By Denis Hay

Imagine a better Australia, a nation where every decision and policy is infused with kindness, love, compassion, and respect. Science has long proven our interconnectedness, reminding us that our actions today shape the world we leave for our children and grandchildren. What legacy do you wish to pass on?

In a world often marred by division and environmental challenges, the power of collective action and positive change cannot be overstated. Every choice we make, and every stance we take, influences the fabric of our society and the health of our planet. It’s a ripple effect that extends far beyond our immediate surroundings.

The call to action is clear: engage passionately with politics. Understanding how our election system functions, how laws are made, and the workings of parliament is not just a civic duty but a powerful tool for change. Knowledge empowers us to advocate for policies that uphold human dignity, protect our environment, and promote global peace.

We live in an era of unprecedented connectivity, offering us unique opportunities to collaborate and address the flaws in our political system. Your choices, your voice, and your vote matter. They have the potential to influence lives around you and shape the future of our nation.

Ask yourself, what can you do to foster positive change in our political landscape? How can you contribute to a vision of Australia that prioritizes unity, respect, and social justice?

A stick person pointing at light bulbs. Discovering a bright idea.

Remember, refusing to hold our political leaders accountable is an abdication of responsibility. We must demand that they act in our best interests and in the name of what is just and right. It’s time to reimagine Australia from a connected perspective and build a legacy of compassion and unity for generations to come.

What steps will you take to be a responsible voter and advocate for a better Australia? Share your thoughts and actions with us.

Call to Action: Join a movement for a united and just Australia. Educate yourself, vote responsibly, and hold your leaders accountable. Your voice matters in shaping a compassionate future.

#UnitedAustralia #PoliticalChange #SocialJustice #FutureGenerations

References:

Why We Are Wired to Connect, Scientific American.

Why Compassion Matters, Guild Services.

What is Social Justice?, National Pro Bono Resource Centre.

Social Justice Stocktake, Salvation Army.

Activism and Social Change, Jude Irwin, Emeritus Professor of Social Work and Social Justice, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Accountability in crisis, University of New South Wales.

Accountable governance requires effective FOI, Law Council of Australia.

It is a particularly quotidian breed in the modern, management-driven university. The desk clerk who pretends to be an academic and researcher but is neither. The desk clerk who admires rosters, work plans and “key performance indicators”, thinking that the process of knowledge is quantifiable by productivity targets and financial returns. The desk clerk who pilfers the work of undergraduates, sports a dubious doctoral thesis, and who rarely sets foot within the sacred surrounds of a library.

The rise of such a figure in the global university scene, one neither fish nor fowl, is no accident. As universities have declined, bureaucracy has bubbled with furious enthusiasm. The decline of teaching and its quality is complemented by the rise of the paranoid penpusher and spreadsheet artist. With a decline in substantive learning, the emergence of soft, watered-down syllabi, diminished reading lists (how dare one expect students to read one book a subject, let alone a few journal articles?), an increased focus on entertainment (flickering videos, please), the desk clerk has become sovereign, dominant, and terrifying. Shallow, weak, insipid, such beings occupy a particular space of decline, subsided by the toilers who put in the hours in often shoddy conditions. For the casual or sessional workforce, this is particularly acute.

Importantly, the desk clerk cadres perform the role of keeping actual academics with unhealthily industrious standards in check, acting as a sinister Varangian Guard for the broader management of the universities. They monitor staff emails without warning, undermine privacy with habitual criminality, conduct surveillance with pathological tendency. They straitjacket thought, curtail originality, quash dissent. To assist them in their mission is a vicious set of regulations known as the “Code of Conduct”, a document that would be neatly slotted into any KGB manual on thought control. Good to be on your best behaviour: the Desk Clerk is keeping an eye on you. Be a team member. Don’t question university policy, however criminal or moronic. If not, to the cooler, a disciplinary hearing devoid of natural justice precepts.

So, where do we find these crawling creatures so menacing to learning and murderous to thought? In the position of Deans, associate deans and their collaborating adjutants. Program managers on the make. Colourless gauleiters, humourless henchmen, women and those in between hoping to make a buck or two out of the neuroses of identity politics. (Fancy an aboriginal cause we can advance?) In the role of directors of learning and teaching. (Universities are in a bad way if they need such areas.) In sections with names resembling toilet cleaning products or carcinogenic chemicals.

These people are, in turn, given orders by nameless, unaccountable individuals in the upper echelons of the institution, crowned by that most unaccountable of officers, the Vice-chancellor. Usual corporate and commercial laws do not apply, be there in terms of remuneration or governance decisions. This is particularly the case in Australia’s universities, where the average salary for the VC hovers around A$1 million. Despite being treated as corporate institutions, such universities are not controlled by the same disclosure requirements that companies must follow. The results are predictable enough: the sloshing and moving of dark money, the prevalence of shady deals, and poor, even bankrupting decisions.

The desk clerk’s orders, often crafted on a ghastly template, are followed without question, delivered at meetings held with academics who should know better. (An academic who has time for meetings is obviously not pulling any weight.) It is one of the greatest conflicts of interest in the academy: the associate dean, having a chat with staff in a discipline meeting ostensibly to address a critical issue of merit. Given that the associate dean in question is not beholden to staff welfare but the unelected officialdom of a mini-police state, the spectacle is not merely farcical but scandalous.

Debate is supposedly held, discussion conducted. Academic staff babble, gossip and chat in convivial surroundings pretending to follow a serious agenda. But these meetings only ever serve to rubberstamp the bleak reality that is hatched in the University Chancellery, where thought is purposely killed in favour of middle-management speak, corrupt goals, and self-feathering. For desk clerks keen to rise up the greasy pole, it’s best to be obedient and steely in resolve, kick down against the opposition, and suppress the contrarians. Never mind that students are ignored, a toxic workplace rife with bullying neglected, or that the university is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

The favourite occasion of the year for the desk clerk is the announcement of the promotions round. Bootlickers and coprophagic devotees delight in the news that they have gained an associate professorship or even professorship, despite having not authored work of note – or any work for that matter. The time has surely come to strip such individuals of academic positions and admit them to the role of administrators, with salaries adjusted downwards. Because that is what a desk clerk, after all, is.

By Callen Sorensen Karklis

In the aftermath of the 2023 Referendum where 60% of Australians voted a resounding No to a First Nations voice advisory committee to Parliament, we must now look at a way forward for First Nations people and non-indigenous peoples alike, particularly by closing the gap in life expectancy and living standards.

It’s clear that while 40% of us voted for the Voice we must accept the referendum’s fate much the same that most pro referendum activist in all of federation. Of all referendum’s only 8 out of 45 since 1901 have passed. It is obvious that misinformation campaigns are becoming the norm in today’s day and age given the 2016 US Presidential election and Brexit referendum. Democracy is going through a crisis point in the backdrop of less people in support of government institutions as well as free speech and the media.

In the thick of this revelation, we must challenge the reality that populist politics resurging its ugly head among the backdrop of totalitarian regimes disrupting the legitimacy liberal post war order. We cannot allow the populist who wish to see the mistakes of the past resurge as a way forward.

Considering that Australia was one of the only developed western nations in the world to not have a treaty with its First Nations peoples, every state and territory government are looking to implement a treaty. But considering the political cowardice of the LNP and its leaders on both the issue of the Voice and now backing out of the Pathway to Treaty in Qld off the back of the Voice vote being almost 80% No in QLD.

