A few years back, 2016 to be exact, I wrote a piece for The AIMN suggesting that being in Opposition was a thankless, powerless task with few positives. However, enormous expectations from those who follow you and your party are always present. Bill Shorten discovered that the release of party policy is considered shaky before the election campaign begins.

I wrote that the media focuses on the incumbent, and often, a 10-second grab on the nightly news is about all one can expect. You will be dammed if you produce a good policy that is unpopular with the party but good for the country.

I was wrong because being in Opposition provides, particularly the LNP, many opportunities to regain government through lying and negativity. It works; take the referendum for establishing an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, for example. From its inception, the right of politics denounced the idea comprehensively with no word of endorsement.

In 2016, I befriended Stuart Whitman on Facebook, and we had coffee together at the famous Federation Square in Melbourne.

We immediately recognised a common thread of humanity that we both shared. At the time, Stuart worked in his own business before taking up an opportunity to work with Mark Dreyfus and his team. From there, he moved on to the Institute for Religion, Politics and Society at the Catholic University.

In our conservation, l asked him about political motives and why people sought a political career; what made them tick? What made them do and say the ridiculous things they often do?

He suggested the primary motive was formed from two choices or a combination of both.

“I’ve spent enough years observing now to work out there are generally two motives for people who go into politics – those who enter politics for “who” they want to be, and those for “what” they want to do.”

I haven’t heard from Stuart for a few years, but our conversations are firmly embedded in my mind.

Stuart’s quote could easily be applied to politicians like Peter Dutton and Tony Abbott. 

Was it for “who” they wanted to be or “what” they wanted to do that they entered politics? Their actions and words over many years suggest they were in it to do nothing but create a pathway to the top job. 

Contrary to what l said about the Opposition back then, Tony Abbott made my thesis seem unremarkable. He proved that becoming the Australian prime minister was possible simply by opposing everything and being totally negative, telling lies with an absence of policy, and adapting to the requirements of a Trumpish personality.

Is it as simple as that? So far, Peter Dutton has followed Abbott’s example by being even more damaging. The media called Abbott the best Opposition leader ever and still needs to explain their criteria for doing so. If it was because being negative made him successful, then the Enlightenment never happened.

What motivates the right-wing media to do and say the things they do? A lust for power?

Is it purely to stir up hatred of those with a darker skin tone for political reasons? What pleasure do they get from their dalliances with sewer politics? Do they think that the public falls for their lack of compassion because they were both tough on asylum seekers and others? I now think they do.

Remember when Victorian Police described Dutton’s “African gangs” crime wave claims as “absolute garbage” and backed it up with facts? Dutton said that – because of these apparent gangs – people were so afraid they wouldn’t step outside their doors.

Kathleen Kildare tweeted at the time:

“Peter Dutton, Minister for Home Affairs, is a disgrace and should be stood down for manufacturing community discontent with the complicity of the Daily Mail.

Furthermore, his Trumpesque attacks on Victoria’s Judicial system smacks of authoritarian overreach, grr!”

Dutton is the politician Stuart Whitman describes as the “who” they want to be and not the “what” they want to do politician.

Dutton stepped up the rhetoric against the judiciary the following day, blaming “soft sentences” on appointing civil libertarians as magistrates and labelling one Supreme Court judge a “left-wing ideologue”.

The judge in question, Lex Lazarus, is one of Victoria’s most respected jurists, and Dutton would know that by convention, he cannot reply.

And the “who” they want to be as politicians during times of poor leadership is a most dangerous animal because the likes of Turnbull at the time had no power to stand up to them.

So, Dutton has kept up his sarcasm (except for when he sleeps) and other offensive expressions calculated to raise racial hatred and break down society.

We can only conclude that Dutton is not in it to help create a better society and future for all. He has failed at his two Ministries, has a reputation for laziness, and compassion has eluded him thus far in his career. I can only conclude that the Liberal Party believes they need a man of ill repute in charge, a mongrel, in other words, so Dutton was an easy choice.

I do not doubt that what Stuart Whitman says is correct, and when you look at the current Shadow Ministry, it’s difficult to imagine any of them being in the “what” they want to do category.

By John Haly  

“There is enough work in Australia for nobody to be on unemployment benefits except for those medically incapable.” (Quote from Twitter!)

This is a familiar theme on social media. Such claims are often made, predictably, by a privileged white male with a job; and no understanding of the misery of the unemployed because he has some anecdotal “proof” based on his personal experience of how his “mates” have kept him in work.

Outside of that cocoon, as my recent piece demonstrated, there are far more unemployed people than the ABS has ever stated. However, the notion that bounteous employment is available, prevails.

According to Roy Morgan’s research, full-time and part-time employment are increasing, but so are underemployment and unemployment rates beyond 2021. There are numerous reasons from my last exposition on this using October 2023 statistics to believe that one and a half million people are validly unemployed.

This is significantly more likely than the around half a million claim that has dominated the ABS estimate over the last year. I’ve already addressed that, so let’s move on to the subject of work opportunities in Australia.

Surveys vs Advertisements

Understandably, having a low unemployment rate serves corporate and government interests. There is strong motivation to find a high number of vacant positions to support the narrative that the unemployed are simply unmotivated, preferring to live off grandiose welfare cheques. The idea of below-poverty aid being sufficient to propel individuals into occupations clamouring to be filled by desperate employers is ridiculous. Unfortunately, so many people think this is true.

Despite the ideological incentives, data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and estimates from the Department of Employment show that job opportunities have decreased in recent months. Businesses report a 35% higher number of job positions than the number of classic job advertisements as identified by the Department of Employment, (See Figure 1). Despite the drive for a narrative that implies there is enough employment. However, all the government can come up with is a little over 402K job positions. Only two-thirds of these are classically advertised. This is still less than the half million ABS estimates are unemployed. In October 2023, Nine News featured headlines like “The Aussie industries desperate to hire more workers”. If this is the case, why are there so few adverts in comparison to claimed vacancies? Figures 1 & 2 both show that over a decade ago, surveyed jobs were less than advertised positions.

