University Investments: Divesting from the Military-Industrial Complex

The rage and protest against Israel’s campaign in Gaza, ongoing since the…

Australian dividend payouts to shareholders rise 6 times…

Oxfam Australia Media Release   Australian dividend payments to shareholders from corporate investments grew…

The Wizard of Aus - a story for…

By Jane Salmon A Story About Young Refugee or Stateless Children Born Overseas Once…

Anzac and the Pageantry of Deception

On April 25, along Melbourne’s arterial Swanston Street, the military parade can…

Neoliberalism dreads an educated electorate

Those with a dedicated interest in maintaining the status quo fear education…

The HECS Hex

By Bert Hetebry A hex according to the Cambridge dictionary is ‘to put…

To Peacefully Petition

By James Moore   “You don’t go on bended-knee to petition the official culture…

Israel’s Anti-UNRWA Campaign Falls Flat

The Israeli authorities, in their campaign of remorseless killing, doctoring and adjusting…

«
»
Facebook

Category Archives: Your Say

Gaza

Is Israel committing genocide in Gaza? Palpably so. But have you bothered for even a second to step back and ask why it is happening? Probably not if faux outrage without historical underpinnings is your usual herd follower instinct.

I’m not going to fully fill you in on the history that has led to the current Gazan catastrophe. Maybe a few Google searches will ease your path out of your rigid stance, but probably not, because such an effort requires a questioning of both yourself and the automatic prejudices that you carry. Nobody voluntarily subjects themselves to such scrutiny, do they?

Read the history. Try to understand the ramifications of it. The christian church blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus. The fact that the Romans did the actual deed is historically uncomfortable. Sure, vatican conclaves in the 400s AD tried to reverse the untruths but by then the damage was done and entrenched. Google it.

Ever since, over the last 1600 years, your christian west has subjected the Jewish people to an unending experience of pogrom, ethnic cleansing, and outright genocide. Think Venice in the medieval era, think England in the 16th cenury, think Russia in the 19th century, think the Nazis and their final solution. Uncomfortable thoughts that don’t fit in with the current zietgeist of being a lefty supporter of Palestine.

I’m proud to be a lefty. Doesn’t mean I left my brain and its capacity for critical thinking behind in the morass of the current sport of dumping on the Jews. You know, a while ago I published a little piece called The Gaza Sten-Gun Staccato, and people were that prejudicially entrenched they weren’t quick enough to understand that the piece outright pilloried both sides in the current conflict, it simply said that what both sides are doing is wrong. Well, that did not, for sure, appeal to the herd followers of either side.

I support the notion of a Palestinian State. The establishment of it is beyond due, and Israel will lose land to that new State. I support the notion of the Jewish People retaining a State of their own without the constant threat of outside interference.

I have no time for those who fail to read or comprehend the sharp bite of the history that informs the current actions of both the Palestinian and Jewish People.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

A love letter to our readers, from Tess Lawrence

Dearest Readers, Michael Taylor and the AIM Network Team – and fellow contributors.

To learn that two of my articles made AIMN’s top five articles for 2023 has filled me with great joy and excitement and I’m positively squeaking with delight.

Of course it has. I am honoured to lay my pen alongside AIMN luminary Rossleigh, who also scored two places in the lineup and then there is the delightfully named Grumpy Geezer who keeps us all on our clodhoppers!

In truth, both of my articles were years and months in the making. Long hours, long nights and even longer days. To think that anyone, let alone thousands of you read them, is an enormous privilege.

They were ‘long reads’ sometime referred to as ‘long form’ or essays. There are facile editors who rely on ‘popular wisdom’ that articles should be no longer than 1200 words because apparently, you the reader, is incapable of sustaining interest in a longer article. Utter bollocks as it transpires. When I first became a journalist, I was imbued with the edict that whatever I wrote should be understandable for a 12-year-old. I thought this was gross insult to 12-year-olds. I was told that words should comprise of no more than two syllables. I ignored such gratuitous and elitist pomposity and arrogance. 

Readers mean the world to us. Not just because of the click bait factor but more for the wondrous and complex nature of communication. I learn so much from readers. And from comments too.

I wish to salute the founding editor of AIM Network, Michael Taylor – and his elves – because of his courage and his belief in journalism and journalists.  He is extraordinarily supportive and unafraid of long form or short form journalism for that matter. He is a joy to work with and his life experience is such that he has a great empathy and sense of a shared humanity, a good heart as well as a formidable intellect. I’ve watched him nurture talent. He’s a generous editor, and reminds me of my beloved Editor in Chief, the great Les Carlyon, who never once curbed my feral pen, but protected it. And Me.

