By Bert Hetebry  

The Catholic Archbishop of Tasmania has sent a letter to students of Catholic Schools throughout Tasmania denouncing, no, that word is way too soft, decrying, vilifying, castigating, basically saying he condemns the just about every advance in human rights attained in Australia over the last 30 or so years.

Quoting from the ABC’s news item, The Letter, by Archbishop Julian Porteous, takes aim at a “radicalised transgender lobby”, legal abortion access, voluntary assisted dying and euthanasia, and same sex-marriage, as well as the “woke” movement which he says is “seeking to overturn other traditional values and beliefs.”

I have just a few concerns about this on several levels.

Firstly, it was not long ago that the appalling behaviour of Catholic priests toward children was exposed in the Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse, and what was found in that was that the church moved accused priests around from region to region, from diocese to diocese, rather than admit that there was a problem with young children being raped by their clergy, and secondly that when it came to redressing these issues, cases against the church or against specific priests were delayed time and again, hoping the aged priests would die before facing courts, seemingly to not having to face up to the crimes committed against innocent children. Thirdly, when addressing the call for financial awards made against the church they cried poor, and yes, the diocese may have been a bit short of cash, but the Catholic Church is one of the wealthiest organisations in the world and fights tooth and nail to retain, even grow that wealth… oh and need I mention they pay no tax! 

Mostly, the priests abused young boys. Priests are sworn to celibacy, but I guess the urges felt against young boys is OK, since they are not women… but could it be that maybe, just maybe such peadophilic behaviour could be considered ‘homosexual’?

So could it be that just maybe, this self-righteous Archbishop is not addressing that issue within the organisation he leads?

The second area of concern is that waiting in the wings of our Federal Parliament, resting, gathering dust, is a Religious Discrimination Bill, ready to present to the Parliament to vote into law when tacit agreement is reached between the political parties. Waiting so that with minimum debate on the floor of the House, in both the Representatives and Senate chambers the bills will be voted into law, making it legal for the various religious school bodies to discriminate against teachers who do not comply with the dogmas of the religious employer, meaning that students will only see teachers and other workers within the schools who conform to those standards. Essentially a rubber stamping the right to discriminate, to continue the hatred of difference, continue to deny basic human rights to be accepted within those organisations.

But of greater concern, is what the teachers are permitted to teach when it comes to cultural issues, when dealing with sex education, when dealing with teaching about laws and how they are made, when teaching history such as the unit which deals with the holocaust where not only Jewish people were murdered but also Gypsies, homosexuals and people who were considered ‘insane’. In other words, how can a teacher be presenting these lessons with honesty and integrity?

Can they present the colonisation of Australia in an honest, truthful way as they extoll the wonderful work of the missions which introduced Aboriginal children to Jesus and his saving grace while stripping them of their cultures, removing them from their families, and their lands, denying them their languages?

Can they teach sex education in the same way it was taught in the 1960s? Basically ignored, but a small focus on how animals reproduce in biology lessons, but at the same time setting up ‘birthing facilities’ at monasteries or other church run facilities, out of sight and out of mind from the community, for pregnant teenagers to be held and the babies adopted out?

Or that teenagers struggling with their sexuality can be bullied with impunity, since these difficulties are not real, you are either a boy or a girl, get over it!

And so the right to discriminate perpetuates the hatreds embedded in the dogmatic teachings of the church, those teachings which allow vilification of difference and yet that same organisation does nothing to redress the very ‘sins’ within their own organisations.

Yes, there is more.

The third are of concern is that the church-based school systems are very well funded by the Federal Government. Much has been written in recent months about the funding, well in excess of what is needed to some of the wealthiest schools, including the Catholic Education system. Churches are tax exempt yet hold vast tracts of land on which they pay no council rates or land taxes, church income is not taxed nor are many of their community-based activities… usually for ‘their’ community. Housing for the clergy is provided by the church and is not subject to the same costs you and I pay in council rates, and so forth. Yet, these organisations hold capital greater many large businesses hold, when they build and use some of the most beautiful, valuable historical building which exist, when they hold art treasures greater than many national galleries and have revenue and cash flows many banks would struggle to come close to, but we pay them more per student at the schools they operate than we are able to pay for children in the public system.

It is absolutely mind blowingly crazy that the letter the Archbishop sent out to apparently all students within the Tasmanian Catholic Schools system can be excused. It reinforces the very prejudices which have been used to criminalise people for being ‘different’, for not to locking themselves in ‘closets’, for not wearing the mask of being ’normal’. But what really grates the very organisation he represents has a record of appalling behaviour when it comes to addressing those very issues within the church he leads, among the clergy he and his organisation have protected from the legal sanctions they should have faced for the crimes committed against innocent children.

I really think we need to address out concerns to our parliamentary representatives before the Religious Discrimination bill resurfaces for a vote.

And we need to address the funding of these organisations which demand taxpayer funding for undermining the basic human rights we have written into law over the past thirty or so years, the legal right to safe abortions, the legal right to be who we are in our sexual self-definition, the legal right to determine that when our end of life suffering becomes unbearable (a friend recently passed, having gone through the legal process to end life when she could no longer endure her pain. Although she did not use the process, she found comfort in having signed, so she had a measure of control over how her passing could be).

We need to urge our representatives to reject that bill, to not wind the clock back to a time when religions suppressed human rights, criminalised those who for no fault of their own were different.

We need to deny funding to schools which do not uphold the human rights we have fought for and have enshrined in our laws. 

By Bert Hetebry

A book on same sex parenting is banned. The ban only applies to a few libraries in NSW, in a local council area where the faith-based decision was made, the debate led by a man who admits to not having read the book and claiming a two-year-old saw the book and was asking questions and stating that children should not be sexualised.

There are a couple of problems here, firstly, a two-year-old asking questions about a book in a library… really? Imagine, “Mummy, Daddy, why has that kid on the book cover got two dads?” and secondly, how are children sexualised in this?

So objections are raised, and a book banned because a councillor finds offence, and garners enough support in a council meeting for the motion banning the books in libraries within the council district to pass.

The steady growth of faith-based issues in all levels of government is concerning but in line with the objectives of faith leaders to gain greater influence in what is seen as a rejection of religion in the wider community.

Within the Liberal Party we see candidates being put forward who will rail against declining moral standards, openly anti LBGTIQA+, espousing ‘traditional values’, effectively trying to wind the clock back to times when Christian values were the accepted norm. A return to times when we could be comforted knowing that basically we all agreed to standards and were all basically the same. (And throw homosexual men into prison. Strangely, lesbians were OK, no law threatening them, but I guess in earlier times we could call them witches and burn them at the stake.)

It’s not just the Liberal Party pushing the sameness barrow, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party were founded on such a philosophy and projects it with a ‘go back to where you came from’ mantra for any who are different.

But what are the seven pillars, or mountains referred to in the headline, and how are they manifest in politics and in the broader community?

The seven pillars mandate comes out of Dominion Theology which is a group of Christian political ideologies based on an understanding of biblical laws which is then applied through law and by-law making at the various levels of government: local, state and federal.

The seven pillars are Society, Family, Education, Government, Media, Entertainment and Commerce.

It’s really interesting to look at the various things that are happening through the lens of those seven pillars, to understand that society works best when it follows prescribed creeds and standards, that on the beach for example, there is adequate coverage of a body with the swimsuit or that books available in the local library do nor promote a lifestyle which falls outside of the interpretation of those laws.

But that goes even deeper when we look at other forms of ‘difference’, like acceptance of cultural values that are not mainstream Judeo-Christian, like actually listening to the most marginalised Australians, giving the First Nations people a guaranteed voice to Parliament, or scorning women who wear a burka rather than ‘normal’ clothing (whatever ‘normal’ means). Or blatantly racist labelling when there are outbreaks of rowdiness or violence where some of the participants do not look ‘Australian’. (In the most culturally diverse nation on Earth, what does ‘Australian’ even look like?)

And coming back to that banned book for just a moment, what does an ‘Australian’ family look like? Certainly not two blokes bringing up a kid... or does it? Families take on so many ‘looks’, with so many marriages breaking up and parents remarrying or living in de-facto relationships, we have blended families, we have a fluidity of partnerships, we have mixed race families and so the ‘looks’ go on and on. There is no longer a stereotypical family. It is no longer a Mum and Dad and two kids, all white with blond hair and blue eyes. And thinking that through, has there ever been a stereotypical family?

Going through the list of pillars we come to that most controversial of topics: Education, and here we have some real struggles to contend with. What should we teach our children, what should be sanctioned by the education departments when it comes to teaching, what are the boundaries within friendships and dealing with class mates, teaching of respect for difference, gender difference, girl, boy, and those who find difficulty defining as either, racial or ethnic difference are probably an important ones, and as teenage hormones kick in, sex education, safe sex and an understanding of what consent looks and sounds like is just possibly something that needs some time spent on?

Or the teaching of history, should it include the history of colonialism and the treatment of Indigenous peoples? How slavery was used to produce the wealth of Empires, how lands were stolen, and Indigenous peoples corralled onto the least valued lands or otherwise just slaughtered? Of do we extoll the virtues of missionaries who ‘Christianised’ Indigenous populations as they were driven from their lands and stripped of their languages and pagan cultures?

And should the right to discriminate be written into law so that teachers in private schools are compelled to conform to prescribed standards, no LBGTIQ+ teachers and no pre-marriage cohabiting with prospective marriage candidates. And preferably be committed to the faith the school represents. Quality of teaching standards becomes of secondary importance and the prejudices and biases of the religion are reinforced through the school’s teaching. The self-righteousness, the sense of being of god’s people (which ever god is their god of choice) is reinforced allowing a long look down noses at anyone who is not ‘one of us’.

Ah, Government is next and ‘preselection season’ is in full swing as suitable candidates are chosen to contest the upcoming elections. There has been an ongoing form of, no, I dare not call it ‘Branch Stacking’, but having people of faith joining as branch members of political parties, particularly so on the right of the political spectrum. We saw it in Tasmania with a former Liberal Senator gaining a seat at the recent election, and we have witnessed the unruly infighting of the trans issue in Victoria. Some preselections in WA for next year’s state election have seen some interesting endorsements including one man who links homosexuality with pedophilia, another endorsed candidate who is a right-wing radio shock jock and as Lord Mayor of Perth has worked actively to close a women’s refuge centre and at unguarded moments lets slip the odd blokey joke, of calling the women’s Australian Open Final as being quite insignificant compared to the real one; the men’s final.