RM Under and Unemployment & Job Vacancies (ABS & Dept Emp’)

There are reasons for this, to be fair, which are because of developing technologies. Seek, CareerOne, Australian JobSearch, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter/X have emerged as key outlets for job seekers and employers in the digital era. The final three are not tracked by the IVI statistics. However, because of the abundance of inflated and outdated profiles, LinkedIn’s popularity has declined dramatically over the years as has Twitter/X. Hey, I glam my LinkedIn up as well, but I haven’t heard from a recruiter in years.

Advertised job classifications

The claim by businesses that surveyed vacancies are 35% above advertised positions appears dubious. If 35% of the total 402K positions indicated in the poll are not easily accessible for public scrutiny, we must wonder what kind of job market is being concealed from the public? It will almost definitely not be general labourers (5.8%), drivers (5.3%), salespeople (7.3%), or community workers (10.7%). (see Figure 3). The service industries, which have been complaining about being “desperate for workers,” will promote heavily. There are 76K jobs in that small group, which is distributed across Australia’s vast brown country, with 18 cities, over 100K inhabitants, and 1700 towns with populations ranging from that to a thousand people. The math suggests that if there are more than 40 job vacancies in a given location, you are most likely in a metropolis. If you are in a rural area with fewer than a thousand people, the chances of finding one job in all of those categories are slim. I haven’t even mentioned whether you have the skills to perform these non-professional occupations.

Surveyed position breakdown

Professionals, managers, technicians, and clerical and administrative staff vacancies (which make up the great majority of posted jobs) that require expensive higher education are the most likely categories to find unadvertised job vacancies. If you disagree, take a look at Figure 4 for a breakdown of the ABS survey of positions by industry.

The meeting of jobs and unemployed

Close but no cigar lit

Just consider the media excitement that occurred when for once, the surveyed job vacancies (not the advertised vacancies) and the ABS “measure” of unemployment nearly equalled. The Australian Financial Review reported a decline in job vacancies in June 2022, with the ABS unemployment rate falling to a new 48-year low of 3.4% in July. “For the first time on record in Australia’s history, there are more job openings than unemployed people to fill the vacant positions”. Technically, the ABS’s May 2022 quarterly survey recorded 476,900. The AFR rounded this up to 480K, but it had fallen to 460,400 by August. However, unemployed people (seasonally adjusted) were 488,800 in July, which is technically higher than 480K vacancies. Fairly close if you don’t consider that surveyed jobs were falling and had been doing so for two months before the ABS came up with the 480K. This had fallen to 460K job vacancies by the following month (see Figure 5). I can tell you that in July 2022, the ABS listed 90,600 gig employees as having no hours of labour and no compensation.

The ABS considers these people to be “employed” despite no pay or work because they have “job attachments”. I can also tell you that Jobseeker had a hard count of 892,066 people for whom they paid unemployment benefits. But, “for the first time on record in Australia’s history…”, the ABS and Job Surveys numbers came somewhat close to one another, loosely speaking. The hullabaloo from the MSM press was extraordinary. I so want to say FFS, but that would be unprofessional.

NON-Numeric employment obstruction

Roy Morgan’s annual workforce numbers have been steadily increasing over the last 16 years. These figures show an average of 222,000 new individuals added per year. Because Australia’s population is concentrated along a 35,821-kilometer-long coastline, job searchers are unlikely to live in areas where there are suitable vacant positions. When evaluating assertions of “labour scarcity,” it is essential to take a more comprehensive approach, taking into account the substantial rise in the number of individuals actively looking for employment, limited economic diversification, and the decline of Australia’s secondary trophic economic level (Manufacturing).

Factors exacerbating the scarcity of employment opportunities in Australia include:

• socio-demographic characteristics;
• geographical location;
• job suitability;
• employer discrimination;
• accessibility limitations;
• skill and education levels;
• competition;
• financial constraints;
• literacy levels;
• inadequate remuneration;
• restricted working hours;
• employer exploitation;
• job conditions;
• domestic violence;
• health concerns; and
• transportation issues.

The media and the government have been hesitant to engage in a more detailed and nuanced debate on this topic. The media has issued propagandistic critiques asking that the unemployed “just get a job” or that “people lack the desire to work.” The unemployed are portrayed as intellectually and mentally inferior. Employers who exploit their employees and express irritation with the scarcity of susceptible individuals to fill low-wage temporary positions demonstrate a similar level of contempt.

Skills required for future employment

Skill levels continue to be important in meeting future employment needs, but Australia’s policy decision to impose huge educational debts on young people in return for a degree may be viewed as a disheartening display of policy short-sightedness. A more pragmatic solution, akin to Gough Whitlam’s educational policies, could be to develop higher education programmes tailored to expected future demands. (See Figure 6)

Long-term limits on actual employment development in Australia, as well as the persistent dissemination of misleading information claiming low unemployment figures, are all obstructions. Employers report difficulties in hiring candidates for roles that lack appeal at all skill levels. Unemployment, job markets, economic complexity, interest rate policies, corporate-driven inflation, income disparities, austerity measures without social support, and educational demands must all be addressed in Australia’s economic future. Governments, the media, and economists must address these difficulties head-on rather than hide behind the propaganda of flawed metrics.

This article was originally published on AUSTRALIA AWAKEN – IGNITE YOUR TORCHES and Independent Australia.

So Prime Minister Albanese has finally determined the Morrison era ‘Stage 3” tax cuts were not in the best interests of the country. It’s not hard to argue that they never were, but we’ll leave that to those far better qualified to make the case, such as Greg Jericho in The Guardian.

While most of the media is reminding us that Albanese’s change of heart is in fact a broken promise (and let’s be no doubt here – it is), they then go on to discuss why the change of mind is in fact a good idea for most Australians. The reason is simply that most Australians will now get a tax cut and the tax cuts are now structured towards those who need the ‘help’ far more. You could argue the person on $200,000 a year who needs the Coalition tax cut to manage the payments on the investment rental and put fuel in the new Ram truck to tow the big boat might suffer as a result – but you don’t need a investment rental or a Ram truck to survive. Those on lower incomes might argue that they can now afford to buy medicine, pay the rent or put petrol in the car.