We are heading into what was 32 years of reconciliation in the form of native title, apologies and closing gap reports from 1991 – 2023 into a period of Australia potentially walking away from reconciliation with its First Nations peoples. This period may just as well be what the 1980s was to the LGBTIQ community during the onslaught of AIDs crisis amongst the backdrop of high discrimination. Every minority group knows how hard it is to not only fight for your rights but also to maintain them especially so now in the post-truth period of madmen. These madmen especially don’t want diversity or equality for all because they want to create the illusion of helping those going through economic and social hardship and weaponizing differences to gain and maintain power. This was the Big Lie strategy that Joseph Goebbels in Nazi Germany used for the Third Reich for Hitler.

Treaty and Affirmative Action

Considering the setback on Treaty in Queensland it’s clear that we must explore the alternatives to the Voice and find a way forward. If Treaty is to fail in Qld in 2024 if the QLD LNP wins the next state election and David Crisafulli is to become the next QLD Premier. Both the QLD Labor Party and QLD Greens should do the morally right and honourable thing and support a Treaty regardless. If the LNP want to play the bloodhounds of racist dog whistles, then let history be the judge of their actions and behaviour of gaslighting and opening up pandoras box.

I’m not going to lie but healing the wounds of October 2023 is going to take considerable time and strategizing and a consolidated effort of resources to heal the divide the damage the aftermath of the Voice Referendum has done for First Nations peoples. They say time heals all wounds but for First Nations peoples it has taken 235 years of policy failures just to reveal how deep these wounds go.

Qld will be the only state and territory that doesn’t go ahead with a treaty in all of Australia doing the pro-Apartheid legacy of police state Joh Bjelke Petersen proud. If Labor wants to stay in power in 2024 and beyond until 2028 the Qld Greens must make it an election issue to ensure Qld Labor should go ahead with it as a sticking point. The Qld Greens must make it non–negotiable if Labor enters hung parliament and minority government. The Greens have the chance to win another 5 state seats in McConnel, Cooper, Greenslopes, Miller, and Bulimba. If the Greens could hold additional seats to the 2, they already hold if the swing towards the LNP isn’t enough anything is possible. But if the LNP win power regardless in a firm majority then Labor should find its backbone and campaign on Treaty regardless. The same should be the same in all other state or territory or else it runs the risk of Australia to be the pariah of the western world when it comes to its First Nations peoples. But then again Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister could also action legislation to enact a federal Treaty too. Just as Bob Hawke proposed in 1988, it wouldn’t just be a song or vision it could be a reality.

Another way forward would be the introduction of more affirmative action policies and avenues for First Nations peoples to enter the fray of all political parties. It is evident that all parties have a long way to go to make this happen considering the large number of reasons why the gap is still considerable. Giving more First Nations peoples government roles with actual weight is another. Until we see a First Nations Premier and Prime Minister or senior minister in either state and federal parliament making decisions for both First Nations and non–Indigenous Australians and more of it the more likely will it be that a bridge in mistrust may cease. But that said, the political parties of either side be it left, right, or centre must come together to introduce AA or else reconciliation will become the same quagmire as the troubles in Northern Ireland or Palestine. This may be a pessimistic outlook but more importantly it’s the truth. As Liberal Senator Neville Bonner once said, “I am a token to no person”. But more importantly all parties must accept this advice; they must move away from tokenism to sweeping problems under a rug without solving issues. They must make deliverable outcomes with real solutions. Will we see a First Nation’s Prime Minister or state Premier? Who knows Will Australia change the date of its national holiday on the 26th? Only by working together we can write our story.

Why the Voice Failed

Despite the good intentions behind the Voice campaign, it failed for several reasons but most importantly – even as somebody who was in support of the Voice – it was a badly run campaign. The detail wasn’t explained as well as it should have been. But the advertising for it just wasn’t appealing to voters who understood the potential importance this move could signify for First Nations peoples and bridging a divide to write their own destiny alongside everyday Australians. But people don’t like being confronted with issues or problems. People don’t like taking responsibility for their ancestors settling a land that wasn’t originally their own.

Reasons it failed:

• Infighting among mob; Senator Lidia Thorpe (formerly of the Greens) and the black sovereign movement had their reasons for going against the referendum as they didn’t want to accept any part in the constitution whatsoever. Then you had Senator Jacinta Price (LNP) (former Deputy Mayor of Alice Springs) going against the referendum with the likes of Peter Dutton (Opposition Leader) just to be counterproductive to win support from spreading fear.
• Racism and Fear: discrimination and bigotry reared its ugly head when LNP MPs and Local Council Mayors spread fear by accusing the YES campaign of making the Voice a landgrab for native title claims falsely on parks, cemeteries, backyards, ovals, sports clubs, and public spaces of any description. It was this fear that that spread like wildfire into every home and to every corner. As FDR once said, “Fear of fear itself”. Weaponizing fear was what led to the worst atrocities in human history.
• It’s the Economy, Stupid! It was unwise for Albo to go ahead with the referendum during an international and domestic economic crisis. Especially as most working-class people going through hardship with ever increasing rate rises from the RBA, during a rental crisis, housing crisis due to shortages, and overdevelopment, many of these people aren’t interested in social issues when their struggling to put food on the table, paying rent, or paying off a mortgage.
• Lack of education: Perhaps a long education campaign better educating the gaps in living standards between non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australians could have been beneficial to the YES campaign. Without this non-Indigenous people didn’t have enough to go on without a google search but most people on campaigns need reminding no matter the campaign.
• Misinformation: The big reason any election campaign either fails or succeeds these days is by misinforming the public or lack to combat it via social media platforms, and media spin via television or radio by use of propaganda. It’s clear that the AEC is unable at present to combat misinformation during elections. This is why legislation is needed to ensure social media and any other campaign material that is untrue is put under the scope to avoid people being misled thinking it as truth when it is otherwise.

By Allan Richardson

So Snowy 2.0 is going to be over budget? That puts it in the classification of ‘Project’. It’s time to put everything in perspective.

When drilling, or attempting to drill 27 kilometres of tunnels, it should come as no surprise that the geology is not necessarily homogenous (homogeneous if you talk proper) for the entire length of the tunnels. Although I imagine that the engineers were hoping for something more ground-breaking (sorry) than 150 metres of progress before Hades intervened with a sharp intake of sink hole. Can’t help bad analysis.

The laughable misrepresentation of the initial cost of the project of two billion Aussie dollars was never taken seriously by anyone, (including its proponents) when it was first announced, so there’s no point clutching your pearls after the event and crying foul.

If Snowy 2.0 approximates its anticipated cost of 12 billion dollars, it doesn’t even come close to the overrun of the initial budget of the construction for the Sydney Opera House, which recently celebrated its Golden Wedding. Congratulations! It delivered a bottom-line underestimation of just over 1,400%. So if Snowy Hydro 2.0 completes construction below, say, ’30 large’, it will be enthusiastically promoted by all those involved, the ringmaster of the media circus being the PM du jour, doggedly accompanied by the nodding NSW state leader of the same party. Despite the fact that (with luck) these leaders may not yet have even finished school at the time of writing, it will be lauded as a massive, well executed savings windfall.

