tranter’s findings, also discusses the extent Australian officials knew about Assange’s plight.

In April 2019, for instance, the lawyer Gareth Pierce, acting for Assange, wrote to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) warning that the publisher’s possessions were being held by the Ecuadorian authorities. These included a stash of privileged legal documents. DFAT, while claiming it would chase the matter up, concluded in May 2019 that Assange’s possessions were “under the authority and jurisdiction of the Judicial System of the Republic of Ecuador.” Australian diplomats, it followed, were unable to intervene. The result: Assange’s documents, held by the Ecuadorians, were seized by the FBI.

As extradition proceedings were taking place, Peirce wrote to the Australian High Commission that consular representatives would have “undoubtedly noted what was clear for everyone present in court to observe” – that the publisher was “in shockingly poor condition … struggling not only to cope but to articulate what he wishes to articulate.” DFAT’s report of those proceedings, intentionally or otherwise, was stonily silent on the issue.

Throughout, DFAT maintained that Assange had refused consular assistance or support. This was a point the publisher took up in a meeting at Belmarsh prison with consular officials on November 1, 2019, claiming that to be misguided nonsense. He also noted concerns by the prison doctor about his state, being “so bad that his mind was shutting down,” the appalling state of isolation which made it impossible for him “to think or to prepare his defence.”

Little then, can be expected from the compliant minions in Canberra desperately keen not to soil or sour relations with Washington. But it is at least mildly heartening that a few members of the Morrison government have woken up to the fact that this grotesque act of persecution against a publisher should end.

Could 2022 see the end of the Tory virus?

Any mirth stemming from the notion of the Beetrorter being ordered to spread his cheeks and lift his sack upon sign-in at the Glen Innes Correctional Centre balances the dry-retching resulting from the mental imagery that that idea may raise.

Then there’s Miss Appropriation 2020, Bridget McKenzie, whose perpetually waxy visage may be symptomatic of her dread that Sports Rorts could be re-visited. Bridge’s only strategy for avoiding come-uppance is likely to be to play dead. Our Bridge is short a pylon or two.

And did I see Minister for Monetising Carbon Pollution Fidel d’Figueres developing a facial tic at the prospect of a few rounds with counsel assisting? All pure conjecture of course. But pleasing nevertheless as Fidel will be high on the persons-of-interest listing of a future federal integrity body.

These are random wishes on my note to Santa; these dodgy operators are just the crust on the entire fetid spittoon that considers itself to be free from consequences, answerable to no-one bar an eagle painting and a cabal of billionaire oligarchs.

In contrast Josh the work experience guy seems nice. Ha! That crafted image of a rosy-cheeked cherub with a rapidly disappearing Friar Tuck tonsorial has slipped. Whether shrilly undermining Victoria’s Covid efforts or calling up critics’ employers to have them silenced or fired he’s revealed himself to be the standard Tory nasty that many suspected he always was. Our chubby exchequer is well out of his depth as Treasurer so he can always plead stupidity if facing the beak to explain the repurposing of billions of our dollars to favoured Tory sponsors and electorates, letting the criminals in the banks off the hook or secretly deleting ASIC corruption findings. Josh’s discomfort is obvious from his red-faced histrionics so it’s been an enjoyable past-time to measure his panic on the Shouty-O-Meter whenever he’s not applying oily schmooze to his increasingly sceptical constituents.

While on the subject of those who see themselves as Prime Minister in waiting the best news of 2021 is that Xtian Porter will never be an occupant of The Lodge. In underlining his law suit victory and vindication by ignominiously resigning before a Labor government can initiate some formal enquiries into his behaviour, Blue Balls the born-to-rule, big swinging dick has shown himself as nothing more than a whiney little bitch. This output from a turd distillery can at least be reassured that should he ever be up before the courts they will be open to the public in contrast to his secret persecutions of Bernard Collaery and Witness K.

More good news was announced this year by party balloons Tweedledumb and Tweedledumberer. Groomed at a carwash and nourished by Krispy Kreme, Gorgeous George Christensen has pulled out while Cray Cray Kelly has signed up to fellow zeppelin Clive Creosote Palmer’s UAP. Cray Cray is marketing himself as the by-product of a threesome between Nigel Farage, Chef Pete Evans and a channel marker (UAP party slogan: Craig’s our buoy). Cray Cray’s brilliant career is about to go down in flames. Oh the humanity! Guffaw!

Glad tidings also arrived in March from the western end of our wide, brown land from whence news of a massacre was despatched to a joyful public in the east. The Tories were all but obliterated in the state election courtesy of the actions of those two cleverest of political minds Clive and the Dud (i.e. Scooter Morrison) who jointly thought it a brilliant move to threaten WA with a law suit mid-pandemic and just prior to the voting. Scooter hides his marketing genius behind the facade of a smart-arsed maitre d at the smug and over-sold Bros, Lecce (Bros., Lecce: We Eat at The Worst Michelin Starred Restaurant, Ever – The Everywhereist).