The thing is that in essence the pre-pandemic era tax cuts legislated by the Morrison Government were made in an economic time completely different to the circumstances we find ourselves in today. The economy hadn’t taken hits from the pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine or the current Palestine/Israel almost war just to name a few. There is a saying attributed to various people including Winston Churchill and John Maynard Keyes that suggest ‘When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do sir?’ Let’s face it we all change our minds when presented with new information, whether it be the route we take to work, the brand of breakfast cereal we consume or moving on from our ‘forever’ home due to circumstances we can’t control.

As probably expected, Opposition Leader Dutton is screaming from the rooftops that Albanese’s yet to be legislated changes to the Stage 3 tax cuts is tantamount to treason. According to Dutton, Albanese should call an election so the people can decide and implying the world will end when the tax change become effective on July 1. His claims are not justified of course, and the argument could be made that at the last election was lost by the Coalition despite the ‘rock solid’ promise to implement the Stage 3 tax cuts.

Albanese is certainly not the only one to break a political promise. John Howard’s ‘core’ and ‘non core’ promises still rankles some. Tony Abbott’s first budget was a litany of broken promises from the election that was held months earlier. And in 1993, Paul Keating went to an election suggesting tax cuts were L.A.W. as they were legislated, only to reverse the legislation after the election. We all survived Abbott’s and Keating’s broken tax promises, Dutton (who was in Abbott’s government) should be uncomfortable in demanding a higher standard of ‘promise keeping’ from the other side of politics than he accepts from his own side. After all – to quote another saying – ‘the standard you walk past is the standard you accept’.

In reality, apart from the politics of giving something to more people, Albanese has a lot of good reasons for breaking a promise. Given the changes in the economy, there is a far greater concern that a lot of the population is struggling to make do, let alone get ahead. Bringing more fairness and equity into the tax system should always be applauded, and others have argued that the ‘Stage 3’ tax cuts were always a political gift to the Coalition that could be used until they were implemented to bash the ALP around in the polls.

Which gets us back to politics and political promises. We elect our leaders to navigate unforeseen issues in the future for our country based on their and their political party’s past performance. Arguably Albanese, Abbott and Keating to name a few broke political promises for what they consider to be good reason after being advised by experts in their field. We should really be applauding them for having the courage to say that they have been given new information and adjusted their outlook to compensate. 

Certainly we could have a discussion about the equity and fairness of the broken promises, as unlike Albanese’s changes to the legislated tax cuts, Abbott’s seemed at the time to be more about the Coalition’s habit of kicking people while they are down – but that’s another discussion altogether. 

Regardless you have to feel sorry for Dutton. The ‘Stage 3’ tax cut bogyman has been finally killed off and all he can do is complain about a broken promise – while ignoring the long list of Coalition Prime Ministers that did the same thing for arguably far less altruistic motives. It must be uncomfortable sitting astride that particular barbed wire fence.

An arsehole is in plain view

Just over half a term ago the prune juice kicked in and Australia had one of its more satisfying movements – the Great Schmo was number two-ed by the voters.

Now, after a fruitless 18 months of unreturned phone calls Schmo (“If you’re good at your job, you’ll get a job”) has finally announced his pending resignation from politics to almost universal relief, not least from the Liberals. With some clear air replacing the stale waft of curry a certain truncheon-headed autocrat thinks the planets are aligning in his favour.

It’s not easy to imagine a slight upward tic at the corner of Peter Dutton’s mouth – an animation not often manifest given Herr Shickltuber’s narcoleptic personality. Watching flies crawl across his eyeballs is usually the most captivating aspect of his lugubrious presence. Yet with Albo’s and Big Jim Chalmer’s fixes to Schmo’s stage 3 tax wedge an aroused gruppenfritter senses another opportunity to indulge the Tories’ favoured practices of fear and division – the emboldened Dutton no doubt thinks this “broken promise” will seal the deal of his ascension to the big, green swivel chair despite his appeal being lower than that of tertiary syphilis.

Dud & Suss’s bedpan rodeo has hitched up to the Murdochrities’ RWFW hypocrisy bandwagon, loaded their confected outrage, mounted their high horse and taken to the airwaves for a wall-to-wall tantrum & humbug expo.

No-one does tits-caught-in-a-mangle, faux indignation as does the gaffe incontinent Suss Ley. Desperately shrieking Sussan, with the face of a half-deflated hemorrhoid cushion underlining the quality of her discourse, announced that the Libs when again in power would reverse the Labor tax initiatives thereby denying 92% of voters (and about 98% of her own constituents) an increased tax cut. Thinking is hard hence Suss’s outbursts, guided by a numerologist, are usually subject to blow-back. A no doubt blistering phone call from Lib H.O. had Suss in Trumpian denial that she’d ever said what she’d plainly said.

“…deputy leader Sussan Ley told Sky News when asked if the Coalition would roll back the changes “this is our position. This is absolutely our position”. For good measure, when asked again if the Coalition would restore the original package, Ley replied “we’ve made it very clear that this is our policy. The policy is the legislated position that stands today.” 

Cuddly Pete, self-declared convert to working class hero, copped some derision of his own making for his latest foray in the interminable Tory culture wars by attacking Woolworths as being woke for not stocking Australia Day made-in-China tat – oi oi oi themed bucket hats and double pluggers. The icing on the you-fucked-that-up cake was Cuddly-Spuddly’s notion that Australians should boycott Woolies – the employer of some 200,000 of his new BFF cohort – the working folk. When made aware through the hoots and guffaws of the idiocy of such a call and the consequent vandalising of Woolies stores by his real constituency (i.e. fuckwits) Pete pulled a Schmo and went into hiding. What a guy.

Dutton on same sex marriage: “unconscionable that companies are morally coerced by campaigns to boycott their products.”

Dutton on Woolies: boycott them over Australia Day merch.