South Australia too has had people of faith dropped in as candidates, also using the same fear of difference tactic to win some but lose most of the seats they have contested. Similarly in NSW, candidates are chosen in part because of their faith-based affiliations.

The intent is clear. Things have happened in recent years which are not good. Abortion laws have been liberalised, Voluntary Assisted Dying laws have been passed, and same-sex marriage has become legal. We need not look far to see what the results could be if these candidates get up, and win government, we have seen the overturning of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision which legalised abortion in America allowing states to effectively ban all abortions. One change the Whitlam Government brought was no fault divorce. (In the USA some noise on the right is being made to see that overturned.)

The next pillar is Media, and as we have seen the Murdoch Press have continued the King Maker ethos which Rupert Murdoch claimed as early as 1972 when then News Ltd backed the It’s Time campaign which saw Gough Whitlam become Prime Minister after 23 years of conservative government, and three years later back Malcolm Fraser’s Liberal coalition to regain power. The biased mainstream media – ownership which is concentrated in such few hands – has a powerful influence in generating fear and inciting the sense of government incompetence when the right is not in power.

The government owned media networks, ABC and SBS, which as a condition of their existence need to present an even-handed approach to political reporting, have been starved of funding through successive ‘fiscally responsible’ conservative governments, and have stacked their boards with political cronies, effectively muting any sense of independence. (Strange how fiscally responsible governments have failed to produce a balanced budget.)

Entertainment is an interesting pillar, but if we consider that under a broader topic, The Arts, we see that again, where there is a cohort of free-thinking artists, whether in theatre, art, music, even sport, screws are tightened, funding reduced so that the viability of the arts is limited to already successful acts. Here in WA, we had for a number of years an exhibition at the Art Gallery of WA from the Museum of Modern Art in New York displaying some incredibly beautiful and some incredibly controversial works, but funding for that was removed by the Barnett Liberal Government.  

Lastly, we have Commerce, and there we see that so much is done to ensure that commerce is profitable and that those with their hands on the wheel are well-rewarded with incentives for business to grow but for wages to be left as close as possible to subsistence levels. Stifling unions is important because we cannot allow the workers to have too much power… preferably no power.

Of the seven pillars, the ones which are really ‘battle ground’ issues are Society, Family, Education and Government. The freedoms we have gained in my lifetime are under threat, women’s rights, no fault divorce, multiculturalism, gender diversity and ethnic diversity, each of which add so much to us as a nation are under threat because of the fear of difference.

At election time, I ring candidates and ask them about political and religious affiliation and how that will affect their roles in the positions they seek. Included are questions about the issues such as views on various contentious issues such as gender diversity, health issues, including abortion, and so forth. That does not become a debate, it is for the candidate to address my concerns. If they will not give me the time, they are advised that I cannot vote for them since they do not value my interest. You may not be surprised that the current mayor in my local area, a Liberal who loved to be seen with Scott Morrison, did not respond and did not get my vote. Unfortunately, all her church mates voted. (Local election candidates in WA do not campaign under a party banner, yet most candidates are politically aligned.)

By Bert Hetebry  

At a recent philosophy discussion group gathering the departing question from one member was ‘Can you imagine life without Capitalism?’

The question has stayed with me, churned over in my brain time and again.

To begin we need to determine what Capitalism really is and how it has come to dominate just about every aspect of Western life.

Capitalism is defined as ‘an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in a way that can serve the best interests of society. The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit.’

That definition is broad, covering the term property as meaning land and the means of production. Capital can also be interpreted and the ownership of shares in an enterprise and with compulsory superannuation, that means that anyone who has a superannuation account is part of the ownership of capital.

Living today in a western culture, Capitalism surrounds us, we are part of it. It seems we cannot escape it. I am retired, living of pensions, both government and a superannuation pension. These pensions require that our economy keeps working, things keep getting made and consumers keep consuming them. The superannuation pension is dependent of the fund owning shares in the system, owning shares in the means of production, so even in retirement I am dependent on capitalism for my continued survival.

As an employee, continued employment is dependent on the employer to trade profitably, whether that be in production such as farming or manufacturing, retailing or in the multitude of service industries. Profit means survival.

Profit is a dividend to the owners of capital, whether it is the farmer selling his produce to market or the local cafe owner able to pay their bills for rent, consumables and wages and have a bit left for themselves. The employee becomes a major cost to the employer and yet, the employee is also a consumer of the products and services provided by capitalism.

During feudal times and in the early days of colonisation, workers were not paid but either lived a subsistence life, growing their own food and raising limited livestock. Slaves were owned by the capitalist but needed to be clothed, fed and housed.

During the Industrial Revolution wages were set at a subsistence level just enough to pay a bit of rent and buy a morsel of food so the employee had enough energy to look over the spinning and weaving tasks. If they didn’t show up at work, there were enough unemployed to fill the position. Workers costs were minimised to ensure greatest profits.

I guess for employees, there were some halcyon days, but over the passage of time, for but a very short time. The post war industrial boom after WWII saw economies grow, workers’ wages grow and workers enter the Middle Class, where home ownership became a norm, where labour saving devices became essentials, washing machines, refrigerators, furniture and furnishings, home entertainment  such as HiFi, TV, and the need for two incomes to  keep consumption growing, not just one car for the family but two, and as the children grew up, one for each driver in the family.

Increasingly since the mid 1980’s the owners of capital have demanded increased profits. The Thatcher and Reagan governments in the UK and USA led the charge with a trickle-down economic theory, that if the people at the top of the income pyramid, those who had invested their capital in various businesses and enterprises made lots of money, the money would somehow trickle down so that everyone benefitted from their wellbeing. Since that time, we have seen the number of billionaires grow exponentially.

Australia, under the Hawke/Keating governments fell in line and the Howard government followed suit.

The means of redistributing that wealth was compromised with taxation systems which favoured the wealthiest but since the demand for taxation revenue continued to rise, the burden was placed on those with the least, the introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) and in Australia the Goods and Services Tax (GST) meant that consumption was taxed. Those on the lowest incomes spend most of their wages almost immediately on essential goods such as food, clothing, and so proportionately pay the most in that tax system.

In many respects, the halcyon days of yore are gone, finished. The wealthiest have built protections to secure and insure their wealth with favourable taxation regimes and with the willingness to pay (tax deductible) accountant fees are able to minimise their tax burdens while influencing governments to assist in various programmes to aid business, tax concessions on trade and work vehicles, salary sacrificing plans for new  and other benefits not usually available to minimum wage earners, over funding of private schools while under funding government schools and so the list grows. Those with the most are favoured through various forms of government largess through taxpayer funds from the ones the wealth should be trickling down to are forced to pay through the PAYE taxation system and GST collection.

Was it ever otherwise?

I guess the most obvious answer is to look at pre–Colonial Australia where indigenous peoples lived communal lives sourcing the needs for survival from the environment they lived in, sharing the bounty as it occurred, collectively seeking out the next bounty to satisfy upcoming needs. There was no profit motive, there was just the cycle of life to continue.

But we cannot wind back the clock, and I don’t really think we would want to live without Capitalism, but we could, or should that be should find a way to spread the wealth of this nation so that poverty can be seriously addressed, that the housing crisis with he ensuing high rents and almost impossible hurdle for first home buyers to enter that market, and the flow on effects of poverty, drug and alcohol problems, gambling addiction and the sense of valueless which leads to the violence which is so apparent today.

We see people who are privileged suing for defamation, blocking up court time over miffed egos while the poor are criminalised for being poor but cannot afford the expense of proper representation for their legal struggles.

There are very good reasons that Capitalism works, the lives we live or aspire to live depends on that system designed to create and satisfy the demand for goods and services. But we have to make it work for all of us, not just those who allow the off penny to trickle down to those near the bottom.

By Bert Hetebry

A hex according to the Cambridge dictionary is ‘to put an evil spell on someone or something in order to bring them bad luck’. Looking at the recent article on HECS debts and how they are increasing under the indexation of the debt, certainly seems like an evil spell to a curse to those who aspire to a university education.

A university education is the gateway to exciting careers. Medicine; doctors and other health professionals. Law; lawyers, barristers, judges, and so many more. Engineers; and architects designing and building the infrastructure for contemporary life. Scientists; exploring the world around us, geology, marine biology, environmental sciences. Educators, and so the list goes on, opening opportunities and commanding some pretty good renumeration packages.

The cost of a university education is expensive and has traditionally been difficult for lower and middle class people to enter without some serious financial support and was considered elitist.

Over the last 80 or so years governments have lent a helping hand, offering scholarships to graduating high school students who have passed the Leaving Certificate or later iterations of a score-based criteria for university entrance, but these were limited in number and highly competitive. Graduates from wealthy families could pay fees directly, as they still can and do. During the 1940s and 50s scholarships were offered to help students into undergraduate courses, and under the Curtin Labor government the scheme was increased to include women. A bursary scheme was introduced to for Teacher’s College fees to be paid in return for an agreement to teach in government primary schools for an agreed number of years on graduation.

The election of the Whitlam Labor government in 1972 saw university fees abolished so that lower- and working-class students could gain access to a university education and universities grew in enrolments; the new graduates finding interesting work in careers which for many had seemed unimaginable without the support offered. Included were a number of young people who entered politics.

The cost of funding university tuition became a bit of a budgetary sore point but the benefits of enabling a broad cohort to benefit from the opportunities offered were too important for aspirational students to be discouraged, and so the HECS scheme was introduced, essentially a loan offered by the government to pay university fees to be paid back when income thresholds were reached after graduation.

Interestingly several ministers in the Hawke government had benefitted from the free university education the Whitlam government had enabled, including Gareth Evans, Sue Ryan and Kim Beazley. In part, the rationale made good sense, the amount owed remained fixed, it was interest free and not subject to any increases and repayments commenced once an income threshold had been reached. In other words the benefits of earning a higher income allowed the debt to be repaid. The other rationale is that under the income tax regime, which is progressive, that is, the more you earn the higher rate of tax is paid, the graduate would in time make a greater contribution to the national tax take than without the extra earning capacity the degree enabled.

With the 1996 Liberal government under John Howard, the commitment to the well-known dedication Liberals have to responsible financial management it was decided that HECS debt needed to be indexed according to the annual inflation rate as defined through the March CPI figures and applied at the commencement of each new Financial Year. Each year the debt, or once repayments had commenced, the remaining debt was increased by the rate of inflation. I guess it’s a bit like buying a car for say $20,000 and financing that over a number of years, but instead of just paying off the $20,000 the price went up each year by the amount the new car price rose during that year due to inflation. Nothing at all wrong with that, is there?