I could not have achieved the Top Five if Michael had been a lesser editor, a lesser publisher, a lesser journalist.

Nor could I have achieved such an accolade, were it not for you the reader. Thank you. I shall not squander your trust.

1. Tess Lawrence: Number 1 for-2023: George Pell ‘Devil Incarnate’ is dead

2. Rossleigh: Number 2 for 2023: The Amazing Linda Reynolds

3. Tess Lawrence: Number 3 for 2023: Who is Christian Porter’s sugar daddy? (part 1)

4. Grumpy Geezer: Number 4 for 2023: A farce only a monster could love

5. Rossleigh: Number 5 for 2023: The Strange Case Of Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price

Tess Lawrence is Contributing editor-at-large for Independent Australia and her most recent article is The night Porter and allegation of rape.

 

 

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Australia’s Path to a Clean Energy Future: A Sovereign Solution

By Denis Hay  

The Urgency of Clean Energy Transition in Australia

As an Australian voter, whether a steadfast party supporter or a swing voter, it’s crucial to understand the pivotal role of clean energy in shaping our nation’s future. The global climate emergency, endorsed by over 11,000 scientists, starkly contrasts with the scepticism of some of our politicians. This raises a critical question: should we trust the scientific consensus or politicians potentially influenced by vested interests?

The Cost of Sticking with Fossil Fuels

Fossil fuels, once the backbone of our energy system, are rapidly becoming obsolete and detrimental to our planet. The Australian government’s $11.1 billion annual subsidy to the fossil fuel industry equates to $417 per person in Australia June 2023 – a substantial financial burden with diminishing returns. Privatization has failed to deliver its promised benefits, with energy costs soaring by more than 90% in the past decade.

Progress Despite Challenges

Despite the federal government’s tepid response to climate change, there’s progress. Clean Energy Australia Report 2023 highlights Tasmania, and South Australia as leaders in the clean energy race. Renewable energy, encompassing wind, solar, ocean wave, hydro-electric, hydrogen, bioenergy, and geothermal heat pumps, offers many benefits. It’s not only environmentally friendly but also boosts public health, reduces future energy costs, promotes energy independence, and generates employment.

The Economic Feasibility of Clean Energy

The Power of Sovereign Currency

Australia’s transition to carbon neutrality within a decade is a realistic goal, thanks to our sovereign control over the Australian dollar. As the issuer of our currency, the federal government can finance essential services, including the clean energy transition, if it aligns with our economy’s productive capacity.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Government Spending

The real challenge for the government isn’t the availability of funds but managing the economy’s ability to absorb spending without triggering inflation. This perspective, rooted in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), redefines the approach to government spending and economic management.

The Role of Voters

In the upcoming federal election, it’s crucial to support candidates who advocate for MMT and a swift transition to a carbon-neutral nation.

Engaging the Australian Voter

Personal Anecdotes and Reflections

As an Australian voter, I recall the days when renewable energy seemed like a distant dream. However, seeing the tangible benefits in states like Tasmania and South Australia has been a revelation. The shift towards clean energy is not just a policy change; it’s a transformation of our lifestyle and economy, promising a sustainable and prosperous future for all Australians.

Questions for Consideration:

Is renewable energy financially viable for Australia? Yes, with sovereign control over currency, the government can fund renewable energy without financial constraints, if it aligns with the economy’s capacity.

Can clean energy create jobs? Absolutely, the transition to clean energy is a significant job creator, offering diverse opportunities in various sectors like manufacturing, installation, and maintenance.

Will my energy costs increase with renewable energy? In the long run, renewable energy is likely to reduce energy costs due to its sustainability and decreasing technology costs.

Australia stands at a crossroads, with the opportunity to lead a clean energy revolution. By understanding the power of sovereign currency and the economic principles of MMT, we can confidently invest in a sustainable future. As voters, our choices in the upcoming election can significantly influence this transition. Let’s choose a path that ensures a thriving, sustainable Australia for generations to come.

Question for Readers

How do you envision Australia’s future with clean energy, and what actions are you willing to take to support this transition?

Call to Action

Join the movement towards a sustainable and prosperous future for Australia. Share your thoughts and actions on social media Let us collectively raise awareness and advocate for policies that support a swift transition to clean energy. Your voice is crucial in shaping the future of our nation. Together, we can make a difference! 🌏💚

References

Fossil fuel subsidies in Australia 2023, The Australia Institute.