Spud is not a deep thinker. Look at how easily his amateurish coup to unseat Turnbull was out-manouvered by an unholy trinity of pentacostalist Mammonites – Schmo, Brother Stuie and Alex Hawke. “We prayed that righteousness would exalt the nation.” The upgraded tax changes require legislation to be voted on in Parliament. It will be hugely amusing watching Spud squirm as the Tories either vote against bigger tax breaks for the majority or they go along with Labor’s changes. Would you like butter on that popcorn? The massive Chalmers wedgie he’s going to cop would bring a tear to a fish’s eye.

By being as thick as a QC’s carpet Spud is also predictable. Spurred by the success of his cynical sabotage of The Voice, Spud will be amping up the negativity, and the conflict and division to indulge his natural instincts for cultivating the culture wars, to invent or provoke outrage, to victimise and to bully.

He re-purposed Australia Day; let’s see what he has in store for Anzac Day.

This article was originally published on Grumpy Geezer.

His type should never be seen again. Born from the dark well of swill and advertising, former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison was always the apotheosis of politics’ worst tendencies: shallow form, public service for private interest, and, ultimately, the scrap for survival at the expense of the grand vision. Get the vote, keep the seat. Get the party in, forget the intellectual or social picture. Bugger the broader society with a hefty stick, sod the beastly populace, betray your colleagues and everybody else besides: there is only me, Scomo, the man who will reliably fail you at every turn and stab you in the front, given a chance.

In a January 23 Facebook post, Morrison announced his decision to – and here, his priorities are clear – “leave parliament at the end of February to take on new challenges in the global corporate sector and spend more time with my family.” Making the announcement now would “give my party ample time to select a great new candidate who I know will do what’s best for our community and bring fresh energy and commitment to the job.”

This was the sort of thing he should have done months ago, along with a few other former Coalition MPs. Depart, disappear, vanish into history’s chronicles on refuse. But Morrison is fastidious about soiling venerable institutions on his terms. He does not so much dismantle as vandalise them in his own inimitable way. Given the chance, he is likely to head off with his host’s toilet seat. 

As a federal member for the seat of Cook, his lack of attention to the burghers must surely have been noted after his electoral defeat in May 2022. Local representation, if taken seriously, is a grind, a series of constituency concerns, attending events and yawning at meetings. It’s hard to tend to such things if you are on the payroll of the Hudson Institute being praised for countering “an increasingly assertive China in the Indo Pacific and beyond” or spending time in Israel praising that state’s execrable efforts in quashing aspirations for Palestinian statehood.

None of this bothers the departing Morrison as being inconsistent. He can still say in his official statement of departure that he was “able to deliver new and upgraded sport and community infrastructure, such as major upgrades to our local surf clubs and new artistic installations and visitor facilities being provided at Cook’s landing site at Kurnell.” And let’s not forget the charity work, the grants programs, and the activities he had a minimal hand in.

That remains Morrison’s talent: greased enough to wriggle out of failure; an opportunist determined to take credit for the successes of others. Take one example. Australia’s attempts to prevent the transmission and spread of COVID-19 during the global pandemic was mostly aided by the variable policies of the country’s states and territories. The Commonwealth merely turned off the tap to visitors and, scandalously, Australian citizens desperate to return to their homeland. Stranded, often impecunious, and left without resources in countries being ravaged by the coronavirus, such citizens were demonised rather than aided.

Morrison’s sole obligation, at that point, was to make sure that vaccines being developed would be made available to the public in due course. Instead of ensuring standard, ready supply when the time came, the rollout, as it was termed, was a stuttering affair. But the then Australian PM had a familiar retort: global supply lines had been “choked”. Again, he wasn’t to blame.

The list of errors and stumbles is extensive, showing varying degrees of callousness and indifference. When parts of Australia were being incinerated by bush fires in the latter part of 2019, he thought it wise to take an unannounced holiday to Hawaii. He was forced to admit “regret” for “any offence caused to any of the many Australians affected by the terrible bushfires by my taking leave with family at this time.”

Like a walking advertisement of anachronism, he loved the fossil fuel industry with such passion he brought a lump of coal into Parliament to assure fellow lawmakers that they need not fear it. He issued directives that the words “climate change” would not feature in environmental talks Australian diplomats would participate in. He scorned the Pacific Island states for worrying about disappearing under the sea because Australia was not pulling its weight in cutting green-house gas emissions.

As a proponent of cruelty and plain sadism, Morrison’s true Pentecostal spirit was also on show. As immigration minister, he presided over the “turn back the boats” policy of the Abbott government, treating the naval arrival of refugees and asylum seekers as a national security threat. Towing boats out to sea, bribing traffickers to return, and sending broken, traumatised people to such Pacific prison outposts as Manus Island and Nauru, were all cloaked in the secrecy of Operation Sovereign Borders. When the New York Times interviewed Morrison after becoming prime minister, the paper noticed that, “His office features a model migrant boat bearing the proud declaration ‘I Stopped These’.”

His qualifications as a dinner circuit speaker, boring lecturer, tedious advisor, and outrageously paid consultant, are next to nil. But near the universe of zero, the cusp of talent’s infinite absence, opportunities bloom. The corporate entities and think tanks, many keen to ensure the enduring power of the US imperium, will barely notice the man’s colossal ignorance, his cultural insensitivity, his lack of education. What mattered was that he could be Washington’s stalking horse in the Indo Pacific. 

Eventually, the member for Cook proved to be more than just that. He would go so far as to sell off Australian sovereignty for a song via the AUKUS security agreement promising nuclear powered submarines, leaving the Australian taxpayer in bondage to Washington for the next half-century. What a triumph that was, and if Samuel Johnson was right in calling patriotism the last refuge of the scoundrel, he would have had someone like Morrison in mind: the figure who uses patriotism as a guise for his own scoundrel cunning.

So much for that. Much had been promised by Florida Governor Ron De Santis to derail Donald Trump’s bid to return to the White House. But the attempt to wrest the Republican Party from the orange ogre’s meaty, waving hands was never convincing. In the end, DeSantis was more stumbler than balancer, a woeful mismatch before the forces he never staved off.