I’d like to thank everyone involved, especially yada, yada, yada …

Remember that NSW disregarded the complex mathematical conundrum of ‘width of imported railway rolling stock’ relative to ‘tunnel width’, including allowances for ̶y̶o̶b̶b̶o̶s̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶w̶h̶o̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶l̶e̶a̶n̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶u̶r̶t̶h̶e̶s̶t̶ sway. I personally know several thousand people who could manage such calculations, but clearly the laws of probability prevented anyone with such skills from participating in the decision-making process.
̶
Let’s not think for one minute that NSW is inexperienced in creating and bloviating on its many tunnelling clusterfucks. Credit where it’s due! Of course, Chris Minns is now totally responsible, since Morrison is unable to plead due to mental incapacity, and someone has to carry the can (of worms).

AUD 12,000,000,000 (only USD 7.67B) is a power of money. Despite SM 2.0 setbacks, including some unrealistically optimistic guesswork by professionals, the estimators were no doubt less concerned than usual about budgeting ‘inaccuracies’, with a Prosperity Gospelidiot PM egging them on at the time in support of future Photo-Ops.

The idea behind SH 2.0 is sound enough for the jottings on the back of a beer coaster one evening. We need to find everything we can to replace fossil fuel. Who knows; maybe thermodynamics may reappear as a useful contributor to the renewable energy market after Rewiring Australia hook’s ’em up, and my four handfuls of shares in ‘hot rocks’ may reach three figures! (in integers of cents).

We are setting aside 150 billion in tax cuts from people earning over 180k, an amount coincidentally including the base salary of even the most junior politicians. (Speaking of whom, where is Wyatt Roy nowadays?).

We’re also committing enough to the USMIC Virtual Nuclear Submarine Illusion (VNSI), or ‘allusion’ according to some wag, to more than supplement our gratuitous tax relieving, vote winning expenses to well over half a trillion bucks. You could get a few Snowys for that.

It’s time for a proportionate response to nature’s existential threats to civilisation, not to pacify shirt-fronting attempt by some jumped up warlord. Not to put too fine a point on it.

By Allan Richardson

I don’t flabbergast easily, but listening to so-called sentients suggesting that the Middle East conflict was unrelated to religious differences, it’s clear that they’ve never heard of Jerusalem! Would King Solomon have cut it in half after having built its first synagogue? Would he have divided Palestine into equitable ‘halves’ so that the Israelites and Arabs could coexist in peaceful harmony?

Fundamental differences in religious beliefs, especially with those based on black letter ‘canonical’ law won’t give an inch. Neither the chants of ‘Allahu Akbah’ or a melodic rendition of ‘And If I Were A Rich Man’ rationalises the extreme and unbending tenets of their ‘faiths’, where sparing civilian lives rarely warrants serious consideration.

And there’s ABC Insiders, featuring Israeli sycophant Schmendrick Birmingham, who suggested that on the one hand it’s mandatory that Albanese visits Israel, and on the other hand that he stands back and doesn’t interfere. Perhaps he should be tasked with setting the government’s travel agenda, hopefully keeping our PM safe in a war zone. Yeah, right.

I’ve been heartened by the forthright and carefully considered statements from senator Aly and Minister Husic, where it appears that they’ve enlisted Palestinian support from other Labor politicians, whilst decrying the actions of Hamas, but fearful for the safety of the millions of citizens in the pocket handkerchief-sized Gaza Strip.

The world is (rightly) becoming polarised on the ME conflict, already at DEFCON 2. It will either be settled by Israel doubling down on illegal settlement until the obvious genocide has been achieved, maintaining the status quo as camouflage whilst continuing the encroachment, or the other shoe will drop and the lands of Omar Khayyam may get their hands dirty. In which case it’ll be a race between nuclear annihilation and Global Warming extinction. Pick a box.

Or, as emphasised by some classical musicians, wait for the ricochet …

I must begin by congratulating Murdoch’s news media and the Australian Conservative political parties for their successful long-term character assassination of those who are different. Meaning First Nations people.

Whilst I am primarily concerned with racism, it is essential to acknowledge that several factors influenced the referendum result.

The first and most vital was the lack of bipartisanship. We can now conclude that no matter how beneficial, referendums won’t pass without it from now on. This includes any move to become a republic.

Secondly, lying, misinformation, and deception are legitimate propaganda tools that create a smokescreen that people cannot see.

Thirdly, ignorance was a substantial contributor to the NO vote. Many no voters, particularly new citizens, knew very little of Aboriginal history or their aspirations. Let alone our Constitution.

The new chairman of Newscorp, Lachlan Murdoch, will, no doubt, through all his media outlets, convince the masses that they did the right thing in voting NO. He won’t tell them how many lies, lies by omission or other deceptions were used to convince even good people that a NO vote was best for the country.

Of course, a percentage of people voted No with good intentions. Others voted No to uphold their conservative viewpoint. They would be older folk with a dislike for change. Others voted negatively because they were adherents of Peter Dutton and his negativity. Yet others voted NO because they were racists and wanted Aboriginals to “know their place” in Australian society.

They had grown up with it through their fathers or the influence of other ignorant people. Yet others voted NO, utterly unaware of what the referendum was all about.

One such observation was a long weekend when I was watching my grandsons playing basketball. One of the boys in the team was from Somalia. Several families with African heritage have moved to our area. I observed the mateship of their winning endeavours and the generous enthusiasm of their play.

The fun, friendship and frivolity of their connectedness was a delight. The dark lad was of enormous talent with a generous smile, a face as black as night and a gregarious nature.

I also observed the total unabashed acceptance by children of different races at school and at the local swimming pool, where mature judgement was made by children unhindered by the prejudicial ignorance of adults.

My thoughts often drifted to my youth, and I wondered what causes people to be racist. As a small boy, I recalled being told what side of the street to walk to school because Jews lived on the other side.

I lived through the post-war era of the immigration period when Australians belittled and sneered at Italians and Greeks.

Then, later, with a bi-partisan agreement, we accepted the Vietnamese who came by boat. But not before debasing them with the worst part of our uniquely Australian prejudice and profanity.

Memories whilst a young man came back to me of a pub where I used to have a couple of drinks on my way home from work. The beer garden attracted a cohort of Aussie builders who subcontracted concreting work to a group of Italians. I would observe how the Aussie fellows would run them down with the foulest of language behind their backs and then drink with them without a hint of condemnation when they arrived.

There was a time when a relation travelling by caravan around Australia rang me from some remote area highly populated by Indigenous people. After the usual greeting, the following words were advanced.

“I’m not a racist, but … “. I had learned by my observation that when you hear someone say those words, they generally are. A tirade of critical comments followed about every aspect of Aboriginal culture and living standards.

I have no doubt that much of what she told me was true. However, every situation could be replicated in white city society. I could have taken her to a suburb where this is aptly demonstrated. And, of course, we are at the top of the world in domestic violence.

Her comments were, therefore, racist. The singling out of any group due to drawing attention to colour is racist and thus abhorrent to me.

More recently, I have experienced racism where I live. Regarding Indigenous folk, I have two neighbours who, in conversation, described Aboriginals as taking up too much space.

At a junior football final a few years ago, a teenage boy stood behind me, verbalising a young Aboriginal player of immense talent. I allowed the insults to insinuate themselves into the minds around me before I had had enough.