Ministers who had benefitted from the free university education of the 1970s through to the introduction of the HECS scheme included Treasurer Peter Costello and fellow cabinet ministers Peter Reith, Dr Michael Wooldridge and Amanda Vanstone among others. For Alexander Downer, it seems the Australian universities were just not up to scratch, he attended Newcastle University in England.

Under the Morrison government, the price of a university education was increased dramatically, especially for those who chose ‘useless’ degrees such as an Arts Degree, you know, History, who needs to know about that? Geography, oh dear that just may include topics like global warming, nah, don’t need that, Sociology, English Lit, and so forth, even psychology and mental health subjects. University degrees which taught skills in engineering and such like, yep, need them, so make them affordable.

The hex bit of HECS is that now that the debt is indexed, it grows year on year, and through a period of higher inflation it grows very quickly, leaving the student with a repayment commitment which appears never ending. A debt of around $100,000 grows by $6,000 when the CPI is 6%, the next year if inflation has dropped to say 4.5% another $4,770 is added.

The incredible irony in all this is that the ministers and members of the government who have made these changes included people who had benefitted from the earlier initiative, breaking down the elitism of university education, making it available to all who aspired to the fruitful careers such an education offered and is now slamming the door on those aspiring to such careers.

Can we ask that the HECS hex can somehow be removed, that those dedicated students who work so hard to gain an education and careers which not only promise them a quality of life and worthwhile careers, and incomes that bring them to higher income tax brackets so their contributions late in life more than repay the costs they have incurred?

That’s right, the Stage 3 tax cuts have worked to minimise that benefit… worse before the Albo ‘lie’ as he adjusted the rate thresholds to make the system a smidgeon more equitable.

By Bert Hetebry  

Where did the term ‘Semitic’ come from and what did it mean?

Look closely and see how mythology defines people in a very real way, marking their difference, no matter how small, as different, a means of judging, marginalising or inclusion, allowing for life or death over a definition of unprovable origin.

The Biblical story of Noah’s Flood is one of the destruction and rebuilding of the descendants of Adam and Eve, the first humans, created in God’s image.

Just a brief overview. the descendants of Adam and Eve proliferated, and the man ones saw that the woman ones were beautiful. So they married them, that is, engaged in sexual pleasure seeking with them, because no man can resist a beautiful woman, oh that women were born ugly so not able to tempt weak willed men!

And the Nephilim saw all the fun that was being had and joined in… and who were the Nephilim? Ah mythology is so much fun, it seems that the Nephilim were evil people, fallen people, perhaps even fallen angels jealous of God’s newest creation, humans. They do appear time and again in the Old Testament as the source of sin and alienation from God, a testament to the people of God to remain faithful or death and destruction is bound to follow.

Anyway, let’s continue with Noah, the flood and its aftermath. That mythology is a bit easier to follow.

So God was displeased with what he saw was happening, people were having way too much fun and too busy to recognise all the good things He had done for them, so he decided that everyone had to go, kill them all, drown them and everything else He had earlier said was so good. But He changed His mind because there was one family that was still faithful to Him and they would be saved, start over, a small family and a breeding pair of all the animals would rebuild that which God was about to destroy.

Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, warned of the coming deluge dutifully built an ark, herded the animals on board and together with their wives survived the forty days and nights of the worst rain storm imaginable, even worse than the flooding due to climate change we are witnessing today, such a deluge that it took a hundred days for the waters to receded and a new land to emerge from the waters.

As it is when we put men and women together, or even males and females of any species, somehow, they breed and the descendants of Noah and his sons and their wives did just that so prolifically that they formed the foundation of three distinct ‘nation’ groups, Semites, Hamites and Japhetites which spread out across what we now call the Middle East. I know, the world is a little larger than the Middle East, but mythology is not always (or is that ever) logical.

Anyway, lots of different family group grew side by side over time and did not always get along too well with each other and through the various groupings we end up with Abraham who was originally called Abram leave the Mesopotamian city of Ur with his wife and a few servants on camels which were not known to be used for domesticated for another 600 or so years, to wend his way to what today is known as Israel, or Palestine. The people of Mesopotamia were descendants of Shem, and that language group became known as Semites. The people who Abraham, yes he was Abraham by that time, he had had a bit of a fight with God, finished off with a limp an new expanded version of his name and a newfound virility in his old age, to finally sire two sons, one with his wife and the other with his wife’s maid servant, were also descendants of Shem, also Semites, but from various of Shem’s sons, and so were a kind of substrata of Semites.

Phew.

We need to move on a bit through both history and unfolding mythologies to finally get to where this confusion over the meaning of Semite and Antisemite comes from.

Abraham’s children were pretty prolific breeders, eventually giving birth the three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, each of which grew into numerous sects and divisions, causing more than enough conflict of who or what God is and what that all means, but a telling moment in time was around 90CE.

The Roman Empire ruled over a vast area, from present day England to Egypt and into the Mediterranean Basin, into the Byzantine and well into the Arabian Peninsula. They ruled through governors and the presence of the largest military force yet known in history. And in about 90CE a group of religious leaders and intellectuals kicked up a bit of a fuss in the remote city of Jerusalem. They had their own, different religion and did not think it right to bow down to the invaders and make sacrifices in the form of taxes to their supreme leader, the Ceasar, their God. They would only bow down to their own God the creator God. So, there was a bit of a kerfuffle, their temple was sacked, destroyed and a few people had their noses put out of joint, were expelled from the city, oh more than that, expelled from the Empire.

That was the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora.

It needs to be noted and probably underlined, highlighted with bright fluorescent hi light markers that it was the Jewish religious leaders who were expelled. Not the every day, hardworking Jewish carpenter, fisherman, farmer and so forth. They were needed to provide food and labour for the Roman overlords. Listening to the tales of the Diaspora one would easily believe that all Jewish people left, but as the Israel historian Shlomo Sand points out in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, it, throughout history has been that only the leaders, the thinkers, the religious leaders posed a danger to the authority of an invading Imperial force, the invaded people were invariably farmers, fishermen, graziers, food producers and the invaders needed food to feed their armies.

A modern-day example was the invasion of the Netherlands by Germany in 1940. The Netherlands were one of the invaded breadbaskets to feel the Nazi war machine.

And so the rabbis and priests left, travelled north and into Eastern Europe, taking with them their religion, proselytising, converting ‘heathens’ to the promise of salvation from their sins, spreading Judaism into the region, and conflicting with the various political and religious changes which occurred through the following two thousand or so years, constantly living on the edge of the mainstream wherever they went.

The original rabbis and priests would have been defined as Semite. They were, according to the mythology referred to, descendants of Shem. The new converts not so much. The biblical lineage or mythology does not seem to consider their origins, but they were not Semitic peoples, the ones remaining, farming the land and two thousand years later looking through the fence surrounding Gaza, enclosing them from their traditional lands, the Palestinians may actually have a stronger claim to the term Semite than the new settlers who have come from Europe to claim the Zionist Homeland.

So it is interesting to have the term Antisemitic being used when it is seen actually misused, a complete inversion of the original meaning of the term.

It was in my mind to use the word ‘sorry’ in concluding because I have played loosely with a mythology, even dared to call mythology  what is foundational to what many believe to be the foundational stories of their faith/s, but no, I am not sorry at all when I see those faith/s being used as an excuse for genocide, as an excuse to assert some kind of  exceptionalism that leads to acts of terror against those who do not share a particular interpretation of that mythology, that devalues lives which are contrary to the lives the religious fundamentalists insist on to the point that they can be sent off to their final judgement, to face the eternal punishments for non-adherence to mythological beliefs.

And to so misuse the term Semite to render it an obtuse meaning, complete reversal of what it is just another obscenity on the bizarre nature of conflict over unprovable claims of righteous superiority which allows so much suffering for others.

By Bert Hetebry  

Yesterday I was ignorant.

I had received, unsolicited, a YouTube video about the dangers of GMO which is in the Covid vaccinations most of us have had. My ignorance stemmed from not understanding that GMO is different that vaccination. So I spent about three minutes Googling GMO and vaccinations, and Google came up with an incredibly long list of scientific articles, peer reviewed, from respected scientific and medical journals which seemed to link the two terms together, and more than that show research which confirmed the lifesaving results of GMO vaccinations.

I had seriously dismissed all the hoo-haa conspiracy stuff that flooded the internet during the Covid days, but gee whizz, I am ignorant it seems, or could it be just not all that thrilled about living my life under the clouds of conspiracy theories that seem to occupy too many minds.

Today I am WOKE.

But from the same person, this morning I was ‘woke’, sorry, it was capitalised ‘WOKE’, and in case I didn’t understand what was meant it was ‘Willfully Overlooking Knowable Evidence’. So I could interpret that as not only being ignorant, but also dumb.

I thought perhaps I should check with Google to determine what WOKE really means, and it turns out to something quite positive.

WOKE it turns out, according to the Cambridge Dictionary means ‘aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality.’ Mmmm, that does not sound like willfully overlooking knowable evidence, but rather engaging with the knowable evidence to recognise disadvantage or discrimination when it is evident, so that attitudes can change.

I thanked the person for the complimentary label applied to me, and thanked him for giving me the motivation to write.

When I look at the world we live in and the changes which I have witnessed in my lifetime, recognising Aboriginal people as being people and including them in the population of human habitants of Australia, and giving them the right to vote, the wave of feminism which saw women achieve a degree of equality…. yes, a DEGREE of equality, to see homosexuality decriminalised, abortion rights, voluntary assisted dying for terminally ill patients, freedom  to worship or not worship the god(s) of choice, the privilege of living in a wealthy country in fact, per person, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and so many more positive changes we have seen, most of which remain under the threat of being reversed.

In economic terms we have seen the assets of the family home reach such heady heights that most homeowners will die millionaires just because the home they bought when it was affordable is now out of reach for the average worker. I recall the price of the first humble home I purchased in 1970, $12,380.00. My wages were about $100 per week or $5,200 per year. I don’t know how much that house would fetch on today’s market, but at least $600,000 does not sound unrealistic. IN 1970 the house was around 2.5 times my annual income. Today it is valued at around 9 times average annual income. So it has become almost impossible to enter the market without some serious help. 

The cost of buying a house has become so expensive that people are forced to rent as they try to save for the deposit of their first home, but rental costs have ballooned. Where four years ago rent on a two bedroomed home where I live was around $240 per week, now almost $500 per week. The minimum take home wage, after tax is around $600 per week.