While he made his name fluorescent bright in Florida’s politics, launching attacks on Disney, skirmishing with public health officials regarding pandemic measures, and railing against minorities (LGBTQ youth figured highly), he seemed awkward away from the swamp. On the national stage, Trump was to DeSantis what the boulder was to Sisyphus, having to be constantly pushed, a crushing, seemingly perennial burden.  But to win the nomination, let alone have any prospect of a shot at the White House, DeSantis had to extricate himself from that task without anybody else noticing.

He did so in a myriad of ways, none successful. One particularly shallow effort involved DeSantis’s attempt to woo the right-wing of the Twitter/X-sphere, going so far as to invite social media figures (one dare not call them personalities) in January 2022 to Tallahassee for a package visit. The agenda: a pop in to the governor’s office, dinner at the gubernatorial mansion, topped off with drinks at a rooftop bar near Florida’s state house. Many of the feted bloviators had recently made the move to Florida, where they could bask in freedom’s airy glory.

This all looked like an effort to sketch a separate agenda, bringing out the paving for his own way to the White House. But DeSantis’s reasons for wading into that particular echo chamber were unmistakable: Trump was going off him, and the emotionally distant DeSantis was not one to press the flesh with enthusiasm. (His social circle, it had been said, was so small it “could fit the back seat of a Mini Cooper.”) Cornered, and not willing to go for such savoury electoral items as the economy, DeSantis chose culture of the most “Right” sort. The governor’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, told Politico that the tactics were not out of the ordinary. “Turns out that a governor who stands up for individual rights against federal tyranny is popular among conservatives.”

Whatever Pushaw’s view on this, conservative commentators could not but notice the heavy reliance on digital campaigning as the be-all and end-all. Jack Butler of the National Review Online was sceptical from the start. “An essential element of its emerging strategy appears to be rooted in the belief that Twitter is not merely a means to disseminate information and messaging produced elsewhere, but an essential political background itself – a digital Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina.” It was his effort to seek the “Terminally Online aura” that captured such figures as Blake Masters in 2022 or Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.

And terminal it proved to be. The DeSantis campaign was chaotic, controversial without constructive return, fatally weak, and inclined to needlessly sap resources. It also started late, enabling Trump to gather steam and mount his own offensive against “Meatball Ron” and “Ron DeSanctimonious”. 

The mounting legal challenges for the former president were also failing to shrink his popularity. Each indictment and charge came with an invigorating effect. The May 2023 launch by the Florida governor also began in ominous fashion, with DeSantis choosing the venue as Twitter Spaces, with his facilitator being the erratic billionaire Elon Musk. By controlling access and the message through the audio-format, the governor could eschew meeting actual human beings. 

As it transpired, the site creaked and glitched. It took almost half-an-hour of technical problems before DeSantis took off. Even then, his presentation, delivered to a significantly smaller online audience, could not resist the digital aura. “I think what was done with Twitter was really significant for the future of our country.”

Described once by Trump as a “brilliant cookie”, the crumbling DeSantis saw the dark writing on the electoral wall after the results of the Iowa caucus. The January 15 outcome did place him second on the returns at 21.2%, ahead of Nikki Haley at 19.1%, suggesting that the campaign would continue into New Hampshire and South Carolina. 

It was not to be. Rather than risk further defeat and likely humiliation, DeSantis suspended his campaign. Inevitably, the announcement came on the platform now known as X. He declared that there was “no clear path to victory.” Like many politicians in the US, he could not resist relying on words supposedly uttered by Britain’s wartime leader, Winston Churchill, and making a hash of it: “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” 

Churchill never said anything of the sort, though he did write that, “No one can guarantee success in war, but only deserve it” and that, “Success always demands a greater effort.” Both quotes appear in the 1949 publication Their Finest Hour.  DeSantis, it would seem, had used the words of a Budweiser advertisement from 1938, rather appropriate given the watery quality of that beverage, and the governor’s weak, haphazard effort.

The Republican candidate, branded Trump 2.0 or “Trump without the baggage”, is no more. And just to sweeten matters for the man whose hold on the Republicans he could not break, DeSantis gave his own endorsement. It leaves Trump in a near unassailable position, with Haley’s purportedly more modest bid more vulnerable and quixotic than ever. 

Rather than giving more oxygen to the gift that keep on giving for political blog writers, Peter Dutton, for lambasting Woolworths for announcing it wasn’t stocking specific Australia Day items, maybe we should look to the future.

If you want to be cynical about it, politicians in general always have their eye on their future at the next election. At the next election, the same politicians that are goading those easy to manipulate into damaging Woolworths stores because they choose not to stock merchandise for a public holiday at the end of January will turn around and tell us they are honest, moral and decent people. Furthermore, we should entrust them with the government of the country to for the next three years. Dutton has been remarkably quiet since the latest dog whistle was blown. Assuming the potential reactions to his comments were considered prior to them being made, it wouldn’t take Einstein levels of intelligence to consider that the outcome of criminal damage to the retailer’s premises was a likely outcome. And while there is a long list of Coalition faults and failures, they aren’t stupid.

That being the case we all have a problem. Dutton is the leader of the alternative government in Australia. Unlike One Nation and United Australia Party, there is a possibility that at the next election, the Coalition will gain power. One Nation and United Australia Party can blow dog whistles or promise the world and get away with it every time as they know they’ll never have to figure out how to deliver on their pronouncements. The Coalition does have a chance of forming a government. So what do we know about how our alternative federal government would behave and its priorities?

Not much really is the honest answer. We know they will fire up a small vocal minority that deem criminal damage is acceptable when a retailer chooses not to stock a range of products even though they are unprofitable. We know they will not support giving some assistance to a minority of Australians to bring their standard of living up to a similar standard as the majority of Australians. We know that they also happy to blow dog whistles regarding refugees and asylum seekers that were released from illegal indefinite detention.