The other good news at the end of 2021 is that Rupert Murdoch is one year nearer his funeral.

References:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

This article was originally published on Grumpy Geezer.

Australians are generally despondent about the state of politics in this country. Daily scandals, both personal and political, fill the airwaves causing many people to tar politicians and parties with the same brush.

“They’re all the same” is an understandable response when confronted with evidence of dodgy donations, branch-stacking, pork-barrelling, factional in-fighting and rewards, expense rorting, prevarication, backstabbing, poor personal judgement, rampant sexual harassment and workplace bullying.

Disillusionment with the two major parties, or perhaps the inadequacy of some of their individual members, is causing people to look elsewhere to minor parties or independents.

But the reality is that after the next election, either Labor or the Liberal/National coalition will form government and that will determine our direction for the immediate future with consequences for the long term.

Whilst we may well have reason to complain about individual policies and politicians, the evidence shows a stark difference between the two contenders for government.

It has, almost invariably, been Labor governments that have introduced policies that have made real societal change.

The Australian Labor Commonwealth government led by Andrew Fisher introduced a national aged pension in 1908, a national invalid disability pension in 1910, and a national maternity allowance in 1912.

During the Second World War, Australia under a Labor government enacted national schemes for child endowment in 1941, a widows’ pension in 1942, a wife’s allowance in 1943, additional allowances for the children of pensioners in 1943, and unemployment, sickness, and special benefits in 1945.

The only mention the Coalition get on the Wikipedia page Social Security in Australia History is the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 which introduced a demerit-point system for not meeting welfare obligations and the infamous and apparently illegal Robodebt. “As of June 2018, former social security recipients who owe a debt to Centrelink will not be allowed to travel outside Australia until they have repaid their debt, with interest.”

Whitlam gave funding to non-government schools and abolished fees for university.

Bob Hawke introduced Medicare.

Paul Keating gave us the Superannuation Guarantee.

Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generation, ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and got us through the GFC with early stimulus.

Julia Gillard gave us paid parental leave, the NBN, the NDIS and a carbon-pricing mechanism that everyone concedes would have been the cheapest and most effective way to reduce emissions.

Most of these things were fiercely opposed by the Coalition.

Repeated smear campaigns and draconian legislation have undermined the effectiveness of unions – the only groups where workers can unite to protect and promote their rights. This has led to wage stagnation, an avalanche of exploitation, insecure work and an erosion of workplace safety and entitlements.

Rather than eschewing their union affiliation, Labor should proudly point to its historical commitment to the workers of the country and their families.

Liberal/Nationals governments talk a lot about “the economy” and very little about society.

“The economy” is about allowing rich people to get richer so they will then employ people who work to make them even more money. The lower the labour cost, the higher the profit.

“The economy” is about the GDP – a number that is easily manipulated by including a big government program when it needs a boost.

“The economy” is about the budget, an obscure set of figures which are ripe for cherry-picking – a guess based on convenient assumptions, which can decide to leave stuff out at will, which never ends up being accurate, where debt and deficit can be a disaster one year and a wise investment the next.

The LNP would have us believe that they are very concerned for our mental health and well-being as a result of the pandemic. Prior to that, not so much.

When, in February last year, Shadow Treasurer Jim Chalmers suggested Australia should consider adopting a wellbeing budget, Josh Frydenberg absolutely ridiculed him.

Josh’s shouty attempt at humour didn’t go over so well with the Hindu community who found it “derisive and offensive” not to mention “brazen, racist and Hindu-phobic.”

Fifty years ago, Gough Whitlam, as leader of the Opposition, made a historic trip to China where he more than held his own with Premier Zhou Enlai, devising the blueprint for Australia’s “one China policy”.

Today, they won’t even answer the phone.

There will never be another Gough who made us feel like an independent nation for the first time but Scott Morrison’s idea of sovereignty looks a lot more like servitude to the US/UK military machine and the fossil fuel industry.

I could go on and on but this is already long enough to make the point – any suggestion that Labor and the LNP are the same ignores the evidence.

Well-being for all or wealth for a few?

By Denis Bright  

Without access to the vast resources of the federal LNP in Government, Labor has raised sobering realities to deflate the political excesses of the last Mid-Year Economic and Financial Outlook (MYEFO) before the 2022 election.

MYEFO still provides a window of political opportunities for the Morrison Government as economic indicators show a temporary rebound in the September Quarter in GDP growth, a temporary growth in capital expenditure in mining on real estate and property markets and improvements to business confidence as the holiday season approaches after a lengthy period of COVID-lockdown.

A December Quarter rebound is likely to be a feature of a March election campaign. It is due for release on 2 March 2022.

MYEFO has Machiavellian elements. The most obvious concern is the $16 billion set aside for unannounced election promises as released during the heat of the election campaign as in 2019 in electorates under siege from Labor.