Poverty is rife. And nothing seems to be being done about it. Being WOKE means I recognise the problem and can maybe pressure governments to do something about it… maybe. I am led to believe this is a wealthy country, but what I see is that those who have the wealth are very much committed to keeping it, even make the pot a bit larger by reducing their taxes and pressuring governments for more of their special interests to be funded, like the government contributions to private schools or any other worthy cause that would benefit those who already have the most.

Being WOKE, I refuse to live in fear.

Fear of the unknown is a great political tool, and the unknown is the danger posed by those who would board an unseaworthy vessel in Indonesia to get across to Australia, the land of milk and honey. It takes a lot to leave a homeland which has become unsafe, where persecution is rife, where difference is scorned. And so, since the pathway to Australia House or the nearest Australian Embassy is not all that accessible, other means are sought to find the desired freedom, only to find that on arrival they are immediately sent off to an offshore detention centre, never to land back in Australia.

The model of sending the unwanted off to remote places has become an example for others to follow, those despairing refugees seeking solace in Great Britain are now boarded a plane to Rwanda. We cannot allow criminals to just come whenever they feel like it. Yet when we look at the desperate people who have arrived here in the past, refugees from WW!!, boat people escaping post war Vietnam and so many others who have arrived here from war torn or intolerant places, escaping religious persecution or ethnic power struggles which have resulted in bloody civil wars  or the effects of climate change which has made their homeland uninhabitable, they have made valuable contributions, socially, economically, culturally. Australia is a far better country for the diversity which such immigrants have brought. But please don’t tell anyone that, especially those who are afraid of people who look different, speak different languages, dress differently, worship differently.

And of course, those ethnically diverse migrants bring their self-righteous religious hatreds with them. Much has been made of the knife attacks in NSW in recent days, video footage of the young man attacking the preacher and the quest to find those who rioted as a result of that attack, not to mention the search for other radicalised youths who may pick up a knife and find someone else who has insulted their belief making them worthy of death.

A bit of perspective here. This year, and the year is about 20 weeks old, and 30 women have been killed by men, partners, former partners, men not known to them. Two preachers survived a knife attack, and the attacker is under arrest. The attack in the church was motivated by the firebrand preacher presenting sermons which were broadcast on the internet, available for anyone who wanted to access them, and the sermons were critical of Islam, gay rights and a number of other issues. In earlier times the only people who heard the sermons were those who were in the congregation, in the church as the sermon was delivered. The preacher wants the attack and no doubt his existing and still to come sermons to be available online so he can use his position to not only preach to his congregation but also have those vitriolic words available to anyone who happens to trip over them as they check their social media accounts.

I find that a bit problematic. The inciting of religious difference has consequences. Earlier this week Salman Rushdie was interviewed on 7:30. He has released a new book ‘Knife’, about an attack on him where he was stabbed multiple time including in his right eye. Yes, I am speculating, but about 36 years ago his book ‘Satanic Verses’ was published and since there is in it a dream sequence where one of the protagonists’ dreams of some contact with an angel, it was deemed blasphemous, and a fatwa was issued to kill Salman Rushdie. Memories are long and religious dogma includes the repeating of stories from generation to generation. So an attempt was made on Rushdie’s life in front of an audience he was scheduled to address. (I once asked a local Imam whether he had read Satanic Verses as he was telling me how evil the book was. He hadn’t read it and assured me that he definitely would not read it. What a shame. If he had read the book, he may have enjoyed a really good belly laugh as the absurdities of the plot evolved, and the insult to Islam was not found because there is no insult to Islam.)

So a young radicalised person attacks a preacher, who was possibly instrumental in his radicalisation, just as the Ayatollah Khomeini in issuing the fatwa was instrumental, 35 years later inciting the attack which almost cost Rushdie his life.

So the WOKE me looks at the issues that are around me, that in one way or another touch my life and try to do something to let humanity shine, the anti-WOKE people of the world stoke fear of difference, strive to develop an orthodoxy which marginalises difference.

I wear the WOKE label with pride.

By Frances Goold

He asked if we had anything planned for Anzac Day.

“A big rest” was all I could come up with. “What about you?”

“We’ll go to the Dawn Service.”

“Kids too?”

“The kids have been coming with us to the Dawn Service since they were babies. Later there’s a few of us will head off to the two-up game. The ring’s sandbagged, there’s refreshments, it’s a big tradition here.”

We’d been hanging pictures when I noticed the tat on his arm. It didn’t seem like the usual macho array so I asked if he would show it to me.

He nodded, “Sure”, raised his sleeve, and turned his arm over.

I was so moved that for a second or so I couldn’t speak. Suddenly the only picture in the room was his.

“It’s for my Pop”, he said, “he was a Rat of Tobruk. He’s passed now.”

“How was he when he came home?”

“He was fine… but he’d been wounded, hit by shrapnel, so he had that.”

“Did he talk about his experiences?”

“No, he never spoke of it, and he lived till he was 98.”

The Rats of Tobruk were soldiers of the Australian-led Allied garrison that held the Libyan port of Tobruk against the Afrika Corps during the Siege of Tobruk, which began on April 11, 1941 and ended on December 10. The port continued to be held by the Allies until its surrender on June 21, 1942.

Between April and August 1941, some 35,000 allies, including around 14,000 Australian soldiers, were besieged in Tobruk by a German–Italian army commanded by General Erwin Rommel. The garrison, commanded by Lieutenant General Leslie Morshead, included the 9th Australian Division (20th, 24th, and 26th Brigades), the 18th Brigade of the 7th Australian Division, four regiments of British artillery, and the 3rd Indian Motor Brigade.

According to the Australian War Memorial online archive, the Australian casualties from the 9th Division from 8th April to 25th October numbered 749 killed, 1,996 wounded, and 604 prisoners. The total losses in the 9th Division and attached troops from 1st March to 15th December amounted to 832 killed, 2,177 wounded and 941 prisoners.

The Australians held out for almost eight months against the German siege, which was abandoned by the Germans after 242 days when, on December 7, 1941, Rommel made the decision to fall back to Gazala. However, on June 21, 1942, Rommel began a second offensive that finally captured the fortress.

According to Colonel Ward A. Miller, “the Australians’ epic stand at Tobruk had a major impact on the war because the Germans suffered a serious and unexpected reversal. The Tobruk garrison demonstrated that the hitherto successful German blitzkrieg tactics could be defeated by resolute men who displayed courage and had the tactical and technical ability to coordinate and maximize the capabilities of their weapons and equipment in the defence.”

My proud assistant’s grandfather served in the 9th Division.

Although it’s that time of year when profound and raw emotions are held and privileged by collective remembrances across the nation, I wasn’t anticipating such a whack of it whilst hanging pictures at home.

“Every picture here tells a story”, I had said to him while we measured, drilled, and hung the first few, then suddenly here was his.

Later, while he was packing up, I asked on impulse if I might take a photograph of the tattoo, maybe write something respectful.

It wasn’t simply that I wished to capture the moment when a young married man and father of two small children paused in his work to share with me something of immense pride for him and his family, but I felt compelled to record a small, perfect work of remembrance inscribed into his flesh that both embodied and symbolised the spirit of his soldier-grandfather – as if it were a talisman I needed to hold unto myself for a little while. Revealed by his outstretched arm was a loving pride and authenticity of feeling with which I had somehow lost connection and was determined not to have disappear as soon as it had arrived.

There are memories that are suppressed, and remembrances that go on, and there are reminders of the things we are losing or have lost.

That tattoo was a reveille of sorts and a little tap toe for which I am grateful. And it’ll be that much harder to ignore the day.

By Maria Millers  

For many the long-stablished story of the Gallipoli landings and to a lesser extent the Western Front remain the defining moments for our country. Just minted as a new nation in 1901, but still very British, our other achievements were put aside to lay the foundations of our national identity based on our participation in a war that ended up costing us so much in human terms: the injured and damaged, the toll on families and the disruption to our society

So why then have we not given the same importance to other aspects of our history? After all, the coming together of six British colonies as a new nation was an enormous achievement. Equally impressive were the pioneering social reforms that this newly federated nation was able to achieve ahead of many other countries: from granting women the right to vote and stand for elections, to social reforms like the old Age pension in 1909.Significant industrial and welfare reforms followed establishing Australia as ‘a path breaking new nation.’

Instead we have been made to accept war as a defining moment of our entry into nationhood.

War correspondent Charles Bean was most influential in creating the myth we have come to accept uncritically. His writing was often far from the reality of what it was like on the ground or mud at Gallipoli and the Western Front and he wrote what he thought the public back home wanted to hear. His writing also reflected the opinions of Officers in the AIF and the politicians back home.

But as political historian Benedict Anderson once said, national identity is a product of the imagination, and the stories we choose to tell ourselves about our past are the ones that define us. We have created an idealised sanitised version of a tall, khaki clad man with a slouch hat against a backdrop of some defining war image. 

Yet among the first ‘Anzacs’ there were also Indigenous Australians, Australians of German descent, and Asian Australians. Some 1000 Indigenous Australians are thought to have served in the AIF, on Gallipoli and the Western Front. And 3000 Australian women enlisted in WW1 as nurses, doctors and in other supportive roles.

Another contentious issue is that our reflection of our military history never acknowledges the unspoken wars: The Frontier Wars between settlers and the Indigenous. The official Anzac story however has been nurtured and elevated to the status of a national myth. And myths are always preferred to historical accuracy.

The first Anzac Day march took place in 1916 and was very much about recruiting for the ongoing war. The first Dawn Service was in 1920 and by 1927 Anzac Day became a public holiday in all states and territories.

The horrendous loss of life in WW1 impacted on Australian society in so many ways. In a country of around 5 million 62000 had lost their lives. The ongoing focus on the moment of battle ignored the post war suffering of this huge number of men (and women) who returned shell shocked, wounded, disabled and disfigured. Equally impacted were the families who cared for them.

But politicians soon realized that there was political mileage in promoting the Anzac story, particularly when there was an unpopular war to prosecute. Prime Ministers from Hawke, Howard through to Gillard and Rudd have all used the Anzac story for political reasons.

Not that there was no criticism about what some called ‘legislated nostalgia’ that came to surround Anzac Day and its commemoration. Writers like George Johnston and playwright Alan Seymour challenged this approach to our military history.

Seymour’s play revolves around a father son conflict. The son, Hughie a university student refuses for the first time to attend the dawn service which traditionally was then followed by a day of drunkenness, illegal gambling and the inevitable brawls and public vomiting.

Alf his father has served and is an embittered man. This play which was so controversial back in the 60s is eerily relevant as it looks at so many issues we still grapple with today: immigration, health services, substance abuse, family violence and the recent rise of jingoism that has crept into our commemoration of Anzac and other wars we have been involved in.