The thing is that we choose political leaders based on their past performance to make decisions about issues that arise in the future. While every political party will make promises, a promise is worthless. The demonstration of character by the political party’s leaders prior to gaining power is far more important – as that gives us an understanding on how they will manage the issues of the future when they occur.

Economics Professor and former Liberal Party Leader John Hewson is also concerned about the lack of information we have available to determine the behaviours of Dutton and the Coalition, together with the media cheer squad who are happy to assist by making each day about scaremongering, point scoring and creating fear. As Hewson points out 

Unfortunately, this is an environment sponsored and fed by much of the mainstream media, especially Sky News and Nine, which have already picked their champions and launched their campaign strategies, as indeed they did with the referendum. So many of their junior journalists and even some of their old guard are obsessed with “gotcha journalism”, compounded by the responses of the ignorant trolls on social media who naively suggest there are simple solutions to our mostly complex social and economic challenges, with little interest in good government – they just want to be players in the melee.

Hewson goes on to list some of the economic risks that have been identified by the United Nations that will affect the worldwide and Australian economies between now and the end of the decade. He rightly wants to know from both political parties that potentially can form a government what they intend to do to minimise the economic risks to Australia and Australians.

At the same time, the Albanese Government has to invest time in creating a narrative around what they have done in the first term. While there has been some positive outcomes, there has been some missed opportunities in policy development, policy implementation and the explanation of why the policy is good for the community. There also needs to be work on a roadmap for a second term together with a sales pitch that resonates with the community.

The Coalition has to flesh out its policy and publicise why it is a better choice than the Government. Continual negativity and complaints is not policy, but it is similar behaviour to the toddler that will hold their breath until their face turns blue if they don’t get what they want. Policy is saying that instead of the Government’s way of doing things, we would do something slightly different with a rational discussion on why the alternative would be a better outcome.

The media also has a part to play here. They are not up for election so they shouldn’t be grinding political axes, rather they should be doing their job – reporting the news in a fair and balanced way. The falling sales of newspapers and people switching to streaming and alternative news services demonstrates that the media are not doing their job. 

Sadly, we are stuck with a government that, while apparently competent, couldn’t sell a beer at a Test Match, a Coalition that is too busy sniping to sell any positive outlook for the future and a media that is picking winners rather than reporting what is happening. 

Hewson’s final paragraph is:

In commenting on the release of the UN report, Secretary-General António Guterres said 2024 would be a “tough” year, but “it must be the year that we break out of this quagmire”. This should certainly be the case for Australia. It is time to address the hollowness and inadequacy of our democracy and its debate.

How true.

On May 21 2022, Scott Morrison and his corrupt bunch of cronies were thrown out of office.

Most Prime Ministers who have lost their hold on power take the quickest possible exit, get another job with a salary equal to or better than their current one and remark on things they ought to leave be. In recent times, the only exception to this once-fashionable convention has been the first woman to be elected as Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. 

As time becomes the essence of history and one year turns into the next, Scott Morrison has become the enigma of the House of Representatives, with speculation ever present that he is ready to quit Parliament and trigger a by-election in his New South Wales seat of Cook.

Why is he hanging around? Does he harbour thoughts of returning to the top job? Is he unemployable in the private sector? Rumour has always been constant that he has been trying hard to get a job, but trust is an issue. He may believe that being in Parliament protects him from prosecution over Robodebt.

These days, leaders who lose elections don’t usually hang around lest they embarrass the new leader.

History shows us that in 1908, former PM William Morris Hughes stayed for three decades after he was bumped from office. The “Little Digger” (as he was known) lost office in 1923 but hung around until he died in 1952. 

But in the modern era, former PMs have, after losing power, vacated their seats and hastily abandoned politics. Malcolm Fraser probably established this precedent.

He walked away from the top job, initiating a by-election in the seat of Wannon’s seat two months after his party lost to Bob Hawke in March 1983.

Paul Keating disposed of Hawke in December 1991; Hawke resigned in February 1992, with his seat of Wills going to independent Phil Cleary in the following by-election.

Keating also retired from the Parliament after his Labor government lost power to John Howard in March 1996. 

Howard’s end came at the hands of Kevin Rudd, who finished his prime ministership in November 2007 and with him went more than three decades as a member of Bennelong.

Kevin Rudd stayed around after being thrown out by his Parliamentary colleagues in June 2010. Angered by his dismissal and convinced of his righteousness, he remained for another parliamentary term, regaining the prime ministership in June 2013 from his vanquisher Julia Gillard. 

Three months after his reinvention, the voters gave him the flick, and he resigned his seat.

Gillard resigned as the member for Lalor only weeks after being ousted by PM Rudd. Tony Abbott, who was clearly not up to the job, is the exception. He was defeated in a challenge by party-unpopular Malcolm Turnbull in September 2015, a little under two years after becoming Prime Minister.

At the time, Abbott was the worst and most bizarre prime minister ever.  

Haplessly, he recontested his seat of Warringah again at the May 2019 election but lost to the independent Zali Steggall.

Turnbull, never a true blue liberal, left Parliament like a shot out of a gun once the right-wing nutters had had their way. After being dumped from the leadership in favour of Scott Morrison in August 2018, he resigned as a member of Wentworth within a week and took his intimidating intellect with him.

So, an unofficial club of former PMs formed with Rudd and Keating on the left and Howard, Abbott and Morrison on the right, defending themselves and offering advice to anyone who would listen.

Instead of being a formidable resource for their respective parties, former Prime Ministers are often ostracised and become a blame mechanism. The media treat them as controversial taps to turn on and off at will. 

Modern former leaders, when dethroned, take the opportunity to make the most of what is available to them. Book writing deals, lecture tours, ambassadorships, business ventures, highly paid jobs, NGO and think tank appointments.

Ex-Prime Ministers today enjoy opportunities that their predecessors never had. Not to mention a lifelong pension that is staggering to most of us.

But now, back to the compelling character of Scott Morrison. He believed that God had gifted him the prime ministership but never allowed the holiness of his belief to interfere with his ruthless politics.