The Aboriginal boy had heard the remarks and was obviously distressed. I turned and said to the boy of uncouth mouth: “So yours is what a racist’s face looks like.”

The teenager slunk away, probably not used to having his racism confronted. In the unnatural silence that invaded the group where I was standing, I received a couple of congratulatory slaps on the shoulder.

I hate all forms of racism in a way that even someone like me, who loves to mould words as disciples for good, could not find the ones to use as a rebuttal. I intrepidly did what I did because I am getting on in years, and a bit of bravado seems to come with it, and everyone is obliged to confront it.

In watching the antics of children of different races in their play, we can witness the absence of race as an issue. It is the adults who are the abusers of decency.

Some cannot concede that we were all black once. And some believe that superiority is determined by a chemical compound. They are the racists.

Children celebrate differences and prove that racism is not a part of the human condition. It is taught or acquired. You have to learn it; those who tutor and preach it are to be pitied for their ignorance and imbecility. No one is born a racist, but we are born into racist societies.

I have had many other experiences of racism. It stems from ignorance and runs through families because they harbour confined hatred that occasionally erupts with disastrous consequences.

How much of it flared during this referendum is unknown, but we can safely assume that a high percentage of the aged vote believed that our Indigenous folk have been receiving too much for too long.

They, of course, never stopped to think that it was white people who devised how it was spent, not them.

By Loz Lawrey

Well, Australia voted NO.

I saw it coming but I’m still gutted.

Really? Is this really our best?

What possible reason could any well-intended citizen have for voting against a simple constitutional adjustment aimed at improving the lives of so many First Nations people?

Are so many of my countrymen really wearing their racism so blatantly on their sleeves?

Addressing the disadvantage in our Indigenous community that has for over two centuries (and to this day) remained entrenched – that’s all the Voice was about.

So why did so many Australians vote against it?

I am reminded of Britain’s Brexit referendum, where many of the voters seemed clueless as to the actual meaning of the question they were being asked and the implications of their answer upon their own lives and those of others.

A folk rumour has it that “Brexit” was the most-Googled word on the day following the referendum, which begs the question: why didn’t they google the damn word BEFORE voting?

Dutton’s campaign of lies, disinformation and obfuscation succeeded, most sadly.

We have, overnight, become a meaner, more miserable country.

Let us never forget that the Coalition, the National party and the No Campaign all followed the fascist playbook, emulating the Trump power-seeking strategy which is, at its heart, based upon the “divide and conquer” campaign that brought Hitler to power.

What I find truly frightening in these post-truth times is the disruptive power of trolls and “commentators” on social and mainstream media who hijack all rational discussion with tools from the saboteur’s toolbox such as “othering” – giving people an enemy to blame for their troubles… giving them “others” (think Jews, Palestinians, Aborigines etc…) to hate.

Such hypocrisy! For months now I’ve been hearing misleading nonsense dribbling from the scowling mouth of opposition leader Peter Dutton.

Never before have I found myself yelling so often at both radio and TV as the most disgusting lies and ambiguities (all appealing to the fear, greed and insecurities of voters) were peddled by both Dutton and his co-conspirators in their concerted efforts to sabotage something beautiful that had the true potential to brighten Australia’s heart.

I must also credit others, such as Nationals leader David Littleproud, No Campaigners Warren Mundine, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Senator Lydia Thorpe (ably assisted by others of their contrarian ilk) with making hefty contributions to the amplification of the fears and doubts injected into the voice “debate” by racists and right-wing conservatives.

And what will be the wondrous legacy of these narcissistic naysayers?

A BIG FAT NOTHING.

For people of empathy who possess critical thinking skills, supporting the Indigenous Voice to Parliament was a no-brainer, surely?

If you voted NO, I do not want to hear your mendacious justifications.

Seriously, who are you to vote against the upliftment of others, particularly when you would know (had you informed yourself) that a YES vote comes at no cost to you personally?

It was a simple and direct request: will you let us be heard?

Will you allow us a Voice that will be listened to?

May we, Indigenous Australians, simply be allowed input into decisions that affect us?

Why is this asking too much?

If you voted NO, you are either a racist, seriously misinformed or perhaps just confused and disengaged.

If the latter is the case, should you even be allowed to participate in our nation’s democratic process?

Democracy is a wonderful concept, but it does require informed participation.

Personally, the lesson I take away from the sad, miserable and disturbing result of this Voice Referendum is that Australia’s education system is letting us down.

Are young people leaving school properly equipped to fully participate in the democratic process?

Are they being taught real civics – the rights and obligations of citizens in society?

Do they know their rights in the workplace?

Do they graduate with some understanding of our financial system and their tax obligations etc?

Does our system properly equip us to become informed, empowered, participating and contributing citizens?

Does our education system teach students about living in a social democracy, where the needs of all must be considered?

In the context of the Voice “debate” one must also ask: does our educational system fully inform all students of the real history of Australia and truly reflect the actual verified facts underpinning Aboriginal disadvantage: the attempted genocide, the frontier wars, the apartheid state, the bloody Terra Nullius?

Surely real reconciliation demands that these things be fully taught and understood by all Australians?

If the broader Australian community truly understood the issues that confront our First Nations brothers and sisters, the result of the referendum would have been a resounding YES, I believe.

The NO vote won the day by exploiting ignorance, an ignorance that our very system seems to entrench.

Righteousness requires a YES.

Basic humanity requires a YES.

Colonialists seeking redemption for the crimes of their ancestors require a YES.

Social justice requires a YES.

Decency requires a YES.

Sadly, our country has a long way to go on the road to YES.

The hidebound regressives of the right have kicked us back to the start, but let’s take the first step towards a fairer future.

Let’s reclaim the Fair Australia that Dutton works so hard to destroy.

I’ll make one more point: which political leader has truly engaged with First Australians, attended the Garma festival year after year, enjoyed and tried to understand their culture?

Which political leader made his concern for Aboriginal empowerment and upliftment a priority once elected, by announcing his government’s support for the Uluru Statement From The Heart?

Which political leader actually cares about First Nations Australians and makes a real effort to understand their needs?

Which political leader actually walks with first Australians?

Which political leader is capable of heartfelt (not claimed in a monotone) empathy for others?

If you consider the facts, I think you’ll know the answer.

By Anthony Haritos

On the day Australia said “NO” to the planet’s oldest surviving First Nations people, we all must have a story to mark that famous day, surely.

I’ve got two.

Story one is more of an observation. The Greeks also have a day when they shouted a resounding No! “OXi” Day, October 28, 1940, was when the Greek PM rejected Italian dictator Benito Mussolini’s ultimatum to surrender in early-stage WWII, leading to delays in Hitler’s grand plan and arguably to the Germans invading Russia on 22 June 1941 – too late in the northern summer.

The difference between the two days? Greeks may continue to celebrate their declaration day long after we are all dead, rightly too, if it so pleases them. Whereas here in Australia …

The second story I won’t forget. Assisting my 91-year-old mother Helen to vote at the polling station on Saturday, I pointed out the allotted clearly marked rectangle as where to write her vote. Helen stared at the paper then said, “I can’t see it.”

I said, “There, inside that rectangle.”

She replied with a shaky voice, “Well, I can’t see a rectangle,” nodding her head with frustration. “This is what I’ve come to.”

I took hold of the bottom of the pencil and placed the graphite tip inside on the left-hand side of the rectangle.