Similarly, writer George Johnston in his autobiographical novel My Brother Jack brings us face to face with the reality for those tens of thousands who made it back alive, but damaged, Who can forget his description of the hallway of the Meredith home: a gas mask on the hall stand, sturdy walking sticks, artificial limbs propped up against a wall and the inevitable wheelchair, all powerful symbols of the impact of the war on those who served. And these were just the obvious physical injuries and not the mental ones that haunted so many then as well as those from recent conflicts such as the Vietnam War.

In the 1960s and 70s some Australians returning from the Vietnam War felt, as attitudes to the war changed, that their service during a decade of conflict 1962- 1972 was not appreciated by the public and that they were excluded from the Anzac tradition. They chose not to participate in Anzac Day events until October 1987 when a special Welcome Home Parade was held. Tragically 523 had died, 3000 were wounded and many still carry psychological wounds.

A more recent commentary comes from Iraq and Afghanistan veteran James Brown in his book Anzac’s Long Shadow where he argues that Australia is spending too much time, money and emotion on our obsession with the Anzac legend at the expense of current serving men and women. He dismisses any suggestion that criticism of the Anzac myth is ‘unaustralian.’ And he pulls no punches in calling out the clubs, charities and corporations that exploit the Anzac theme for commercial gain.

The term Anzackery was coined by historian Geoffrey Serle to draw attention to inflated rhetoric that has built up around Anzac Day celebrations. He would have found it disturbing to see how a jingoistic tone has crept into the commemorations. Add to that the ever-expanding range of Anzac merchandise from badges, oven mitts, Tshirts, poppies and other kitsch mementoes and Gallipoli cruises. It is hoped that some of the proceeds flow to making life easier for the veterans.

Myths and legends reflect the values of the societies in which they exist and at the core of the Anzac tradition is the belief that nations and men are made in war. This prevents us from asking important questions about who we are and what kind of society we want to live in.

Many Australians, while respectful of our war dead, are uncomfortable with the way we now remember them. Families will always mourn their loved ones and respect memories of their ancestors without the need for exaggerated sentimentalism.

Australia is a very different country today and choosing Gallipoli as the foundation moment for our nation is fraught with problems of leaving out so much of our rich and complex history from the national narrative. We should also remind ourselves of the reality of all wars, so vividly expressed in the following poem by Wilfred Owen:

Dulce et Decorum Est 

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,

And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;

Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime.

Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, 

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

Notes: Latin phrase is from the Roman poet Horace: “It is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.”

By Bert Hetebry  

Having worked for many years with a diverse number of people from different ethnic groups and religions, and some with no religion, I was impressed that despite the differences, everybody seemed to get along. Being interested, I asked people about their faith, and found that people held their faith and cultural traditions firmly and recognised that others were free to worship their gods so long as that freedom was universal. Explaining this to an evangelical person one time I was assured that his faith, his religion was the only true religion.

The sense of rightness, (can I call it self-righteousness?), left no room for dissent.

And herein lies the foundation for discrimination which leads to intolerance and violence.

My god is better than your god!

Earlier this week, a fire-brand preacher was attacked by a knife-wielding teenager.

The preacher is well loved in his local church and has attracted a substantial YouTube following with very outspoken views on homosexuality, conspiracy theories and Islam. The young attacker is Muslim and upset that the preacher maligned his prophet.

In Jesus name, the young attacker and whoever sent him has been forgiven by the injured preacher.

To accept forgiveness, a person must accept they have done wrong, but how can the young man accept he has done wrong when his religion encourages violence in defence of his faith, and how sincere is the act of forgiveness when the preacher will no doubt continue his vitriol against Islam, the LGBTIQA+ community and the various other click bait topics he raises in his broadcast sermons.

The young man is in custody, yet to be charged but was on a good behaviour bond over a previous knife wielding incident, and will no doubt face the children’s court to answer to criminal charges. But will he accept the forgiveness offered by the injured preacher when in his mind, his actions were in defence of his religion?

Is the act of forgiveness predicated on the acceptance of Jesus as saviour, that the young man must accept the act of forgiveness as that of the ‘crucified Lord’, but would be void if there is no conversion to the Christian faith?

Is the act of forgiveness aimed at reconciliation, that the young man and the preacher can coexist, side by side as it were, in an atmosphere devoid of rancour, devoid of the judgementalism each religion places on other religions?

The history between the two religions, the Assyrian Orthodox Church and Islam goes back a long, long way, the church is one of the earliest Christian denominations, formed in what is now Iraq, Turkey and Syria, and pre-existed Islam by several hundred years. The two religions have lived side by side but in a rather tenuous environment with waves of persecution conducted. In the last century the Assyrians suffered the 1915 Genocide by the Ottoman Turks, leading them to flee to Northern Iraq and North East Syria, and this century with the rise of ISIS, a further brutal persecution.

When religious leaders preach sermons seemingly designed to foster hatred or at least division, to claim a superiority over others who are not like ‘us’, violence will follow. When those sermons are broadcast to whoever has access to a smart phone or computer the voice resonates through the dark web and incites reactions.

What is particularly sad in this case, is that we have an immigrant community which has brought with it the divisions which led to their desire to leave their homeland because of war and religious discrimination and have bought with them the very attitudes they are trying to escape from.

‘Mental health’; a broad canvas that permits a highly misinformed landscape where anything goes, particularly ignorance and social stigma. Can’t we do better than this?

I wondered how long it would take for the mainstream media to blame the public mental health system and I am very disappointed SBS is leading the charge with journalist Charis Chang and SBS Editors running the headline: ‘Bondi attack puts spotlight on ‘ramshackle’ mental health system, experts say‘.

As for the two ‘mental health’ experts cited in this article, Sydney University professor Anthony Harris and National Mental Health Consumer Alliance chair Priscilla Brice, both should join their ranks as professional opportunists gathering the limelight all too ready to once again stigmatise people with mental illness, blaming it almost entirely on the public mental health system. It may not have been their intention, but they are intelligent enough to know this is the way it will be used or interpreted by the media, and perceived by politicians and the general public, looking for someone or some organisation to blame just two days later.

The act of one man, whether they have a mental illness or not does not make the public mental health system liable inasmuch as in a court of law, someone else is not ordinarily culpable or liable for an act perpetrated by another – that is mob mentality, it is speculative at best and has no causative relationship, it is reckless.

Once again it falls to consumers and carers such as NSW resident Dorothy Cross to remind us that people with a mental illness or indeed schizophrenia are more likely to be victims of society than perpetrators. Statistically speaking the public are more at risk from people with fundamentalist religious or political beliefs, extremists, people with means, criminals, gangs, those with extreme ideological beliefs, little or no ethical, moral or social values, conscience or judgment more commonly found in the general population than people with mental illness. In fact, it is people with mental illness that will suffer as a result of this kind of insensitive, poorly nuanced, motivated and timed (though I’d like to brand here) rubbish journalism. Not what I’d expect from SBS, and certainly not prematurely from our two ‘so called’ experts.

There are a number of elephants in the room

Did it ever occur to either of the two ‘mental health’ experts that the man here who carried out this horrific and dreadful act in Bondi Junction mall was or may NOT have been a recipient of the public mental health system, and was hidden from view by private psychiatry, socially and politically backed by society itself. It would appear closer examination of the initial facts emerging, that for last 18 years he had been seeing private psychiatrist/s in Queensland, which had kept him out of the purview of the public mental health system even in his own substantive State of residence. As such you cannot then blame lack of public mental health services, access, funding, follow up, care coordination or even lack of consumer financial capacity in paying for continuing medication which might keep him well (if he is able one way or another to afford a private psychiatrist, but perhaps that too became the operant factor). Nor indeed if a private patient chooses to cease seeing their private psychiatrist and later move inter-State beneath the radar.

Where is the connection here between private psychiatry and the public mental health system? Disturbingly it is the unhealthy opportunistic if not symbiotic-parasitic relationship that private psychiatry exerts on the public mental health system, removing a ‘patient’ from the more comprehensive and effective umbrella of the public mental health system and then abandoning their responsibility when their ‘client’ no longer turns up. Where is the bridge for follow up, where is the net without someone to cast it?

Yet our two experts here, choose to jump on the bandwagon with SBS, so soon after this tragic event, and blame this on a ‘ramshackle’ public mental health system in another State – That is the headline and I see no counter argument to it in this article. I find this quite outrageous and it does a huge disservice to people with mental illness, family and carers, to mental health staff of our public mental health system (with all its faults, funding, political and institutional problems), further stigmatising mental illness, mental health and de facto, if not by poor judgment misleading the general public, strengthening the reactionary and ignorant arm of politicians and health ministers who are in fact part of the problem for legislating and creating this apartheid, enmeshed privileged and blind private – public mental health divide in our society.

While psychiatrists always come out on this misguided defence of their practice and ironically blame the public mental health system or its funding, they fail to recognise their overarching conservative institutional involvement in it and the covert private psychiatry they avariciously defend sucking the energy and capacity on elitist salaries out of our public mental health system, as well as leaving it blind. Perhaps Professor Harris should consider this as a frontline social, political and broader institutional problem alongside the impact of his voice in this article on the pliable discourse of public perception at the beckon mercy of our ill-informed and largely privately owned mainstream media (hence why I am seriously disappointed with SBS, who as an uncertain private-public broadcaster entity should nevertheless know better).

As for the National Mental Health Consumer Alliance which strongly advocates for more private sector psychologists, they are only adding to this misadventure by putting their faith in another private sector establishment and powerful institution, echoing the same blunted path, ‘business model’ and self-interest of private psychology. And the chair of this self-appointed conglomerate has her expert mental health background, self-described as ‘neurodivergent’, and graduate of the Australian Institute of Company Directors (GAICD), an MBA in Social Impact from the University of NSW, and a substantive career in racial equity. Perhaps the chair of this organisation might do better to likewise consider the consequences of her general speculation before the facts pertinent to this event are fully known, given her expert brush with social inequality in our society.

Last but not least has any mainstream media reporting on this event considered to distinguish between mental health and mental illness, noting the repeated unchallenged reporting (of which the ABC and others have been complicit), where NSW police have frequently and exclusively referred to this man and his ‘mental health background’, note not ‘mental illness’ but ‘mental health’? Mentally healthy people do not behave this way, and while mental health is not the antithesis of ‘mental illness’, nor do people with ‘mental illness’ typically behave this way – distinct and subtle nuances not mentioned by way of balance in the cited article or any other live broadcast or ‘newsworthy’ report I have read or heard to date since this event unfolded.