There is also the obvious repeated ruse of our official unemployment figure in the Treasurer’s media statements to talk up MYEFO. The 4.6 per cent unemployment rate needs more qualifiers. Australians from all age groups on training programmes or working on a trial basis for employers do not feature in the official jobless data. Adding the underemployed to the official jobless rate, translates to 13.1 per cent of the workforce. The situation is worse in the most disadvantaged federal electorates.

Besides these obvious lapses are the wildly optimistic assumptions about the post-COVID recovery in the Australian and global economies despite the global shadow posed by the Omicron variant with its record level of cases in Britain.

The Treasury is also over-optimistic about economic relations with China and Hong Kong despite months of sabre-rattling and patrols by Australia through the disputed waters of the South China Sea and the Taiwan Straits:

In China, GDP is forecast to grow by 8 per cent in 2021 before moderating to 5 per cent in 2022, reflecting the strong recovery to date. Growth has eased recently owing to a slowdown in the property sector and the impact of multiple provincial virus outbreaks on consumption. Despite a high vaccination rate, China has continued to pursue an elimination strategy, imposing aggressive local containment measures and strict international border controls to suppress and limit outbreaks

A third of Australian trade also plies these disputed maritime routes. MYEFO also notes that Australian deposits in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) which help to fund China’s Belt and Road Investment is currently running at $4 billion. Former Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello was a member of the International Advisory Council of the China Investment Corporation (CIC) between 2014 and 2018. The AFR announced on 26 August that Australia had just withdrawn substantial amounts of Australian Future Fund Investments in the CIC to support the sabre-rattling campaigns against our strongest trading partner.

All this suggests that the federal LNP is playing domestic politics in its strategic disputes with China that cuts Australia off from profitable investment partnerships within Australia and in the global economy.

Restrictions on overseas investment on security grounds have contributed to the downward trends in investment flows on the LNP’s long financial watch since 2013. Australian net capital inflows have never fully recovered from the GFC on the RBA’s latest chart series:

Current capital flow data is worse than the RBA charts disclose because the resultant investment is highly concentrated in the mining, real estate and property sectors which make little contribution to the building of a more sustainable and diversified economy. Labor shares Peter Costello’s enthusiasm as Chair of the Future Fund in his 2020-21 Annual Report:

As a result of the Board’s careful long-term positioning, the Future Fund has generated a 10-year return of 10.1% per annum against a target of 6.1% per annum. Since inception, investment returns have added $136.3 billion to the original contributions from the Government.

At 30 June 2021 the Board of Guardians invested over $245 billion across the six public asset funds for which it is responsible for the Commonwealth Government. Each fund has exceeded its target return over every time-period.

The Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) generates earnings to provide grants to support medical research and medical innovation. The MRFF delivered a return of 10.9% in 2020–21 and was valued at $22.0 billion as at 30 June 2021.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund returned 13.9% for the year, taking its value to $2.2 billion. The Future Drought Fund and Emergency Response Fund have also performed well, delivering returns of 14.0% and 13.9% per annum respectively.

The Disability Care Australia Fund also continued to perform in line with its Mandate, delivering a return of 0.4%.

The opening up of new subsidiaries of the Future Fund and state-controlled investment funds to corporate hedge fund capital avoids fractious debates about additional taxation burdens. Labor’s National Policy mentions investment seventy times. Sceptical constituents might well ask for more details on the origin of this investment capital. More specific mention of investment options has come with the release of Labor’s affordable housing agenda:

An Albanese Labor Government will create a $10 billion off-budget Housing Australia Future Fund to build social and affordable housing and create thousands of jobs now and in the long term. Each year investment returns from the Housing Australia Future Fund will be transferred to the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (NHFIC) to pay for social and affordable housing projects. Over the first 5 years the investment returns will build around:

20,000 social housing properties.

4,000 of the 20,000 social housing properties will be allocated for women and children fleeing domestic and family violence and older women on low incomes who are at risk of homelessness.

10,000 affordable housing properties for frontline workers.

A Social and Affordable Housing Fund (SAHF) is operated by the NSW Government. A proportion of the investment returns will fund annual service payments that will reward community housing providers over 25-years to bridge the gap between rental revenue and operating costs. These are far from being radical initiatives and stake out a broad support base that existed prior to the Labor Split of the 1950s.

In The Boom-and-Bust Traditions of Conservative leaders, MYEFO conceals the likelihood of a near trillion-dollar public debt in 2024-25 as private sector investment falters while government spending programmes move southwards after the election to reduce the economic boost from deficit spending which has contributed to favourable short-term MYEFO indicators.

I hear the confidence of Bill Hayden in the enthusiastic responses of Dr. Jim Chalmers to the current MYEFO. The adjacent seat of Oxley became a safe Labor seat for the first time after the defeat of the Liberal Health Minister in 1961. Being taken for granted, both then and now, raises Labor’s enthusiasm for the possibility of a change of government this time around despite all the media hype in MYEFO and in the future December Quarter economic indicators.