I said, “It’s in position to write now Mum.” She scrawled. The Y was inside okay, the E straddling the bottom line 50-50 at an angle, and the S was completely outside below at 45 plus degrees.

Gawd. I placed the tip where the E should be, and said “Okay, try writing just the letters E and S again.”

My brain was squirming, just like that toad. I felt a sudden plunge into … pity. I felt so sorry for her. Again, the exercise of placing three letters on paper was a mess, but it had to do.

A year ago, I had taken Helen to an eye specialist where learning the full extent of her macular degeneration was a shock. I’ve been with her again the past three weeks. But this act brought it home. Bang.

At Dinah Beach Yacht Club I recounted the episode, adding, “Mum, with all the difficulties you face I’m really proud of you. How you keep getting up every day is amazing really.”

“Really? You are proud of me, Tony? Thank you. No one’s ever said they were proud of me before.”

I could close this with, “So we beat on, boats against the current …” but I won’t. It’s one appropriation too many. Then again, it’s small beer compared to appropriating the image of some Aboriginal elder someone downloaded from the internet, that someone then allocating some wise belief system to him. This happened time and again. Is this appropriation or misappropriation? Dunno. But it’s fucked. I do know that. And you’d hafta be a complete retard to do that. To go through the motions of carrying that out.

You’d have to be a kind of person I can’t put my finger on.

It was now well past midnight. I really did hope winners were being grinners down at No HQ, that they were all high on some kinda hog whooping it up, congratulating each other on … I really do. Congratulating each other … on what though? Can’t figure just what that would be.

Love to be a fly on the wall. What would they all be yelling at each other? Well, spitting on each other by now.

“I say, excellent appropriation there in Week Three! Brilliant use of that dead old blackfella with his cute little regulation-issue spear, paint and naga!! Fuck we got some good hits outa him. Had heads spinning, and that’s what we want. Hey old fella, you can relax now. I gotta say, you punched well above your weight there.”

Surely not? They wouldn’t be that witty. Not with an anchor tied to their ankle. Or necks. You’d hafta be a psychopath.

Yeah, hope they’re hog high cos I reckon, reckon tomorrow there’ll be that little bit, bitta niggle, you know … or maybe a deep dread …

The Yes crowds. Where are they? All off crying, weeping, sobbing … what did they expect? Get up, go on, lead, this is your time, laugh right back at ’em I say. Open season’s on them now, not you. Give ‘em both barrels, along with a spicy bitch-slap for luck.

Even before October 14, The Voice, or, to describe in full, the Referendum on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament, was in dire straits. Referenda proposals are rarely successful in Australia: prior to October 14, 44 referenda had been conducted since the creation of the Commonwealth in 1901. Only eight had passed.

On this occasion, the measure, which had been an article of faith for Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, hinged on whether an advisory body purportedly expert and informed on the interests and affairs of the First Nations Peoples would be constitutionally enshrined. The body was always intended as a modest power: to advise Parliament on policies and legislative instruments directly of concern to them. But details on who would make up such a body, nor how it could actually achieve such Olympian aims as abolishing indigence in remote indigenous communities or reducing the horrendous incarceration rate among its citizenry, were deemed inconsequential. The near cocky assumption of the Yes case was that the measure should pass, leaving Parliament to sort out the rest.

In the early evening, it became clear that the Yes vote was failing in every state, including Victoria, where campaigners felt almost complacently confident. But it was bound to, with Yes campaigners failing to convince undecided voters even as they rejoiced in preaching to their own faithful. The loss occurred largely because of two marshalled forces ideologically opposite yet united in purpose. They exploited a fundamental, and fatal contradiction in the proposal: the measure was advertised as “substantive” in terms of constitutional reform while simultaneously being conservative in giving Parliament a free hand.

From one side, the conservative “Australia as egalitarian” view took the position that creating a forum or chamber based on race would be repugnant to a country blissfully steeped in tolerance and colour-blindness. Much of that is nonsense, ignoring the British Empire’s thick historical links with race, eugenics and policies that, certainly in the Australian context, would have to be judged as genocidal. Even the current Australian Constitution retains what can only be called a race power: section 51(xxvi) which stipulates that Parliament may make laws regarding “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws.”

Beneath the epidermis of such a view is also an assumption held by such Indigenous conservatives as Warren Mundine that there have been more than a fair share of “voices” and channels to scream through over several decades, be it through committees or such bodies as the disbanded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Commission. The plethora of these measures did not address inequality, did not improve health and educational outcomes directly, and merely served to create a managerial class of lobbyists and activists. To merely enshrine an advisory body in the Constitution would only serve to make such an entity harder to abolish in the event it failed to achieve its set purposes.

Campaigners for the Voice will shake their heads and chide those who voted against the measure as backward reprobates who fell for a gross disinformation campaign waged by No campaigners. They were the ones who, like worshippers having filled the church till, could go about morally soothed proclaiming they had done their duty for the indigenous and downtrodden. Given that the No vote was overwhelming (59%), the dis- and mis-information angle is a feeble one.

It is true to say that the No campaign was beset by a range of concerns, some of them ingenuous, some distinctly not. There was the concern that, while the advice from Voice members on government legislation and policy would be non-binding on Parliamentarians, this would still lead to court challenges that would tie up legislation. Or that this was merely the prelude to a broader tarnishing of the Australian brand of exceptionalism: first, comes the Voice, then the Treaty process, then the “truth telling” to be divulged over national reconciliation processes.

The first of these was always unlikely to carry much weight. Even if any parliamentary decision to ignore advice from the Voice would ever go to court, it would never survive the holy supremacy of Parliament in the Westminster model of government. What Parliament says in the Anglo-Australian orbit of constitutional doctrine tends to be near unquestionable writ. No court would ever say otherwise.

The second concern was probably more on point, insofar as the Voice would act as a spur in the constitutional system, one to build upon in the broader journey of reconciliation. But the No casers here, with former Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer being fairly typical of this, regard matters such as treaty and truth-telling commissions as divisive and best scotched. “The most destructive feature of failed societies is that they are divided on the basis of ethnicity, race or religion,” he wrote this month (paywalled). For Downer and his ilk, Australia remains a pleasant land – not exactly verdant, but pleasant nonetheless – where Jerusalem was built; don’t let any uppity First Nations advocate tell you otherwise.

The procedurally minded and pragmatic sort – which count themselves amongst the majority of Australian voters, were always concerned about how the advisory body would be constituted. Any new creature born from political initiative will always risk falling into the clutches of political intriguers in the government of the day, vulnerable to the puppeteering of the establishment. In Australian elections, where pragmatism is elevated to the level of a questioning, punishing God, the question of the “how” soon leads to the question of “how much”. The Voice would ultimately have to face the invoice.

Another, equally persuasive criticism of the Voice came from what might be loosely described as the Black Sovereignty movement, led by such representatives as independent Senator Lidia Thorpe. From that perspective, the Voice is only a ceremonial sham, a bauble, tinsel cover that, while finding form in the Constitution, would have meant little. “This referendum, portrayed by the government as the solution to bringing justice to First Peoples in this country,” she opines, “has instead divided and hurt us.”