We have no reliable facts of ‘substance’ here, no mention or ruling out of alcohol or substance use, character profile, personality disorder, criminal behaviour, hatred, bitterness and vengeful, institutional/social alienation, or plethora of other potential and accumulative variables, factors and reinforcers at play previously mentioned; or the impact, social consequences and risks of any of these – But as usual like sheep jumping absent fences, straight to ‘mental health’, a broad canvas that permits a highly misinformed landscape where anything goes – but particularly ignorance, social stigma, poor journalism and disappointing commentary from ‘so called’ experts.

By Jane Salmon, voluntary refugee advocate for over 11 years.

Introduction:

The facts are obvious.

As Senator Meereen Faruqi has written, this Bill would:

• Create a travel ban on certain countries (it is not clear which ones).
• Send people to jail for at least 1 year if they don’t cooperate with the Government in their own removal to a country they fled.
• Allow any Immigration Minister to overturn visas of refugees who have already been provided protection.

It may also fracture families further.

Immigration matters are growing ever more complex. It’s not like there is going to be a reduction in people fleeing wars any time soon. Stop-gap, kneejerk, partial, piecemeal or reactive solutions are inadequate.

Mechanisms are missing. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Immigration Administration Authority are not fully operational at this time. The Administrative Review Tribunal or ART intended to replace AAT is not yet up and running.

The whole Immigration system needs a comprehensive independent review before other measures are put in place.

Global and domestic Immigration challenges took time to evolve. They require commensurately comprehensive, integrated and detailed solutions.

Immigration decisions must not be based on discrimination, the clumping of individuals together by nationality or arrival mode.

There is a tendency by Governments and voters to scapegoat vulnerable immigrants for economic challenges arising from poor domestic policy or planning. They must be protected from this.

A few criminals seeking protection are no excuse for taking measures that risk treating all refugees harshly.

Governments and political trends change. We cannot trust that the legislation will always be applied in a benign, consistent or reasonable way.

Overall, Department of Immigration needs to replace unaccountable, vague or generalised processing mechanisms. The solutions are broader still than a catch-all Bill that extends Ministerial power without delivering reciprocal responsibility.

Five-year jail terms followed by fines and/or forced deportation for deportation refuseniks is excessive.

Double or triple jeopardy for law breakers (in the form of indefinite detention after a court prescribed sentence and deportation) already discriminates against non-citizens harshly. They’ve already done their sentence time.

“Fast Track” is not fast. Its victims have been through legal ordeals for a decade or more. They paid tax and lawyers while living with uncertainty and while being separated from other relatives. How about an amnesty?

This Migration Act Amendment Bill 2024 exposes systematic problems. It presents the Senate with the opportunity to require higher standards of the Immigration Department while also protecting human rights.

Meanwhile, in Melbourne …

On 11 April 2024 Kalyani Inpakumar, represented the Tamil Refugee Council, participated in a crucial discussion addressing the Migration Legislation (Removal and other Measures) Bill 2024.

Main Argument: 

The 2024 Migration Amendment Bill is Risky Yet Fixes Too Little 

The Immigration system is already quite arbitrary and a bit of a patchwork.

The Bill is general and sweeping. It might catch out folk who have done their best to stay within the rules.

It would be cruel to tell the most tenacious and their offspring to push off and take their problems elsewhere after over a decade of putting them through the wringer in court after court. They’ve adapted. They studied. They’ve worked. They’ve paid lawyers. We need an amnesty for these people.

Sometimes the most stubborn people are the most afraid. They are not economic migrants seeking a shortcut. How do we distinguish between them?

Golden Ticket Migration is Unfair 

A mature nation addresses inequity rather than scapegoating poorer groups and building up elites.

Wellbeing arises from equal opportunity, not class division. This applies to refugees and migrants too.

We’re better than this. The “Fair Go” should start (or stops) at the Australian border.

Certainly, working within the Department of Immigration is hard. People keep coming. Few of the arrivals fully understand the situation they’re in. (There are quite a few faux refugees that can be annoying or worse. Folk fly in on student visas, accept front line jobs and then apply for protection. Criminals need rehabilitating regardless of background. If you truly fear death, don’t take a holiday back home).

Arbitrary Rulings Are Not Fair

Cabinet Ministers occasionally intervene to let iconic families through to Permanent Residency. This seems arbitrary when Government ignores the majority that arrived the same way under similar circumstances and demonstrate the same love of Australia in their commitment to local community. Precedents are not consistently recognised or followed through.

Missing Mechanisms

The Administrative Review Tribunal or ART is not yet up and running. It is intended to replace the AAT:

“On 7 December 2023, the Australian Government introduced legislation which will abolish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and replace it with a new body called the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).

“All cases currently before the AAT will continue. Many cases currently before the AAT will be decided or finalised before the AAT is abolished. All decisions made by the AAT will remain valid and final.

Once the new body is established, any remaining cases will transition to the new body. If you have applied to the AAT for review of a decision and your case is transitioned to the new body, you will not need to submit a new application for review to the body.”

Why care?

When human rights shrink, human authenticity becomes less safe. The happiest nations are the fairest and most equitable. Or so studies tell us.

Second generation children should not be punished lifelong for sub-optimal choices made by their parents.

What Emergency? 

Iranian activist Arad Nik, who is grateful to have Permanent Residency already, says:

“We unite with a single voice, calling on politicians to halt the impending Migration Amendment Bill 2024, slated for next month. This bill, in its current form, threatens the fabric of compassion and understanding in our immigration system.”

Mr Nik adds:

“The Bill is being touted as a solution to a false emergency. It implies that all people seeking protection visas are gaming a broken application mechanism. If that were so, most would have given up after twelve hard years.”

This sudden Bill does not fix problems that have been around for decades. It papers over 20-year-old failings of previous governments. It punishes applicants for gaps in the refugee admissions process.

It certainly doesn’t deal with the individuals left behind simply because a harried lawyer missed an appointment.

The Bill is far reaching. It’ll certainly give the Minister power to toss away the few bad apples (to who knows where). But what of innocents caught in the same mess? 

With notable exceptions, the politicians and public servants who have bumbled and bungled their way through decisions (for which they are not held accountable) still collect salaries and pensions. Improving accountability will help everyone.

The only “emergency” is the potential for further Government embarrassment in the High Court. Measured, comprehensive, far-sighted and mature responses are needed. Media and politicians should be challenged over their part in exacerbating such drama.

What is really at stake? Only our nation’s future.

Kids of blocked asylum seekers are punished for parental decisions. Kids of blocked asylum seekers end up in a form of purgatory. It is hard on developing minds.

They work hard to learn in a new language. They see their ambitious school peers go on to uni but they generally cannot afford the international fees they would be charged if they manage to qualify.

On Thursday 11 April 2024, some overlooked children of people lacking permanent resident status spoke up outside the Home Affairs Minister’s Oakleigh electoral office, seeking “A Fair Go”.

These vibrant young folk are brimming with potential and want tertiary study opportunities: not dead ends. Few get scholarships if their visa status is tenuous.

Australian high schools have raised a group of young people capable of becoming doctors, but then we deny them affordable access to university. Blocking their ability is not good for them. Nor is it efficient for the nation and education system that helped raise them to adulthood.

More video interviews are available.

Challenges in Assessing Individual Circumstances 

It is hard to assess all the variables from behind a desk, yet that is what we ask Immigration staff to do. We do not necessarily hold them to account for those choices either.

Are they adequately trained to preside over life and death decisions? This is not like getting a development application or a pet permit.

How do we measure the risk to individuals? 

We are aware of nations with the death penalty for homosexuality, but what of unofficial penalties in apparently more relaxed countries. When honour killing is a practice only applied by some religious groups or families, who gets to decide what the real risk is?

What if your close relatives demanded your death after a marital conflict?

What if you had to jump your back fence in the middle of the night to escape the same armed raiders who threatened and then murdered your father and brother?

How do you retrieve and preserve evidence of those threats? You are not a documentarist in that moment, but a fugitive. Perhaps you a really nice one. But no one knows or cares.

How do asylum seekers present evidence when phones are filtered, removed, damaged (let alone replaced with more basic models as they are on Nauru).

Case Studies 

Some refugees I meet make a lasting positive impression. They’re not always the most charming, slick or talented of their cohort, but they are the ones that have struggled on heroically, maintained positivity. They dream of short, regular reunions with whatever is left of their families.

They’ve ignored most “othering” and gotten on with work, volunteering and contributing tax. They’ve studied to improve their employability: even when higher education costs them the earth. They’ve dealt with cultural and language transitions while relatives are threatened back home. They do not receive the supports that full citizens of Australia take for granted. They must live from visa to visa or one paperwork hiccup to the next.

Case 1:

There is the bright Iranian mum running a business while she hoists and helps her lovely son with cerebral palsy and an IT qualification. Her back aches. The family is denied NDIS. She helped her daughter afford international uni fees for a Masters in radiography by running a pizza shop. Yet she pays the same tax as any Aussie. She does online training and keeps on keeping on. She has done it harder than most, but also acknowledges the struggles of other young non-disabled migrant kids coming to the end of secondary education. She’s still got empathy.

Case 2:

There is the sweet, sad chap whose lawyer didn’t show up at court. He has no visa. His mates from the same region were granted Permanent Residency in court that very day. They just picked a different lawyer. They are a strong group, and he lives by their charity while volunteering; but where will the Bill leave him? He has been failed by Fast Track. Some immediate family members were recently killed back in his province. Officially, his nation is not at war. In practice, his ethnicity, regional politics, religion and family history make it hard to stay alive there. His minority status means he doesn’t get the chance to move to a distant capital. Nor do his qualifications seem to help his situation.

A Ministerial Intervention application is his only hope, but will the Minister even get time to read it?

Case 3:

Medevacced Kurds from Manus are in a similar position. They are discriminated against by their country. And that is a nation that will not accept repatriation. Why should industrious and creative individuals be punished for international diplomatic failures or their mode of arrival across decades. When is enough?

Gentle Tamils and Rohingyans have also suffered offshore.

Case 4:

All the young adults who grew up here without the comfort or rights that accompany permanent residency. They cannot afford international tertiary fees for tertiary courses. They have earned the marks but cannot readily raise the fees while undertaking demanding study. Indeed, we are literally missing out on doctors.

Alex, age 20:

“I have lived in Australia for 10 years. Since completing year 12, I have completed a Diploma in Construction. I want to go on to do a degree in Construction Project Management. My teachers were keen to organise a scholarship for me. However, I can’t do this now, as I got a letter from Home Affairs in December last year to say my visa has changed, and I no longer have study rights.”