This public relations advertisement warns everyone about life delivering curved balls during the cricket season. Take good advice from leaders who are on our side is already a strong feature of Labor’s media agendas. This style of narrative advertising could be broadened with inputs from other cross-sectional characters who are committed to level-headed critical policies that are appropriate for a middle-ranking Australian economy with a still underdeveloped financial sector.

This would be a variation of the It’s Time Advertising from 1972. This campaign was challenged fiercely by the Federal LNP. Labor’s victories in twelve new seats were partially offset by losses to the LNP in Bendigo, Forrest, Stirling and Sturt. Out of this mix, Labor secured the seat of Cook which is Scott Morrison’s current seat.

State of the art advertising can attract attention and fire the appetite for change over that conventional wisdom offered by the LNP to justify more market ideology and militarism to worsen the Australian social divide. Readers might take a few minutes to evaluate this style of the public announcement by checking the You Tube Channel.

Narrative advertising should be endorsed by members of Labor’s Shadow Ministry, high profile candidates and popular Australians as in 1972.

A call to electoral enrolments is the first step in getting sceptical potential constituents onside before the rolls close in early 2022 as the voting returns in many Labor heartland electorates were unbelievably soft at the last election.

According to ‘The Daily Telegraph’s Canberra experts rate our federal politicians‘, Scott Morrison scored an A for an outstanding year leading the nation.

“It has been a rollercoaster year for the PM that saw a number of mid-year struggles (Brittany Higgins, vaccine rollout) neutralised or turned into net positives,” the article reads.

“Yet big wins – including the UK free-trade deal, world-leading vaccination rates, and a seemingly resilient economy – all go in his favour.

“Morrison ends the year on a high, but needs to re-establish his leadership after being dragged down by less able students in the national cabinet group project.”

In a moment when authoritarianism is on the rise around the world, our mainstream journalism is not up to the task of confronting the nation with the scope of the threat. Trapped in a paradigm shaped for a previous era where major parties roughly followed the same rulebooks, too many media bodies continue to normalise the shocking.

Of course the capacity of the media to change our awareness of norm-shattering behaviour, and provoke change, has collapsed since the “Moonlight State” and Watergate eras. Social media has crushed the business model based on advertising dollars and stolen much of the audience. Specialist journalists have too often been sacked in exchange for overworked and cheaper young entrants to the profession, who need to churn press releases into articles to fill space. Older heads are too often caught up in chummy friendships or the binds of “access journalism” where they can’t burn their sources.

Some great journalism remains: specialists who have the capacity to expose the crimes and scandals that betray our trust; people with integrity who challenge the whirlpool of nonsense with which our leading figures parry off the swords of enquiry; investigative heroes who adhere to the vocation of performing the role of watchdog to our democracy.

Too often these crucial individuals – and teams – are forced to operate in smaller organisations. Australia’s legacy media by contrast shames itself regularly. As a result, Australians’ news knowledge in is comparatively superficial. We have also lost the sense a shared reality, based on facts that can be interpreted differently but remain crucial to the discussion.

News Corp in Australia has increasingly taken on its American decay into propaganda for a frighteningly radicalised right. Culture-war framing shapes most stories. Victorians in particular have borne the brunt of its campaign to discredit the Labor Party. The pandemic hit the state hard for a number of reasons, but News Corp never missed an opportunity to make it worse, and redirect blame from the federal government. No wonder the “Freedom” rallies on Australia’s streets are largest in Melbourne.

One of the key strategies in a competitive authoritarian regime (where elections still happen but it is ever harder for the democracy-embracing party to win) is to cripple honest media. The ABC has borne the brunt of intimidatory attacks from our Coalition politicians with funding slashed, constant parliamentary attacks and investigations. It has also faced partisan appointments limiting its capacity to hold government to account. Discussion panels are made up of disingenuous political spin merchants or populist distractions, leaving expertise out in the cold. Acts of brave journalism still happen. These, however, are met with revenge in the form of inquiries such as Senator Bragg’s most recent effort, now delayed. Even the ABC’s co-operative chair, Ita Buttrose, was provoked to describe this one as an “act of political interference designed to intimidate.”

The audience is already primed to disregard disturbing revelations from the ABC anyway, since the News Corp outlets have joined the government in inoculating their people against trusting it. Just as Trump cast the mainstream media as “the enemy of the people,” the right has depicted the ABC as “lefty propaganda.”

Fairfax has also suffered. Its financial decline culminated in its “merging” with the Nine network headed by former Liberal Party deputy leader Peter Costello. The print mastheads are slipping towards partisan framing of their coverage.

Last week, The Sydney Morning Herald published an opinion column by the Human Rights Defence Alliance’s John Steenhof. He defended Morrison’s Religious Freedom bill as anodyne and safe. The broadsheet failed to declare that this is a body born of the Australian Christian Lobby and Steenhof a writer who has little time for the LGBTQI individual’s right to be free from discrimination. Paul Keating’s response to Peter Hartcher’s coverage of his National Press Club speech also highlights the limitations of some leading Fairfax journalists.