Australia’s cost of living over the last decade, APH. 

Ultimately, real resource availability constrains prosperity, Bill Mitchell.

Fear of spending, The Australia Institute.

The big myth of government deficits, Stephanie Kelton:

 

 

Denis Hay: At 82 years young, I stand as a testament to the enduring power of dedication and belief in social justice. My journey has been shaped by a deep conviction that every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and that equal opportunities for thriving should be a universal right.

My beliefs are not just ideals; they are the driving force behind my active engagement in advocating for change. I am deeply concerned about the pressing issue of climate change, recognizing its urgency and the need for immediate, collective action. This is not just a matter of policy for me, but a moral imperative to safeguard our planet for the generations to come.

As an administrator of several Facebook pages, I use my platform to challenge the prevailing neoliberal ideology, which I see as a destructive force against our society and environment. My goal is to foster a political system that truly serves the people, ensuring access to essential needs like decent housing, secure and well-paid jobs, education, and healthcare for all.

In this chapter of my life, my mission is clear: to leave behind a world that is better and more just for my grandchildren and future generations. It is a commitment that guides my every action, a legacy of compassion and advocacy that I hope will inspire others to join the cause.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Navigating Political Waters: The Courage to Embrace Change

By Denis Hay  

In the fluid landscape of politics, the notion of reform and evolution often triggers waves of unease. Reflecting on the journeys of Gough Whitlam and Jeremy Corbyn, we find not just tales of challenge but also inspiring sagas of resilience and dedication to transformative change.

Deciphering the Roots of Apprehension

To truly understand this fear, we must delve into the socio-political contexts that framed Whitlam’s and Corbyn’s eras. Their stories are more than historical footnotes; they are intricate narratives shaped by their bold policies and the diverse public opinions they elicited.

Gough Whitlam, Australia’s 21st Prime Minister, and Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the UK’s Labour Party, championed radical changes in their political landscapes. Their journeys, though met with fierce resistance and critique, underscore that the fear associated with their legacies is less about the individuals and more about the inherent uncertainties of change.

The Consequences of Resisting Change

Ignoring the call for change in politics is akin to trying to stop the tide with bare hands. It’s not just about missed opportunities; it’s about the wider impact on society.

  1. Societal Stagnation: Resistance to change can lead to societal inertia. Clinging to the status quo can cause a nation to lag in global advancements, worsening issues like inequality and social unrest.
  2. Diminished Global Influence: Nations that resist change risk losing their global standing. As the world evolves, countries that do not adapt can see their economic and diplomatic influence wane.
  3. Overlooking Emerging Challenges: Change often arises from new challenges. Ignoring these can result in policies that do not address critical issues like climate change or technological disruption.

Learning from Global Examples

Contemporary thinkers like Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum advocate for adaptable, responsive policies. Globally, we see successful examples of embracing change:

  • The Nordic Model: Countries like Sweden and Denmark show how change in social policy can lead to economic growth and high living standards.
  • Rwanda’s Rebuilding: Post-genocide Rwanda’s embrace of governance and social reform has spurred economic growth and transformation.
  • South Korea’s Technological Rise: South Korea’s shift to a technological powerhouse highlights the benefits of adapting to global trends.

 In Summary: Harnessing the Winds of Change

To overcome the fear of political evolution, we must understand the dynamics of change, learn from history, and foster open, flexible dialogue. Embracing change is key to a progressive, inclusive political future.

Engagement Question: What changes do you think are necessary in our current political system, and how can we draw inspiration from global success stories?

Call to Action: Share your thoughts below and spread this article on social media. Join the conversation on how embracing change can lead to a brighter future. Share your views and be a catalyst for change!

Denis Hay: At 82 years young, I stand as a testament to the enduring power of dedication and belief in social justice. My journey has been shaped by a deep conviction that every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and that equal opportunities for thriving should be a universal right.

My beliefs are not just ideals; they are the driving force behind my active engagement in advocating for change. I am deeply concerned about the pressing issue of climate change, recognizing its urgency and the need for immediate, collective action. This is not just a matter of policy for me, but a moral imperative to safeguard our planet for the generations to come.

As an administrator of several Facebook pages, I use my platform to challenge the prevailing neoliberal ideology, which I see as a destructive force against our society and environment. My goal is to foster a political system that truly serves the people, ensuring access to essential needs like decent housing, secure and well-paid jobs, education, and healthcare for all.