“My younger brother is doing Year 12 this year. He wants to study sports science, but now he does not have study rights, he won’t be able to enrol in University. So now he’s starting to lose interest in school.” (Source: ASRC).

Where Does Australia Start or End?

Oversimplifications like the fear-based “sovereign borders” doctrine will not stem the arrival of people trying to flee crowded and squalid refugee camps. We need to extend and improve regional processing.

Using Nauru as an offshore centre paid for (but not run by) Australian Government seems convoluted. We need to protect workers and detainees under Australian laws rather than play shell games with an ever-changing array of contractors.

More and Better Regional Processing Centres May Slow Boats

How do people get here when they are already on the run?

Process people nearer the source of crisis.

Orderly, secure assessment for Immigration intake requires calm queues at checkpoint where individuals can recover, study intake rules and then pull together and translate their case data.

There are instead overcrowded, squalid refugee camps like Cox’s Bazaar where disease, floods, fire, hurricane, bad sanitation and inadequate power make every single week even more arduous for Rohingyans fleeing massacre in Myanmar.

There is a long wait for UNHCR recognition there or in Malaysia and Indonesia.

An Amnesty for Fast Track Victims is essential. 

“Fast Track” is broken and slow. They got cursory assessments. The remaining “Fast Track arrivals” who have floundered through several courts across a decade need to be allowed to stay, not punished further. They are already working and adapting. Living in perpetual flux is damaging. Noone can afford so much litigation. There are only around 10,000 of them. It is hardly an inundation.

Policies influenced by international trends in handling refugees or national security need to be reviewed for objectivity.

An amnesty for those who were Medevacced here from offshore will not start boats. In fact, the boats never completely stopped. Many vessels are turned back. Moreover, planes bring many more people daily.

Accountability in Detention: 

Offshore detention on Nauru entails management proxies free from press or impartial police scrutiny. The previous iteration of detention on Nauru offered health care that was substandard, conditions that were squalid, minimal protection and justice that was absent. Now we learn that even access to family WhatsApp chats and online human rights information is filtered.

By Bert Hetebry  

I’m not much good at sums, but I can imagine the cost of repairing damaged egos as the allegations of rape and the ripple effect of that accusation hits the various courts around the country. The cost-of-living crisis is not being noticed by the army of lawyers involved.

Just before the 2019 election a young research assistant claimed to have been raped in Parliament House but does not pursue the allegation because of the impact it may have on the up-coming election, however, about a year later the accusation is made and a work colleague is charged with rape. And the gravy train starts chugging slowly gathering pace as snouts go into the very deep money trough seeking to repair the damages done.

And now a mere five years later the saga may, or may not, be coming to some kind of conclusion.

Throughout this saga there have been claim and counter claim of malfeasance, a juror doing some independent research causing the trial of the accused to be aborted, an inquiry into the public prosecutor handling of the case, police records leaked or withheld, the employer’s minister swearing at the complainant and later aggrieved because of a social media post she claims maligned her, the free to air TV channels buying exclusive interview rights, and all the while the most expensive lawyers circling to monetise this saga for all it is worth.

An interesting cast of characters claiming victimhood.

Victim No.1: Brittany Higgins

The young woman who claimed to have been raped is vilified at every turn. In what many see as fair after her (ongoing) ordeal, she walked away with a couple of million dollars on leaving her employment in the Commonwealth Parliament.

Victim No2: Bruce Lehrmann

Perhaps that is what is most concerning for the young man accused of raping the young woman. The sex, if it happened at all was so lousy that he claims it didn’t happen, so how come she walks away with millions while his ‘reputation’ is traduced while not actually being named. Seeing The Project interview his immediate response was that he recognised himself and so that was going to be worth millions for defamation of his character.

So far, it has netted him a few dollars too. Settlement with the ABC for broadcasting a National Press Club speech regarding The Project interview was $150,000, News Ltd for daring to publish a few words on this saga, $295,000, and the price for Chanel 7’s exclusive interview, free rent for a year in some very humble digs with coastal views near Sydney, golf in Tasmania, meals any normal person would take about a week to consume, expensive massages, recreational drugs and a bit of comfort from a prostitute or two. Rough tally so far, close on half a million dollars.

Is that enough to cover his mounting legal bills?

I wonder whether the ATO would see that as renumeration. The tax bill could take a fair slice of it.

Victim No.3: Shane Drumgold

In the meantime, there are of course the costs of the inquiry into the DPP handling of the case, again with a bit of skullduggery as the report was leaked to The Australian before being formally handed to the courts, not to mention lunches and numerous contacts with the press… nothing to see here though. The victim is sort of guilty of not having done a really good job in gathering and presenting evidence for the trial which was aborted.

Victim No.4: Linda Reynolds

And the minster involved has remortgaged her home to sue her ex-employee for damage to her ego over comments posted on social media despite having called Ms Higgins “a lying cow.” That case is currently before the courts in Western Australia.

Another sage awaits Mr Lehrmann as he faces more rape charges in Queensland in a couple of months’ time.

For five years this gravy train has been running. When will it stop, when will the dented egos be either panel beaten with a shit load of dollars back into shape or that evidence for a character to be defamed is insufficient for the purse strings to be loosened?

It will be interesting to see the verdict of this on Monday, as a price to repair the damaged goods is set or whether there actually was defamation of Mr Lehrmann’s character. Someone commented that should the court finds in Mr Lehrmann’s favour, the smallest denomination of Australian money is a 5-cent piece.

By Bert Hetebry

Truth be told, we really would like other people to be a little more like we are. We have a seemingly inherent bias for others to be like us; to think as we do, to live as we do, to behave as we do, to believe what we believe.  

We really are quite unaware of these biases, or discriminations, until we are confronted by them.

Normal behaviour and normal beliefs are those we grew up with, the values our parents and extended family espoused defined normal for us as we grew up and it is not until we were confronted by difference that we actually noticed that not everybody is like us. The ‘normal’ we grew up with was reinforced by decisions such as whether we were churched or not, the religion of our family and how strongly that was held, the schools we attended, whether they were public or private, whether it was for a higher standard of education or whether it was to confirm the ‘rightness’ of the faith the family held.

Those outside our definition of normal were seen as different, somehow less than us.

The important question which flows from this is how we deal with difference.

Each morning I try to walk on a nearby beach. Low tide is a particular favourite time as there is more beach and access to parts which are otherwise underwater or pummelled by incoming waves. And most mornings are met with greetings from other early morning beach walkers.

This morning I was greeted by a Christian lady who immediately started talking about the wonders her God presents for us to enjoy, the peacefulness of walking in a natural environment, to take in the freshness of the day. When questioned about her God she went into His judgement of people, how believers are ‘children of God’ (and all that implies for those who are not). She is heaven bound, apparently.

I raised with her the question about God condoning genocide, and it appears that it’s OK; those who are not God’s people are not protected by His laws. She is totally with Israel in their fight with the ‘terrorist’ Palestinians. There was an immediate reference to the October attack but using that as a defence against the continuing atrocity against those in Gaza and the West Bank.

I then asked her about marriage equality, is it OK for homosexuals to marry? Apparently not if they are God’s children, but if they were God’s children the question of their homosexuality would not arise.

The sense of separateness, exclusiveness, sanctimoniousness was palpable. If only people would listen to the Word of God and (probably) be just like her, the world would be a better place.

I have heard this time and again throughout my life. Intolerance masked by a sense of piety, a belief in one’s absolute rightness. From a Calvinist view, the belief that people are ‘elect of God’, chosen by God to be His. Or that Baptism marks one for life as one of God’s children. Or all sins are forgiven so long as one confesses and goes through the sanctions insisted by the priest, (how many ‘Hail Mary’s’ that one?) or to be circumcised on the eighth day after the boy was born, or whatever marking, visible or invisible is used to claim to be one of God’s people.

And so we have the question of who may teach our children, and it seems that the various religious bodies which control faith-based schools are adamant that they have the right, demand the right to be selective, discriminatory in choosing who should teach at their schools.

The right to discriminate, to reinforce the values of the religious body which operate the school.

How well has that gone in the past? Recently an expose of an elite school in Sydney where a teacher was employed despite it being known that he had been emailing female students, suggesting sex… threesomes, comments about genitalia... nothing to see here, he was going to teach at an all-boys school, so that stuff would not be an issue. I suppose he ‘ticked every box’ regarding religious orthodoxy.

Or when we reflect on the Royal Commission into child abuse, no red flags are raised about staff in any number of church-based organisations, schools included.

The screening of staff is necessary, standards need to be established, not based on some religious orthodoxy but rather on the teaching ability and interaction the teacher demonstrates with their students, that quality teaching becomes the criteria for employment. Not some difference which is demonstrated by adherence to a particular faith and how that difference becomes a basis for judgement and discrimination. But this of course will not be reflected in the way students are treated, especially those who are different… be it different colour of skin, different view on sexuality, different view of creation of evolution and so forth… of course it won’t, will it?

Why is there even a need for the right to discriminate? Have these educated people not learned anything from history? To entrench discrimination at the level of teacher is to entrench the orthodoxy which allows contempt for this who are different. Surely the differences which are in the communities we live in need to be reflected in everyday life, and that includes in the school environment. Otherwise we reinforce intolerance, we hide behind a veil of piety that allows for discrimination and judgement on people who do not conform to the rigidity of the orthodoxy of the school or its religious controlling body.

By Jane Salmon  

If The Jackboots Actually Fit … Why Does Labor Keep Tripping Over Its Own Feet? 

On Tuesday, a bunch of bright young refugees went to parliament to talk about their community contribution, their quest for permanent residency and what more they could give the nation if granted domestic tertiary study rights.

They were to meet with independent members of parliament and senators, alongside sector organisers like Jana Favero of ASRC. Interacting with politicians and representing the sector seemed positive enough.

But instead of sharing their dreams, these young people ended up addressing the nightmare of deportation, in the light of proposed Amendments to the Migration Act.

The actual bill seems not only hasty and loose, but an over-reaction.

Just who are these measures intended for? Dare the Government even say?

By Callen Sorensen Karklis  

Many Australians are heard saying that they’re feeling the pinch, especially at the checkouts! Gone are the days of Australia being the lucky country! Australia is well and truly amid a crippling cost of living and housing crisis because of excessive greed and bad policy. As Dorothy says in the Wizard of Oz, “I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore…?” These same words would now apply to many in land of Oz under the Southern Cross: “I don’t think we’re lucky anymore” …. “This isn’t the Australia I remember”.