A person with an opinion of himself larger than life itself must find it humiliating to sit on the backbench with other mortals. Why is he doing it? We would have to dismiss his often-quoted words, “I’m relishing being the member for Cook.” In a recent Morgan poll, he was found to be the most mistrusted politician in Australia, just ahead of Peter Dutton.

The longer he stays, the more humiliated he must feel when he takes his plush seat in the House of Representatives. But losing the 2022 election has only increased his capacity for making headlines. Firstly, we had the astonishing revelation that he had commandeered several portfolios while PM and, secondly, because of the adverse findings against him by the Robodebt Royal Commission. Thirdly, the news that documents were missing from the annual release of cabinet papers. 

What next? 

Sky News Australia host Andrew Bolt has claimed the Coalition must “bring back” former Prime Minister Scott Morrison to the front bench and reshuffle the entire shadow cabinet to defeat Labor at the next federal election.

Would Dutton risk such a move? If Morrison and he are the most untrusted politicians in the country. Such a move would not be publicly unacceptable.

Another reason for his remaining in Parliament might be that as a sitting member, he might be entitled to financial assistance with legal fees should any Robodebt charges be laid against him.

Of all his options, as complicated as they may be, it takes guts to apologise to the House for past and present scandals, and it isn’t a gift conservatives carry in their top pocket. Intestinal fortitude doesn’t become them.

Retreating when faced with unresolved issues is like a priest unwilling to listen to a confession.

Of all his options, none has dignity attached to it. His sullied reputation is of his own doing. Never has an Australian leader shown such little regard for our democratic institutions, conventions and principles.

Indeed, staying on isn’t an option and would only damage the Liberal Brand more, but it wouldn’t be a surprise. It would only reinforce just how Trumpish they have become. Does Dutton really want him to stay? That is political madness.

I’m afraid the mystery of why he stays will be with us a little longer. Solving this requires intelligence, and it doesn’t apply here.

On February 20, Julian Assange, the daredevil publisher of WikiLeaks, will be going into battle, yet again, with the British justice system – or what counts for it. The UK High Court will hear arguments from his team that his extradition to the United States from Britain to face 18 charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 would violate various precepts of justice. The proceedings hope to reverse the curt, impoverished decision by the remarkably misnamed Justice Jonathan Swift of the same court on June 6, 2023.

At this point, the number of claims the defence team can make are potentially many. Economy, however, has been called for: the two judges hearing the case have asked for a substantially shortened argument, showing, yet again, that the quality of British mercy tends to be sourly short. The grounds Assange can resort to are troublingly vast: CIA-sponsored surveillance, his contemplated assassination, his contemplated abduction, violation of attorney-client privilege, his poor health, the violation of free-speech, a naked, politicised attempt by an imperium to capture one of its greatest and most trenchant critics, and bad faith by the US government.

Campaigners for the cause have been frenzied. But as the solution to Assange’s plight is likely to be political, the burden falls on politicians to stomp and drum from within their various chambers to convince their executive counterparts. In the US Congress, House Resolution 934, introduced on December 13 by Rep. Paul A. Gosar, an Arizona Republican, expresses “the sense of the House of Representatives that regular journalistic activities are protected under the First Amendment, and that the United States ought to drop all charges against and attempts to extradite Julian Assange.”

The resolution sees a dramatic shift from the punishing, haute view taken by such figures as the late Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was one of the first political figures to suggest that Assange be crucified on the unsteady timber of the Espionage Act for disclosing US cables and classified information in 2010. The resolution acknowledges, for instance, that the disclosures by WikiLeaks “promoted public transparency through the exposure of the hiring of child prostitutes by Defense Department contractors, friendly fire incidents, human rights abuses, civilian killings, and United States use of psychological warfare.” The list could be sordidly longer but let’s not quibble.

Impressively, drafters of the resolution finally acknowledge that charging Assange under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for alleged conspiracy to help US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning access Defense Department computers was a fabled nonsense. For one, it was “impossible” – Manning “already had access to the mentioned computer.” Furthermore, “there was no proof Mr Assange had any contact with said intelligence analyst.”

Ire is also directed at the espionage counts, with the resolution noting that “no other publisher has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act prior to these 17 charges.” A successful prosecution of the publisher “would set a precedent allowing the United States to prosecute and imprison journalists for First Amendment protected activities, including the obtainment and publication of information, something that occurs on a regular basis.”

Acknowledgment is duly made of the importance of press freedoms to promote transparency and protect the Republic, the support for Assange, “sincere and steadfast”, no less, shown by “numerous human rights, press freedom, and privacy rights advocates and organizations”, and the desire by “at least 70 Senators and Members of Parliament from Australia, a critical United States ally and Mr Assange’s native country” for his return.

Members of Australia’s parliament, adding to the efforts last September to convince members of Congress that the prosecution be dropped, have also written to the UK Home Secretary, James Cleverly, requesting that he “undertake an urgent, thorough and independent assessment of the risks to Mr Assange’s health and welfare in the event that he is extradited to the United States.”

The members of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group draw Cleverly’s attention to the recent UK Supreme Court case of AAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department which found “that courts in the United Kingdom cannot just rely on third party assurances by foreign governments but rather are required to make independent assessments of the risk of persecution to individuals before any order is made removing them from the UK.”

It follows that the approach taken by Lord Justices Burnett and Holroyde in USA v Assange [2021] EWHC 3133 was, to put it politely, a touch too confident in accepting assurances given by the US government regarding Assange’s treatment, were he to be extradited. “These assurances were not tested, nor was there any evidence of independent assessment as to the basis on which they could be given and relied upon.”

The conveners of the group point to Assange’s detention in Belmarsh prison since April 2019, his “significant health issues, exacerbated to a dangerous degree by his prolonged incarceration, that are of very real concern to us as his elected representatives.” They also point out the rather unusual consensus between the current Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his opposition number, Peter Dutton, that the “case has gone on for too long.” Continued legal proceedings, both in the UK, and then in the US were extradition to take place “would add yet more years to Mr Assange’s detention and further imperil his health.” 