Older Australians still dependent on print news struggle to find honest coverage of issues and are often unaware the degree to which their preferred paper has declined.

Our commercial television news, which often takes its more important stories and their shaping from the print press, is similarly beholden to its corporate masters’ interests. Its viewership too has declined and the resultant sensationalism is partly to blame for the fact that too many Australians’ worldview is distorted.

The crisis in our federal government’s lack of integrity, with failures in facing both pandemic and climate threats, is thus not understood by too many. The decay of our democracy is not perceived by the establishment who still consume legacy news, as the crisis it is.

On Sydney’s streets last week, a former soldier in uniform spun a beguiling story to the “freedom” protest crowd that began with a prayer. He pointed out immediately that he was a prayer-and-bullets kind of guy, and lots of bullets would be needed. His QAnon speech bemoaned the infiltration of all arms of the Australian establishment with communists and pedophiles who need to be brought down. It was met with rapturous applause.

In Melbourne 10,000 of the noose-wielding mob were on the streets. People of the artsy left as well as the angry right believe in Clive Palmer and Craig Kelly to promise freedom from oppression and access to ivermectin.

This might all die down as our strong vaccination rates grant most of us the ability to go back to life as “Covid normal.” We would be foolish to trust in this, however.

In the US, the commentariat is just beginning to confront the crisis of journalism that helped take them from Obama’s 2015 to a nation on the brink of authoritarianism or fracturing into civil war, a mere six years.

The hilarious and shocking Trump clown-car candidacy was given millions of dollars’ worth of free coverage because institutions like CNN didn’t see any downside to the boost to their own business. News Corp’s Fox News and the right’s talkback shock jocks continued to spin a nightmare vision of the country detached from reality to thrash up a profit as well as a terrified Republican voter base. Eminent establishments such as The New York Times gave harsh critiques to Hillary Clinton while largely ignoring the ridiculous Trump campaign as irrelevant.

While the organisations that confronted their role in electing Trump, or failing to pick his victory, spent much time trying to hold Trump to account in the years that followed, they have returned with frightening speed to “normalcy bias.” While leading Republican political and media figures try to overthrow democracy and foment racial violence, the press returns to “both sides” coverage. In a year with a constant and overlapping series of climate crises, they continue to try to avoid sounding hysterical, but instead promote a sense that little is at stake.

The ABC has shown something of the tendency, in an echo of US media, to practise “refuge-seeking journalism” where exaggerated efforts to display “balance” have crippled important civic debates. Accusations that the media has a “liberal (left) bias” in the US are met with overcompensatory coverage of news and argument. Some resultant timidity at the ABC can give undue weight to government distortions from our non-commercial source of news.

Clever spin from well-funded and organised lobby groups helps shore up discredited arguments or give them heft far beyond their worth. Understaffed media organisations, aiming to meet frenetic deadlines and demands for immediacy, are grateful for the easy filler.

Both The Australian and The Australian Financial Review in August this year accepted the government line that coal must continue to be subsidised to shore up the energy grid. The headlines – “Grid and bear it: subsidise coal” and “Coal will be paid to firm up the grid” – could have been written by the government’s, or lobby’s, own writers.

The fact that the global trajectory would demand this taxpayer money be spent on developing renewables is framed out of the discussion. And it is this issue of “framing” that is at the core of the failure of journalism.

The right in America has shown itself adept at “playing the refs.” This ability to daunt media organisations into accepting the right’s agenda setting and framing of a topic is one key to their crisis of democracy. Rather than focusing on the crisis of democracy which the Republicans are forging, the mainstream media obsesses over the comparatively trivial “Dems in disarray” as the leadership negotiates with its two golden-handcuffed senators.

In Australia, for example, coverage of asylum seekers in the conservative, particularly tabloid, media has over the last decade been based too often on the incorrect framing that they are “illegal” and “queue jumpers.” Too rarely is the coverage based on the facts. This media failure has enabled the government to continue to persecute innocent people who came to us seeking safety.

Culture war “games” have thus turned life and death issues into something too “political” to address intelligently.

Whether many mainstream journalists are too inexperienced to place PR in context, too overworked to have time to discover the background, too immersed in the truthiness of their world’s beliefs to challenge disinformation, they are letting the nation down. The spirit of Schwartz Media, Michael West Media and our other organisations dedicated to holding the powerful to account needs to be embraced by our legacy masthead writers.

We need to consider the laws that can be crafted to balance the damage done by Malcolm Turnbull’s 2017 slashing of our media ownership laws. In a moment when the climate and democracy decay form a deadly helix, we cannot afford to have entertainment or agenda masquerade as news.

We need to debate new ways to fund the reliable news utterly critical to the functioning of democracy.

Too much is at stake to allow our news to frame this moment as “business as usual.”