How did we get to this point? Believe it or not the supermarket giants weren’t always this way. Inflation is playing a big part mixed into the current economic climate. This is due to the aftereffects of the Covid–19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine, but also particularly due to excessive greed. Greed exacerbated since the 1980s neoliberal reforms globally under all sides of politics, and the failures of learning from the GFC in 2007–2008.

First, we must understand history and politics. In Australia, much like the United States, the country bolstered a strong agricultural market during its colonial era which grew and flourished. Agrarian socialism mixed in with the fight for workers’ rights in the minerals market in a flourishing gold mining boom led to the foundation of the early Australian labour movement in the mid-late 19th century. And with it the Australian Labor Party in 1891.

Believe it or not it wasn’t always the Country or National Party that was the party of the farmers. Labor today is always coined as the party for the worker, but Labor was also the party for the farmers. Farming co–ops were becoming the norm in early Federation in many regional and local localities and this was boosted by early Labor Premiers like Ted Theodore in QLD who established an Agricultural Bank, while encouraging fruit produce production and orderly marketing and controls on price fluctuations while developing this space for farming. In simple terms, fair prices for fair work made for all. Pure socialism! But it worked!

Areas like where I come from (the Redlands) were the salad bowls of their state like in South–East Qld. This is how the Tingalpa Shire Council (now part of Redlands, Logan, and BCC) and a majority of South Eastern municipalities in Brisbane and places like Gympie (nowadays dominated by conservative rule) were dominated by the early Labour movement from early federation until the mid-1950s. Tingalpa Mayor such as JD. Collins advocated openly Labor Party candidates at a state level in the mid-1930s who had clear links to the farming co-ops of the day.

Wesfarmers was one example of another co-op that evolved gradually into a conglomerate corporate shopping chain, while others later sold the farm to build developments. Since the 1970s the supermarkets have been burdened by their own success which has today led to a culture of greed within the industry. (Former Woolworths CEO Brad Banducci stormed out of an ABC Four Corners interview when questioned over high prices at the checkouts).

My great grandfather (four generations before me) James Wilson Hughes, was a grocer in Gympie, the son of an Irish miner, later mining manager and seamstress small business owner and immigrants who operated his own family business. He turned to insurance and politics becoming the longest serving city alderman of his day from 1919–1959. As working directly with farmers (the producers) and with the community bred the perfect way forward to become politically engaged. My forebear in true Boardwalk Empire style became an influential figure in the mining agricultural working-class town as its Town Treasurer funding projects and works during the Great Depression and establishing emergency services while building ties to local community groups and sports groups, he later became the Deputy Town Mayor in his final days.

The same could be said of Arthur Coles who established what we know today as Coles Supermarkets in the working-class suburb of Collingwood in Melbourne. Coles, like my ancestor, was a smart businessman anx ndependent conservative who made a quick rise selling cheap products and became the Mayor of Melbourne in 1938–1940 from this success and would serve two terms as federal MP for Henty, playing a crucial role in deciding the government during the hung parliament of outbreak of World War 2, Henty was temporarily a member of the Coalition and was pragmatic in his thinking and sided with the ALP handing the Prime Ministership from Nationals Arthur Faden to Labor’s John Curtin.

Curtin delivered a post war economic boom which the nation transformed drastically under his successor Ben Chifley which the Coalition leader Bob Menzies took full credit for. Regardless who takes the credit much would not have been possible without Coles’ decision making. Never a minister but influential, Coles was appointed the Chair of the Commonwealth Rationing and War Damage Commissions, Australian National Airlines Commission (Trans Australia Airlines now known as Qantas) and Chair of the Melbourne Olympic Games Committee.

Other policy makers with similar roots were James Scullin – a grocer – had the misfortune of becoming Prime Minister during the Great Depression and unsuccessfully led the charge to adopt Keynesian stimulus in response to the crisis with his Federal Treasurer Ted Theodore. It was during this period that the original retail union Shop Distributive and Allied Association (originally called the Shops Assistants and Warehouse Employees Federation of Australia prior to 1972).

Initially advocating for reduced working hours per day from 14 to 12. It was run by staunch Irish Catholics which gained considerable power in both the industrial and political wing of the Australian Labour movement, becoming one of the biggest sectors of the movement. So much so that this group that would later become known as the Industrial Groups factional bloc in the ALP in the 1940s and 1950s. This group became increasingly socially conservative due to religious influence blurring the lines between state and religion. Never a smart choice to avoid secularism in Labor’s case it cost it dearly by splitting over the issue of communism during the height of the Cold War and prevented Labor from governing for 23 years from 1949–1972 until the rise of Gough Whitlam to the Lodge.

Many farmers also became skeptical of socialism despite their own interest and sided gradually with the Country Party and later the Nationals. The Labor infighting encouraged by the Groupers only helped the conservatives, which was not properly meandered until Bob Hawke, the great conciliator, became Prime Minister hailing from Labor’s right factional blocs. Unfortunately, the union became run by greedy bureaucrats who benefitted dearly as their workers paid the ultimate price as the retail bosses gradually stripped the rights of their workforce under the veil of the Accords between the ACTU labour movement, business community and the government of the days during the Neoliberal reforms of the 1980s.

This only became worse during the Howard era by stealth with the SDA forsaking penalty rates award agreements on certain weekends for their workers: doing the opposite then what a union should do! Well deserved credit is due, however, on opposing the draconian WorkChoices but the SDA became an institutional part of the framework opposed to militant convictions of other unions. This in turn has led to the rise of the RAFFWU union which has fought for some of the first strike actions against employers in history in the retail sector. One of RAFFWU’s own become elected as Federal Greens MP in Brisbane in Stephen Bates during Apple strikes and industrial disputes as an ex-employee.

Unfortunately for us, all the supermarket giants have become completely mad with power, ignorance, and vanity by now charging excessive prices gradually over the decades until the post-Covid inflationary period has seen prices sharply skyrocket. While this isn’t quite a 1929 crisis point, it’s clear to groups like the Australian Greens who have advocated for an investigation into price gouging.

This has forced the Albanese Government to swiftly consider a review of all ACCC rules and protocols regarding how pricing is administered by the private sector, especially as a growing number of every day Australians struggle more and more to pay for the simplest of everyday goods.

It’s clear that the supermarket giants also don’t provide enough satisfactory benefits to their staff as not enough superannuation is allocated and hours are cut (to cut costs) as an emphasis is put on younger staff to work more as older workers become expensive despite their skillsets, making it more competitive for people looking for work and less stable as many become underemployed struggling to make ends meet while attempting to meet productivity. This was the case with me after seven years working in retail at both IGA and Coles. This is why automation such as self – services machines and KPIs can become a liability not an asset as it’s made out to be. Especially so when the human factor and empathy is taken out of the situation as profits are weighed above the human contribution but instead focused on human costs.

The moves away from social connectivity to the community have created a culture of toxic insular thinking in the management of corporate Australia, particularly in the supermarket giants (including the SDA). One could argue that this was the reason why same sex marriage took so long to get off the ground until the Turnbull period due – to the influence of the SDA during the Rudd/Gillard era (2007-2013) and being one of the largest contributors in donations in union funds generated from retail and fast food worker fees. This is why it’s imperative to change the insidious nature of how we can get our supermarkets to play ball again and get back to basics! If the SDA became truly democratic and unions grassroots based like RAFFWU and actively pressured bosses in this space to change their ways, it could make all the difference for all!

While the cost-of-living crisis isn’t all affected by everything outlined above, much of it has also been affected by a shortage of supplies since the economy restarted exporting and importing goods since the pandemic, but also because of the building and construction industry going bust as a result and a housing market buckling under considerable strain. As somebody who has overseen tax in the corporate and government in recent months, worked in retail and assisted unions in this space I can say this is a part of the problem, but life can be made so much easier without the excessiveness of corporate greed, especially as dream to live in a fairer just society.

We must encourage supermarkets to find the means by pressure and new laws to reduce the prices for common goods. I know all of this from personal experience as I worked at Coles in all departments from my teens until early 20s while leaving high school to enter into university studies.

Ironically, I joined the SDA after leaving McDonalds (as one of my first jobs) while transitioning to Coles when I was 15. I left Coles to work in sales, odd labour jobs, union jobs, call center work, while also joining the Labor Party, inspired by the election of Kevin 07 and the platform he campaigned on, especially the Apology as a First Nations man. I left the ALP disillusioned by party infighting on environmental issues and lackluster efforts to do more in the retail space for workers. Also being an LGBTIQ man I found it extremely confronting that Labor didn’t do enough due to the SDA’s influence.

Former Labor leaders tried in their own way to make up for it as did Turnbull on the Coalition side. As more and more of my generation are accepting of ourselves in a more open environment its clear there is a sizeable LGBTIQ number in retail and fast-food workforces, which has ironically backfired on the social influence of the SDA in many ways and is a lesson to get back to what members actually want; not what ideological driven despots taking on positions of union organizers that should be filled by those that ultimately care about their workers and members.

Of course, not all in the SDA fit the mold and there are some good delegates who do the hard yards in any union. While this is increasingly a minority, there are genuine organizers no matter the union they hail from. Members of RAFFWU, for example, just want improved working conditions, better break times, and increased pay rates. Considering the huge wealth of the supermarket industry these requests are not unreasonable. But there is considerable lessons to heed from not only my personal experiences put forward, but history itself as well.

References:

ABC News In – depth (2024). Four Corners. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoo6XVxpiU8> accessed 26/03/2024

Australian Parliament. (2015). Patmore, G. Balnave, N. Consumer Co – operatives in Australia: Past, Present and Future. A Submission to Inquiry into cooperative, mutual and member – owned firms, Senate Economics References Committee, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2600.

Bahr, Jessica (2023). SBS News. How much have grocery prices increased in Australia? <https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/how-much-have-grocery-prices-increased-in-australia/ocrfv5zut> accessed 22/03/2024.

Barber, S.M. (2007). Australian Dictionary of Biography. Sir Arthur William Coles (1892 – 1982) <https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/coles-sir-arthur-william-12334> accessed 22/03/2024.

Dyrenfurth, N. Bongiorno, F. (2011). A Little History of the Australian Labor Party.

Karp, P. (2024). Anthony Albanese announces year – long investigation into supermarket prices by ACCC. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/jan/25/anthony-albanese-announces-year-long-investigation-into-supermarket-prices-by-accc> accessed 22/03/2024.

Nellist, I. (2023). Supermarket workers take historic ‘superstrike’ Green Left Org. <https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/supermarket-workers-take-historic-superstrike> accessed 22/03/2024

Redlands Libraries| Redlands Coast Timelines Council. (2021).