Precisely because it would not bind elected members, it had no powers to compel the members of parliament to necessarily follow their guidance. “The supremacy of the colonial parliament over ‘our Voice’,” Thorpe goes on to stress, “is a continuation of the oppression of our people, and the writing of our people into the colonial Constitution is another step in their ongoing attempt to assimilate us.” This would make the body a pantomime of policy making, with its membership respectfully listened to even if they could be ultimately ignored. Impotence, and the effective extinguishment of indigenous sovereignty, would be affirmed.

Among some undecided voters lay an agonising prospect, notably for those who felt that this was yet another measure that, while well-meant in spirit, was yet another on the potted road of failures. The indigenous activist Celeste Liddle represents an aspect of such a view, one of dissatisfaction, stung by broken promises. Her view is one of morose, inconsolable scepticism. “I’m at a time in my life,” she writes in Arena, “where I have seen a lot of promises, a lot of lies, a lot of attacks on Indigenous communities, and not a lot of change. I therefore lack faith in the current political system and its ability to ever be that agent of change.” That’s an almost dead certifiable “No”, then.

The sinking of the Yes measure need not kill off the program for improving and ameliorating the condition of First Nations people in Australia. But for those seeking a triumphant Yes vote, the lesson was always threatening: no measure will ever pass the hurdle of the double majority in a majority of states if it does not have near uniform approval from the outset. It never has.

Today, we know the result of this referendum that has hung over us for what seems an eternity.

According to the polls and the media (notably News Corp), the “NO” campaign has won. Both sides exhausted their arguments with words that either spoke the truth, half-truths, or full-on lies – or repeated the exact same words for months.

It was a simple referendum that, if won, would have seen First Nations people take their rightful place in our society, recorded in our constitution. A proposition not at all unreasonable.

Secondly was a proposal to give a voice to these people who once needed no such thing. A voice recommending things to the Australian Parliament that might improve their lives, their health, their education and their longevity. Doing whatever they requested their way instead of the white man’s. However, the Parliament, if desired, could refuse any such request.

It was to be a voice that might make them as equal to us than they are now. But asking for that from conservatives with a superiority complex and a “born-to-rule” attitude was a bridge too far.

The proposal’s details were relatively simple and easy to understand until the warriors of relentless negativity with no motive other than to destroy an idea entered the fray.

Understanding why the conservative parties would want to waste this opportunity for the Indigenous people of this nation to advance themselves takes a bit of insight. First, one must look at the character of those who championed a conservative ‘No’ vote. From John Howard Tony Abbott to Peter Dutton, the forces of conservatism grew to oppose this referendum in the knowledge that their opposition would destroy it. Only parties without conscience, empathy and empty hearts would do such a thing.

The National Party, led by David Littleproud without much introspection or conscience, showed their true colours by opposing it before the questions were even known. He looked cowardly in the face of such uninformed thinking.

Peter Dutton, the negatively inclined Leader of the Opposition, opposed the referendum because it is what conservatives do. Afraid of change unless it profits. Is he a racist? I don’t know, but a glance at his history might illuminate.

There was never anything in it politically for him. It has yet to show him as an informed leader with a touch of sageness. On the contrary, this hostile victory has portrayed him as just one of those awful right-wing leaders from the darkened world of Trump.

His decision to oppose won’t win the teal seats back from the independent members of Parliament, far from it. He will only enhance his reputation as another in the Abbott mould – another spoiler. Being constantly pessimistic in a changing world will not convince the undecided, young, or disengaged voters who want change. It is not a strategy for winning the next election.

Joining the YES campaign could have changed his public image, had he taken a bi-partisan approach.

Aboriginal leaders Warren Mundine and Jacinta Yangapi Nampijinpa Price supported a NO vote because they wanted more than a voice. However, Mundine was so difficult to understand at times that I needed help comprehending his confusion. They wanted political power to go with a treaty designed by them.

They have both experienced success in life and may not want others to have the privileges that go with it.

Contradicting that, however, is that the LNP want Indigenous people to know their place in society. Equality is a word they would dare not use.

Two weeks ago, it became apparent that Dutton and Albanese were beginning to position themselves for a post-referendum period when both parties would require different words to explain a NO victory.

Why did the YES vote lose so miserably after 15 years of negotiation, endless meetings, goodwill, and good ideas? Let’s start with a known fact: Referendums have always been historically difficult to win, especially without consensus.

The Voice could have succeeded with Peter Dutton’s and his party’s support, but if politics is about ideas, he is totally against them. Like myself, those on the YES side will see it as an opportunity missed.

We will feel cheated that the voices of Dutton, Price and Mundine convinced most of the population that 1.4% of our people should be subjected to no improvement in their living standards while we want more. I feel ashamed that we cannot admit to the Aboriginal’s unique standing among us.

Of course, with truthfulness, we will feel aggrieved and, in part, blame the News Corp’s “no news” saturation and their dedication to conservative values. Some of us will feel guilty for not doing more. Others will wonder about the tools of propaganda and its success at conning the people. Scare campaigns still work as efficiently as not saying how you would approach the problem.

Those on the right will display their self-righteousness, telling the Prime Minister and our First Nations people it was the NO who were right all along and that the Prime Minister should get another job because he lacks judgment.

Now, having recorded a telling victory, Price will, in her high-handed way, demand that negotiations begin immediately for a treaty. She is probably not interested in any truth-telling. They will tell Albanese and his Government that the money would have been better spent on matches rather than wasting it on a proposal without any information about how it would work.

The Government will be less inclined to talk about a Treaty now than if the YES vote had won. That’s human nature. This means that we can forget the past few months’ events and the goodwill of our Aboriginal peoples. The status quo will remain in place for some time now, and Dutton, Mundine and Price should take the blame. Our First Nations peoples will justifiably feel angry and vent their spleen. Albanese may talk about alternatives, but there are none on the table.

However, history shows no Government has ever lost an election after losing a referendum. (“If you don’t know, vote no”) was a message calculated to turn off lazy minds who might be bothered to find out, and, in the course of it being too hard, that’s what they did?

For his part, Peter Dutton is still acting as a leader left over from ten years of less-than-mediocre governance. A group of right-wing wankers that showed a liking for corruption and wrongdoing. Opposition, for opposition’s sake, is a useless compass when seeking the highest office.

He is fast becoming Australia’s Donald Trump. Full of the same kind of bullshit. His exaggerated style speaks from the lowest podium about things of monumental importance. He offers nothing other than his self-importance, which may be necessary to him, but in terms of the nation, it is nothing more than weaponised mendacity.

The failure of the YES VOTE will flatten the many fine people, not just First Nations people, who thought they might add a bit of history to the already 65,000 years of existence. They have taught us a patience that ever lingers, talking to the light of day and the spirits of the blackest nights.

Last but not least, l believe Peter Dutton has circumvented any chance of us becoming a republic soon.

By Allan Richardson

Unless Erwin Schrödinger and Dr Anne Twomey have secretly colluded, I’m not a constitutional lawyer. Nor am I even a conveyancing clerk. The nearest I come to law offices is to sign compulsory documents, when electronic signing is unavailable. That establishes my law credentials. Although I am seeking involvement in the burgeoning APT (Australian Pub Testers).

It’s said that it’s the people who make the ultimate decision in a referendum. This is superficially true, but the wording of the referendum is the real driver. This is common knowledge to the proponents of both sides of the argument of course, but as soon as the major political parties decided that it was their responsibility to join the fray and to drive everyone into making political decisions, it became as dishonest and grubby as an election campaign! As always, the white noise obscured the facts. Dutton will never recover from Widening the Gap, but so what? He’s just another LNP black hole.