In terms of posterity’s calling, there are surely fewer better things at this point for a US president nearing mental oblivion to do, or a Tory government peering at electoral termination to facilitate, than the release of Assange. At the very least, it would show a grudging acknowledgment that the fourth estate, watchful of government’s egregious abuses, is no corpse, but a vital, thriving necessity.

Australian College of Nursing Media Release  

What a cowardly act it was. A national broadcaster, dedicated to what should be fearless reporting, cowed by the intemperate bellyaching of a lobby concerned about coverage of the Israel-Gaza war. The investigation by The Age newspaper was revealing in showing that the dismissal of broadcaster Antoinette Lattouf last December 20 was the nasty fruit of a campaign waged against the corporation’s management. This included its chair, Ita Buttrose, and managing director David Anderson.

The official reason for that dismissal was disturbingly ordinary. Lattouf had not, for instance, decided to become a flag-swathed bomb thrower for the Palestinian cause. She had engaged in no hostage taking campaign, nor intimidated any Israeli figure. The sacking had purportedly been made over sharing a post by Human Rights Watch about Israel that mentioned “using starvation of civilians as a weapon of war in Gaza”, calling it “a war crime”. It also noted the express intention by Israeli officials to pursue this strategy. Actions are also documented: the deliberate blocking of the delivery of food, water and fuel “while wilfully obstructing the entry of aid.” The sharing by Lattouf took place following a direction not to post on “matters of controversy”.

Human Rights Watch might be accused of many things: the dolled up corporate face of human rights activism; the activist transformed into fundraising agent and boardroom gaming strategist. But to share material from the organisation on alleged abuses is hardly a daredevil act of dangerous hair-raising radicalism.

Prior to the revelations in The Age, much had been made of Lattouf’s fill-in role as a radio presenter, a stint that was to last for five shows. The Australian, true to form, had its own issue with Lattouf’s statements made on various online platforms. In December, the paper found it strange that she was appointed “despite her very public anti-Israel stance” (paywalled). She was also accused of denying the lurid interpretations put upon footage from protests outside Sydney Opera House, some of which called for gassing Jews. And she dared accused the Israeli forces of committing rape.

It was also considered odd that she discuss such matters as food and water shortages in Gaza and “an advertising campaign showing corpses reminiscent of being wrapped in Muslim burial cloths.” That “left ‘a lot of people really upset’.” If war is hell, then Lattouf was evidently not allowed to go into quite so much detail about it – at least when concerning the fate of Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli war machine.

What also transpires is that the ABC managers were not merely targeting Lattouf on their own, sadistic initiative. Pressure of some measure had been exercised from outside the organisation. According to The Age, WhatsApp messages had been sent to the ABC as part of a coordinated campaign by a group called Lawyers for Israel.

The day Lattouf was sacked, Sydney property lawyer Nicky Stein buzzingly began proceedings by telling members of the group to contact the federal minister for communication asking “how Antoinette is hosting the morning ABC Sydney show.” Employing Lattouff apparently breached Clause 4 of the ABC code of practice on impartiality.

Stein cockily went on to insist that, “It’s important ABC hears from not just individuals in the community but specifically from lawyers so they feel there is an actual legal threat.” She goes on to read that a “proper” rather than “generic” response was expected “by COB [close of business] today or I would look to engage senior counsel.” 

Did such windy threats have any basis? No, according to Stein. “I know there is probably no actionable offence against the ABC but I didn’t say I would be taking one – just investigating one. I have said that they should be terminating her employment immediately.” Utterly charming, and sufficiently so to attract attention from the ABC chairperson herself, who asked for further venting of concerns.

Indeed, another member of the haranguing clique, Robert Goot, also deputy president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, could boast of information he had received that Lattouf would be “gone from morning radio from Friday” because of her anti-Israeli stance.

There has been something of a journalistic exodus from the ABC of late.  Nour Haydar, an Australian journalist also of Lebanese descent, resigned expressing her concerns about the coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict at the broadcaster. There had been, for instance, the creation of a “Gaza advisory panel” at the behest of ABC News director Justin Stevens, ostensibly to improve the coverage of the conflict. “Accuracy and impartiality are core to the service we offer audiences,” Stevens explained to staff. “We must stay independent and not ‘take sides’.” 

This pointless assertion can only ever be a threat because it acts as an injunction on staff and a judgment against sources that do not favour the accepted line, however credible they might be. What proves acceptable, a condition that seems to have paralysed the ABC, is to never say that Israel massacres, commits war crimes, and brings about conditions approximating to genocide. Little wonder that coverage on South Africa’s genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice does not get top billing on in the ABC news headlines. 

Palestinians and Palestinian militias, on the other hand, can always be written about as brute savages, rapists and baby slayers. Throw in fanaticism and Islam, and you have the complete package ready for transmission. Coverage in the mainstays of most Western liberal democracies of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as the late Robert Fisk pointed out with pungency, repeatedly asserts these divisions.

After her signation Haydar told the Sydney Morning Herald that, “Commitment to diversity in the media cannot be skin deep. Culturally diverse staff should be respected and supported even when they challenge the status quo.” But Haydar’s argument about cultural diversity should not obscure the broader problem facing the ABC: policing the way opinions and material on war and any other divisive topic is shared. The issue goes less to cultural diversity than permitted intellectual breadth, which is distinctly narrowing at the national broadcaster.

Lattouf, for her part, is pursuing remedies through the Fair Work Commission, and seeking funding through a GoFundMe page, steered by Lauren Dubois. “We stand with Antoinette and support the rights of workers to be able to share news that expresses an opinion or reinforces a fact, without fear of retribution.” 

Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, expressed his displeasure at the treatment of Lattouf for sharing HRW material, suggesting the ABC had erred. ABC’s senior management, through a statement from managing director David Anderson, preferred the route of craven denial, rejecting “any claim that it has been influenced by any external pressure, whether it be an advocacy group or lobby group, a political party, or commercial entity.” They would, wouldn’t they?