This article was originally published on Pearls and Irritations and has been reproduced with permission.

Three years ago, Scott Morrison issued a press release promising to establish a new Commonwealth Integrity Commission.  The stated aim of this body was to investigate criminal corruption.

Without looking any further, we already have a problem, because most of the integrity issues we have with our government are not considered corrupt let alone criminal.

I am sure that Gladys Berejiklian is certain she has done nothing wrong.

It’s not illegal to use public funds to bolster your political standing or that of whomever of your team you may be rooting at the time.

It’s not corrupt to ignore departmental advice about cost- benefit analyses in favour of captain’s picks.

It’s not criminal to hand out contracts without tender or grants without comparative appraisal.

As Glad and Pork Barilaro, reminded us, everyone does it.  The spoils of war, so to speak.

Governments are under no compulsion to show us the basis for their decisions.

Cronyism, far from being considered corrupt, is de rigueur. There are no essential criteria or merit-based selection processes about whom you appoint to positions.

Politicians who wish to attend sporting events, New Year’s Eve parties, check up on their investment properties, or go to political fundraisers, only need have their photo taken in high vis or hair net somewhere or chat to a voter to claim their expense “entitlements”.  No receipts necessary.  It’s all “within the rules”.  Bring the family.

The bullying and intimidation detailed by multiple female Liberal MPs and Senators during the 2018 leadership spill was not considered criminal behaviour.

Threatening the preselection of members in order to influence their vote on decriminalising abortion was found to be a contempt of the Queensland Parliament but attracted no punishment.

It’s not illegal to lie in political advertising and use public money to pay for your ads.

Lobby groups and individuals can contribute as much as they want to political campaigns and parties have no rules on how much they can spend.

It’s also not illegal for the people who make the taxation laws to invest their money in offshore tax havens, family trusts, and other tax avoidance schemes.

Integrity means the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.  That sets the bar far higher than just not engaging in criminal conduct.

How many of our politicians would pass a genuine integrity test?

In reality, both major parties have commenced their 2022 campaigns, and it is about time the media (you know who I mean) of this country admitted that there is more than one party running for election and give Labor equal billing.

So far, Federal Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese has given the Prime Minister a decent shirtfront every time he has crossed the boundary of lying. In January, I expect Albanese to announce minor preliminary appetiser policies that Australians will find more attractive than the LNPs.

Those who follow politics will acknowledge that the country’s political establishments, conventions, and political truth have been devalued and run-down to the point of being unrecognisable to the constraints we had but a generation ago.

We also have to recognise that it is not those who follow politics (the devotees of both parties) that we have to bring over but those whose vote is insecure-those willing to listen to a story of transparency, trust, fairness, honesty, ideas and sound policy.

Of all the issues, two have captured the electorate’s attention more than the meagre efforts of the Coalition in combating climate change and the decline in the standard of Governance. Rorting and unfairness have run amok and continued throughout the terms of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison.

A virtual wage freeze has typified the lot of the average wage earner while the ultra-affluent have increased their wealth astronomically.

Robodebt is but one example of the Morrison Government’s unfairness, whilst the largesse of Jobkeeper for companies in comparison boomed during Covid is another.

The country now has more than a trillion dollars of debt, which raises the question of how it is repaid. The usual way of doing so for conservatives is to slash spending.

The usual targets are the ABC, universities, education, the unemployed, women’s programs, etc. After lowering taxes, they would unlikely increase them.

The answers to many questions remain so, but one thing we know for sure: The Morrison government must be defeated at this election.

Here is my plan for defeating the LNP in 2022. (You may also want to read Rob Gerrand and Noel Turnbull’s list on Pearls and Irritations, on which my list is based).

Trust

There is no common thread for a recovering society/economy to cling to without trust. Everyone likes to feel they can trust the other person. On multiple occasions, Morrison has been called out for lying.

The French president called him a liar on the international stage. Albo must go in hard exploiting his untrustworthiness. What will he do if he regains power? Can you trust him?

By comparison, Labor will stand by its promises and commitments.

The economy

Labor sees the post covid economy as an opportunity to marry society with economics where spending is bonded to and justified by the common good. It will grow the post-covid economy in a new state/national government cooperative agreement, including infrastructure and new green technologies.

An electric future confronts us. Electric vehicles are just a starting point. Incentives for Australian companies to undertake research into tomorrow’s key developments and services must be front and centre of Labor’s platform. Even to the extent of introducing a ministry for the future.

Taxation

The tax cuts introduced by the Coalition may not be sustainable, and Labor must be truthful about it.

With a trillion-dollar debt, cutting taxes may not be advisable. Labor should trust the rich and privileged to understand that the debt problem will have to be brought under control. Any economist would testify that it is unsustainable, and the nation has to fix it. A high-level enquiry with the powers of a Royal Commission is the proper way to address the problem. The ultra-greedy must pay their fair share.