The failure of the referendum will not be the shock to the First Nations community that has been mooted. It becomes just another disappointment in an endless catalogue of FNP subjugation and disenfranchisement.

The real loser of a referendum fail is the Australian electorate. The opportunity for major reforms to our defective social cohesion has just been squandered by both major political parties, and both need to be held accountable.

It may be counter-intuitive but compare Albanese with Netanyahu. The latter is said to have deliberately strengthened Hamas, the theory being that he was seeking justification for an all-out assault on the Palestinians, so as to reverse their ‘illegal’ occupation once and for all. Albanese deliberately insisted on bundling the Voice with Constitutional recognition of the FNP, and refused to consider any changes to the wording, knowing that this applied the kiss of death to the entire process, while blowing millions of dollars and many months of government commitment. And as expected, Dutton did what Dutton always does, and said No to everything. The No campaign was never going to have a head-to-head debate, as it had no substantive argument, so the outcome was pre-determined. Do not for one minute imagine that the Prime Minister will be outraged, disillusioned or aghast after the failure of the ‘reform’. It’s just the hocus-pocus of politics.

Why do we continually allow ourselves to be duped by those for whom we’ve entitled with our votes? Whilst we continue to elect party politicians who prioritise self and party ahead of their electorates, or even the national interest, we can no longer uphold our pretence at democracy.

The party-political shenanigans must stop. Vote Independent where possible. Even when it’s as unlikely as a Teal defeating a ‘popular’ sitting Treasurer. Oh, wait …

Remember that feeling inside when the Matilda’s inspired the nation? Many of us didn’t even know the rules, everyone did by the end of it though. Excited conversations were had about whether we should call it soccer or football, as we recalled the nail-biting moments of that penalty shootout. Didn’t it feel good to feel connected to everyone? To enjoy goodwill so strong that you could hear the electricity crackling in the air. To feel pride so fierce that it gave you goosebumps and brought tears to your eyes all at once. It was addictive, and satisfied a yearning you didn’t realise you had.

This is what feeling united as a country feels like.

Our commonalities

Australians have more in common with Indigenous Australians, than we do differences. When we are being welcomed to country, we are being welcomed by a culture that welcomes us and respects country all at the same time. This isn’t far away from how many of us welcome people into our homes. ‘Make yourself at home’, or ‘my house is your house’, we say with affection. We hug and kiss each other on the cheeks and thank our guests for bringing a bottle of wine, or cake for us to enjoy together.

Time for change

It’s been fifty-six-years since the 1967 constitutional referendum gave the federal parliament power to decide upon Indigenous affairs. It was also when Aboriginal people were counted as part of the Australian population for the first time.

Twelve-years of consultation between over two-hundred-and-fifty Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Leaders and Elders, has led us to the Voice referendum. Politicians from governments on both sides have also been involved.

The constitution is a rule book from which laws can be made

Unless you’re a member of a local club or are a company board member, most of us have never voted to amend a constitution before. For clubs they usually relate to things like increasing expenditure to fix the facilities of the club toilets. For companies, it could be a constitutional amendment regarding shares.

This isn’t about one group of people having more rights than others

This Saturday’s constitutional vote is not about giving Indigenous people more rights than everyone else. Did you know that we are the only liberal democracy in the world without a Human Rights Act, or a Constitutional Charter of Rights? The author believes that we should be striving to include this into our constitution too.

This Saturday is about giving Indigenous people a seat at the table when it comes to the federal government making decisions about their affairs. Voting, Yes, will give them a way to provide advice directly to elected members of parliament; the ones that we vote for to do this type of work. The reason that the Voice needs to be formalised as part of the constitution via referendum, is to ensure that future governments can’t undo all of the hard work that has gone into getting to this point.

Final thoughts

As was explained to me by a voter that changed their mind about voting, No: “Who am I to stand in the way of a chance for Aboriginals to make their lives better?”

Indeed, how can we deny an opportunity that does not affect the vast majority of our lives in the slightest? Voting No will ensure more of the same, which clearly has not worked. Voting Yes will finally allow Indigenous Australians some control over their destinies.

Channel the warm glow in your heart that you felt for the Matildas, and vote Yes.

This article was originally published on MelMac Politics – Shining a light on politics.

By Joey King

I desperately need help.

The Project will be sharing my story Friday, 6 October at 7pm. Please watch it and share about it.

I’m back in my car on the 12 October and I’m very stressed I won’t find anywhere before then.

I am a 54-year-old woman with long term, severe mental health concerns and I have been homeless since 07/19. I’ve been on the housing waitlist since 03/23 = 186 weeks when the average wait time is 113.5 weeks and I was priority list 04/22 = 75 weeks, when the average is 52 weeks.

I called the Department of Housing. They told me they were not allocating housing for 2022 approvals as yet. I could possibly have another 12 to 18 months of moving from house to house every month.

This is not a solution and while I like staying in beautiful homes and hanging out with cool animals, it is seriously affecting my mental health resilience and overwhelming despair I will ever have something of my own or be a part of a community again.

I have tried to house sit so that I don’t sleep in my car. I am on a couple of websites and four Facebook pages for sitting. Apart from students and tourists, there are more people struggling with the housing crisis wanting to house sit. People are also renting their homes and sitting to take advantage of the rental crisis. More competition and less sits available.

This is such an unstable form of accommodation, and the situation can change at any time dependent upon the needs of the people for whom I’m providing this service. When house sitting options are not available or the arrangement falls through, I’m at high risk of needing to reside in my car which puts my safety and health at risk.

I’m exhausted from this constant worry, my back hurts because I have to change beds so often and they are usually not good quality or sleeping in my car. I’m so tired of being surrounded by strangers’ belongings.

When I first became homeless, I was paying $200 per month for storage. I now pay $500 per month. My brother who lived with schizophrenia and has since died by suicide, used to work with wood and much of my furniture has been handmade by him. I haven’t seen any of it for more than four years.

I have no contact with my family. My support network is made up of old friends who live in Perth, mostly in the suburbs surrounding Fremantle. My long-term mental health conditions make it difficult for me to reach out to others and to establish new relationships. I am continually at risk of social isolation and my ongoing state of homelessness is detrimental to my mental health and as a result, continues to deteriorate because of the huge amount of duress I am endlessly under.

Due to ongoing homelessness, I am unable to establish roots within a community and I find it difficult to work toward my health, employment, and relationship goals. These goals have been identified within my NDIS plan and I’m currently receiving funding from the Federal Government to achieve these. I am unable to work toward these while I remain homeless and if I do not use this money, I will lose it through future audits and will not have funds once I am housed in the future to accomplish my goals.

Within my NDIS plan, I am funded for Core Supports. This funding can be used “to help with daily activities and my current disability related needs”. At times, I experience rolling panic attacks and I need overnight support. This requires the support worker to have their own room to sleep in. I currently cannot access these supports as it is usually a condition of the owners of the homes I sit, that I do not have people stay over. Another aspect of my transience is I cannot find an ongoing Support Worker. Moving north and south of the city and the southwest prevents me from forming a relationship with a Support Worker. This has obvious ramifications to my mental health, ability to interact and the risk of losing this funding because I’m not making use of it.

I have been diagnosed with major depression, social anxiety, Bi-Polar Disorder, psychosis, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. As part of my recovery from these conditions, I engage in activities such as painting and exercise. Due to the social anxiety, it is often impossible for me to go outside, and I am currently unable to engage in these activities in other people’s homes.

My much-loved dog passed away last year, and on the advice of my psychiatrist, I have recently purchased a new dog.

I do not want to be this person but cannot see a way things will change without your help. I spent the weekend wondering what the point was anymore and regretting buying my dog. I should be in hospital, but I can’t because I’m looking after a stranger’s house and their pet.

Thank you for reading. Please share my story and watch The Project, so you understand what is happening to women in crisis circumstances, becoming the fastest growing demographic in homelessness.

I give consent for you to share my story with everyone you can think of and for everyone to share and watch my story on The Project.

Yours sincerely

Joey King

THIS THREAD
I desperately need help.

Hello, please watch me on @theprojecttv tonight. Channel 10, 7pm talking about the 186 weeks I have spent on the Dept Housing waitlist. Please share so everyone can see what my life is like. Thanks 🏡 🙏
I’m back in my car on the 12 October

— Joey King (@Joey_KinginWA) October 6, 2023

By Jane Salmon

All the hyperbole about Pezzullo’s fall from grace is annoying.

Everything Pezzullo oversaw on Manus and Nauru was actually worse than all the insider grandstanding, the attacks on public service neutrality, the enabling of lobbyists, the damage to democracy, the filthy deals. He oversaw actual torture, restrictive practices, medical neglect, human despair, denial of access to lawyers, bashings, extreme corruption, abuse of youth.

The neutrality of the public service has always been a myth. But brutalising refugees is a very obvious low. Devastating more than 2000 lives is significant.

Media have been far too gentle with the Home Affairs culture for way too long.

Address that by all means, but also give the legacy caseload of refugees permanency now.

Now, how do I tackle this? Do I use the information in my “To read” list as source material for another article, or do I use it all as an overview of our politics in its current gloomy state? I select the latter and click into my “To read” box.

1. The first piece I come across makes a rather obvious point. What if the NO vote wins the upcoming referendum? Before I address the issue, I watched Warren Mundine on Insiders on Sunday, 17 September, and I was sometimes confused about who he was supporting.

He wanted a treaty where, as I believe, a Voice is a prerequisite, the first step toward getting there. It has taken 15 years to arrive at where we are today. A treaty or treaties may take as long.

And on this subject, what does a NO vote mean? Given the absence of other propositions, it must mean that it is a vote for the continued domination of Indigenous Australians. This thought arises from a rather excellent piece by Ryan Cox for the ABC on the ethics of the Voice.

2 Stuart Robert and the Synergy 360 procurement controversy rolls onward. Robert has, predictably:

“… emphatically denied allegations that Synergy 360’s co-owner proposed a structure for the former MP to profit from government contracts… In its interim report tabled last Wednesday, Parliament’s audit committee said it had received ‘concerning evidence … raising serious allegations and questions about financial inappropriateness, improper relationships and undisclosed conflicts of interest’ with parties receiving government contracts.

As a consequence, the committee has referred the matter to the NACC.

3 Next up is the latest report from the NACC:

Assessment is a process by which the Commission considers, first, whether the referral is in its jurisdiction and raises a corruption issue (which they call triaging) and, secondly, whether and if so, how to investigate the issue raised by the referral.

Since 1 July 2023, 310 referrals have been excluded at the triage stage because they do not involve a Commonwealth public official or do not raise a corruption issue.

198 referrals are pending triage.

150 referrals are currently in active triage.

145 referrals are currently under the second stage of assessment.

4 For something different:

“A recent poll of Anglican clergy for the Times showed that only a quarter think that today’s Britain is a Christian country. Almost two-thirds believed Britain could be called Christian “only historically, not currently”. The poll showed, too, majority support for priests to be allowed to marry gay couples and for the church to drop its opposition to premarital sex.”

In the same theme, this article about the state of religion in England somewhat mirrors its position in Australia, where its survival is also under threat. People may point to the tremendous past revivals, but they didn’t have to contend with today’s technologies.

Before I move on, you may have noticed that I am a devoted reader of The Guardian. You may not know it, but Malcolm Turnbull did a feasibility study before it entered Australia. I recall Turnbull saying at the time something like. “You may not like its politics but with Lenore Taylor and Katherine Murphy you can be assured that you will read the truth.” But don’t quote me.

5 This article by Paul Bongiorno titled Spectre of Berejiklian hovers over the National Anti-Corruption Commission caught my eye because finding that a person did something “seriously corrupt” and then doing nothing about it is like an egg half-cooked.

6 Last week, in my piece, The ALP is best prepared to take us into the future I briefly mentioned a speech by Gen Angus Campbell at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute Conference. It was one of those words that make you think of speeches that hit me right in that part of the brain that sends a shiver down your spine.

“Democracies face ‘truth decay’ as Artificial Intelligence blurs fact and fiction, warns head of Australia’s military.”

(This statement, and others, really got me thinking about how we are to combat the misuse of A-I in the coming years.)

He accused Russia of “wielding disinformation as a weapon of statecraft” in the United States and the United Kingdom. Such campaigns could increasingly be used to fracture “the trust that binds us”.

He said of the climate crisis:

“… we may all be humbled by a planet made angry by our collective neglect.

“Today, we are more connected and have access to more information than any other time in history – and also more disinformation. conference.

“We rightly pride ourselves on being an open, diverse and liberal society – in other words, exposed.

“Healthy and functioning societies like ours depend upon a well-informed and engaged citizenry.

“Unfortunately, it is often said, we are increasingly living in a post-truth world where perceptions and emotions often trump facts.

“We can sometimes slip out of the reality of these truths, mainly when so many lies are being thrust upon us.”

7 Another piece I highly recommend is by the editor of The AIMN. Michael Taylor systematically rebukes the rants of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price:

“Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s comment that:

… she did not believe there are any ongoing impacts of colonisation, but in some cases, a “positive impact”.

… begs to be disputed. There is zero positivity in the planned extermination of the world’s oldest culture. But that was the plan…

In a younger Australia there was an agenda in both the colonial and early federal governments; that being the extermination of Aborigines. Not only was it the will of ‘man’ that the Aborigines be exterminated, but also the will of God. Or so they believed.”

8 Another is from the ever-popular and seriously funny Rossleigh titled The Clear Bias Of The Labor Government! It was another of his satirical gems:

“Of course, the people complaining about the bias of Labor on the Voice aren’t the slightest bit concerned that the Liberal Party have adopted a position. Neither are they concerned about the National Party’s decision to oppose it. Or Pauline Hanson’s One Notion. Or…”

Do yourself a favour and read these two truthworthy articles from two of The AIMN’s finest writers.

“Truthworthy.” Did I invent a new word?

9 My last read is from Freedom House, a piece about the growth of the Far Right in Europe, written by April Gordon who chillingly warns that:

“Far-right groups are growing in prominence and sophistication across Eurasia, particularly in countries where notable democratic and liberalising reforms have taken place. These movements have emerged in similar contexts and share certain characteristics, and should be evaluated as a phenomenon in their own right.”

There is much deeper stuff in my “To read file” and plenty more, but this will suffice for now.