Climate change

The fear I have here is that Labor, after being burned in the past two elections, will fail to recognise that this time around that the climate is a red-hot topic and needs to be respected as such. Tell the country the truth. Coal is finished. It has no future.

Tell mine workers that Labor will ensure that they are looked after as Australia transitions out of coal. Insist that they will not be left behind.

Tell them that the “billions being spent on subsidies for fossil fuels and new gas exploration will be diverted to investment in green hydrogen plants (using solar and wind electricity to generate hydrogen).” Tell them they have a future.

Integrity Commission

Labor needs to go in hard with its promise to release a policy (before Christmas) for a Corruption Commission. Now that the Coalition has vacated the transparent government space, it must promise to end corruption and waste and establish a proper independent anti-Corruption Commission “that has the power to hold politicians to account and stop the rorting.”

The workplace

People may have jobs, and there might be more in the pipeline. However, “wages have barely increased since the Abbot/Turnbull/Morrison governments have been in power.” At the same time, company profits are overflowing.

Labor is, of course, “committed to good jobs with good wages and training all workers, especially the young, for tomorrow’s industries.” The promise of free TAFE places has been a good start, as has its pledge to increase JobSeeker to $450 a week, at the poverty line.

Health

Health has traditionally been one of Labor’s strong suits and it must keep with this tradition. A focus on prevention would appeal to the younger voter. Promising to work with the health funds to reward those willing to adopt healthy lifestyles would be popular with many.

With covid in mind, it must refund our hospitals for their incurred costs. Not only for their selfless efforts during the pandemic but simply because it is something that needs to be done.

Raising doctors’ Medicare rebates (deliberately held down for years) would show how much society appreciates their work.

International relations

Labor should promise to restore the principles of sound old-fashioned diplomatic principles and promise to restore relations with China. Whilst being a treaty nation with the US, we should diplomatically tell them that we will always do what’s best for Australia.

The ABC

Labor would assure the ABC that proper financial support would be legislated over five years instead of three. It would also undertake an assurance that Government would “stop undermining its independence.” The arts would also receive appropriate sustainable support.

Innovation

Labor has already undertaken to fix the balls up, known as the NBN (or Fraudband). It should empathise the urgency of the task.

Labor will make Australia the world leader in green technologies with a fund to support start-ups that show promise.

Labor should offer to increase university funding if they commit to more significant research programmes. It would also provide funding to launch new innovative firms and create thousands of jobs. It must also address the unfinished work of Gonski.

The standard of Governance

The one thing that Morrison is now disliked for that is revealed in focus groups, surveys, and polls is his appalling leadership and governance. You can add to that the performance of his cabinet and Ministers in significant portfolios. This pitiful governance can also be attributed to the junior partner in the Coalition, the National Party.

Morrison cannot even admit that he tells the most outrageous lies and lies on top of lies in the face of facts that show he does. He really believes he doesn’t.

I and many others have written over the year about the many examples of rorting in detail, almost to the point of boredom. Here are just a few reminders: Angus Taylor and Josh Frydenberg’s environmental stuff-ups; the sports rorts of Bridget McKenzie; the railway car parks fiasco; the gifting of billions of JobKeeper money to companies that earned record profits; the gifting of billions of dollars to the Government’s fossil fuel friends in the guise of meeting emission targets.

Need I go on?

“You can’t trust Scott Morrison” should be a slogan repeated ad nauseam throughout the election campaign.

By 2353NM  

Those of us who are old enough to remember the Sydney Olympic Games will probably also remember there was some talk at the time that some countries were less than enthusiastic to compete because of Australia’s treatment of its First Nations people. Prime Minister at the time, John Howard, was under considerable pressure to apologise to our First Nations peoples for the dispossession of their lands, and ill treatment since Australian Federation in 1901. A mockumentry series on the workings of the Sydney Games Organising Committee starring John Clarke (RIP) and Brian Dawe called ‘The Games’ broadcast an apology by John Howard here from about 21:50 into this episode.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd did apologise to our first nations people in 2008 and Howard was reported as saying it was a mistake. While Howard is correct to the extent that equality across all ethnic groups in Australia is still a long way off, the Rudd apology did clear the way for a new beginning of understanding between Australians. The dire consequences suggested at the time didn’t occur. Instead, those that deeply felt the dispossession of their land and destruction of their culture and way of life had their values vindicated.

Fast forward a few years and marriage equality was on the agenda. Despite overwhelming public support as expressed in opinion polls, the Coalition Government, this time with Malcolm Turnbull as Prime Minister, determined they would waste public money by running a ‘non-binding’ plebiscite across Australia to settle the issue which would ‘direct’ parliamentarians how to vote (yes, you read it correctly, the ‘non-binding’ part meant that parliamentarians could ignore the ‘direction’). On this occasion, the opinion polls were correct, there was overwhelming support for marriage equality so the legislation was put to Parliament. Because the Australian Electoral Commission was responsible for the plebiscite, not only did we know what the country thought, we also found out what the voters in each federal electorate thought of the proposal. The ‘carbon tax’ liar, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and current Prime Minister Scott Morrison both abstained from voting despite both of their electorates being strongly in support.

Marriage equality was legislated despite the attempts of the Coalition to derail the process. Again, the dire consequences suggested at the time didn’t occur. In fact the mental and physical health of a number of Australians probably improved immensely as they no longer had to hide part of their lives from those around them.

While demonstrating a complete disrespect for the majority opinion of the Australian public, at least the Coalition Governments of the past weren’t playing around with the future of not only the country but potentially the planet we live on. Scott Morrison rolled Malcolm Turnbull in essence because Turnbull was going to introduce an emissions trading scheme. If Morrison had believed in climate change at the time, he could have just as easily protected Turnbull from the leadership challenge. After going to the 2019 election claiming that climate change was crap, and mandates (that were never mandates anyway) for electric vehicles would ruin the weekend, Morrison scraped back into government with a majority of two.

It’s now history that we were all shamed by the actions of the Morrison Coalition Government at the recent COP26 meeting in Glasgow, when even fellow conservative headline grabbing Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged Australia to commit to greater emissions cuts. Morrison’s ‘technology not taxes’ mantra is shorthand for walking away from a problem he helped create in the hope that someone, somewhere will fix it for him, while he hides behind the claims of ‘enormous’ economic costs of climate action.

It’s a similar behaviour to the ‘not holding a hose’ claim during the bushfires that battered a lot of Australia in early 2020 when he was holidaying in Hawaii. It’s a similar behaviour to the “it’s not a race” management of the pandemic response in aged care, vaccine procurement and quarantine – all of which are Federal Government responsibilities.

But Morrison and his fellow climate deniers such as Joyce, Canavan and Christensen are wrong. The economics doesn’t support their argument

The debate over the costs of inaction saw Treasurer Josh Frydenberg use a speech to the Australian Industry Group last month to warn households of a potential rise in mortgage rates unless Australia gets its act together on climate.

“Australia has a lot at stake,” he said.

“We cannot run the risk that markets falsely assume we are not transitioning in line with the rest of the world.”

Separate analysis by Deloitte Access Economists (DAE) estimates that the Australian economy could lose $3.4 trillion worth of GDP in today’s dollars by 2070 if climate change is unchecked.

One of Australia’s richest people, Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest told Morrison in October to commit to significant emissions reductions claiming

“clean” hydrogen, which is sometimes championed by the Morrison government, was a carbon-based product. Clean hydrogen, he said, was “a sound bite covering the fact it’s made from carbon-emitting fossil fuel – it has carbon all through its supply chain”.

Forrest likened “clean” coal and “clean” hydrogen to “cancer-free tobacco”.

“It all adds up to the same thing – misleading sound bites put out by industries wishing to continue a duplicitous social licence to operate,”

Even the industry body representing the purveyors of the emissions intensive utes and SUV’s that are apparently needed to ‘enjoy the weekend’ disagree with the Morrison Coalition Government’s approach

“Around the world, emissions targets are a clear sign of a governments [sic] intent to reduce emissions and sends a positive signal to automotive manufacturers to provide more electric-powered vehicles to those markets.

“This is exactly what is needed in Australia,” said [Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries] chief executive Tony Weber.

“… Governments should focus on setting targets, not trying to pick winners through specific technology,” Mr Weber added.

If you consider that to be a little harsh, you probably don’t want to read this contribution from Nine Newspaper’s Drive website

That the Government even acknowledged electric vehicles as an enabling technology for their Net Zero by 2050 plans, was an amazing backflip on their 2019 election mocking of Labor’s electrical vehicle ambitions, which they decried as the death of the Australian weekend.

When pressed this week on that 2019 circus, Mr Morrison said he never had a problem with electric vehicles and the Coalition was moving forward with “technology, not taxes” and “choices, not mandates”. The Prime Minister claims it is “the massive change in technology” since 2019 that has seen the Government readjust its sights.

And yeah. We are calling bullsh*t on that.

If the war against climate change could be won on rhetoric alone, Australia would surely be at the front of the pack.

Fortunately for the rest of us, some are actively making meaningful change to mitigate the imminent (based on the research of scientists) climate catastrophe. A regional bus company in Queensland is moving it’s 120 vehicle diesel bus fleet which, the owners claim

[annually] consumed more than a million litres of fuel and produced 3,100 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.

to a fleet powered by green hydrogen which they will produce themselves using solar power and rainwater. The real irony of this is the bus fleet is located in Emerald – one of the the principal service communities for the ‘Coalfields’ in Central Queensland. The same ‘Coalfields’ that Senator Canavan claims to represent. Somebody’s making it up – and it’s unlikely to be the people investing capital to reduce emissions in their own business.

When was the last time a Coalition government actually acted to validate the country’s public opinion rather than those of vested interests?

What do you think?