In this chapter of my life, my mission is clear: to leave behind a world that is better and more just for my grandchildren and future generations. It is a commitment that guides my every action, a legacy of compassion and advocacy that I hope will inspire others to join the cause.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Exposing the Underbelly of Australian Politics: The Fight Against Parasitic Elites

By Denis Hay  

In the heart of Australian democracy, a subtle but grave threat has taken root. Hidden behind the facade of leadership and authority are the parasites of political elitism – individuals who manipulate the system for their benefit, undermining the values of fairness and equity that Australia prides itself on.

Unmasking the Parasitic Elites in Australian Politics

These political parasites mirror the characteristics of biological parasites – they drain resources and skew policies for personal and select group interests, offering little in return to the broader community. This is particularly troubling in Australia, where the spirit of ‘fair go’ is integral to the national identity. Yet, some elected officials have diverted from serving the public good, focusing instead on advancing the interests of the wealthy and influential.

Such behaviour not only goes against the ethos of Australian democracy but also erodes trust in public institutions and widens the gap between the affluent and the average Australian. These political elites work within the intricate structures of government systems, where accountability is often diminished, and transparency becomes clouded.

A Rallying Cry for Change and Transparency

The solution lies within the power of the Australian electorate. Recognizing these parasitic elements is the first step towards reform. Citizens must become vigilant of policies that disproportionately help the few, a lack of clear and transparent decision-making processes, and resistance to accountability.

The call to action is clear: demand transparency and accountability from elected officials. This means voting for representatives who genuinely reflect the public’s interests, engaging in civic activities, and ensuring our voices contribute to policy discussions. The focus should be on creating a political environment that fosters equity, fairness, and the common good, embodying the true Australian spirit of egalitarianism.

Question for Readers: Are You Ready to Stand Up for True Australian Democracy?

This call goes beyond mere participation; it is a demand for the revival of Australian democracy in its truest form. It is an invitation to join the movement to cleanse Australian politics of self-serving interests and restore a government that stands for all Australians.

Hashtags for the Movement

  1. #FairGoForAll – Emphasizing the need to restore the fundamental Australian value of fairness in politics.
  2. #OzPolCleanUp – A call to purify Australian politics from self-serving interests.
  3. #AccountableLeaders – Demanding responsibility and transparency from Australian political leaders.
  4. #AussieDemocracy – Celebrating and advocating for a democratic system that truly stands for the diverse voices of Australia.

Together, we can confront the parasitic elites in Australian politics, ensuring our democracy still is robust, fair, and truly representative of all Australians.

References:

Fitzgerald Principles survey results released, The Australia Institute. 

Power in Australia favours the elites, and that is a problem. Here’s a solution, ABC News.

Is Australia’s Ruling Political Elite on a Race to the Bottom?, Medium. 

The war on woke, The Saturday Paper.

Sweeping Changes Needed to Reduce Influence of Money in Politics, The Australia Institute.

Freedom, Elections, Voice: How People in Australia and the UK Define Democracy, Pew Research Centre.

Australia’s democracy isn’t perfect, but many of you just changed the country, The Australia Institute.

Australian views towards democracy: Comparisons through time and with the rest of the region, Australian National University.

Denis Hay: At 82 years young, I stand as a testament to the enduring power of dedication and belief in social justice. My journey has been shaped by a deep conviction that every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and that equal opportunities for thriving should be a universal right.

My beliefs are not just ideals; they are the driving force behind my active engagement in advocating for change. I am deeply concerned about the pressing issue of climate change, recognizing its urgency and the need for immediate, collective action. This is not just a matter of policy for me, but a moral imperative to safeguard our planet for the generations to come.

As an administrator of several Facebook pages, I use my platform to challenge the prevailing neoliberal ideology, which I see as a destructive force against our society and environment. My goal is to foster a political system that truly serves the people, ensuring access to essential needs like decent housing, secure and well-paid jobs, education, and healthcare for all.

In this chapter of my life, my mission is clear: to leave behind a world that is better and more just for my grandchildren and future generations. It is a commitment that guides my every action, a legacy of compassion and advocacy that I hope will inspire others to join the cause.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

“Envisioning a United Australia: Your Role in Shaping a Compassionate Future”

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. 

Denis Hay: At 82 years young, I stand as a testament to the enduring power of dedication and belief in social justice. My journey has been shaped by a deep conviction that every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and that equal opportunities for thriving should be a universal right.

My beliefs are not just ideals; they are the driving force behind my active engagement in advocating for change. I am deeply concerned about the pressing issue of climate change, recognizing its urgency and the need for immediate, collective action. This is not just a matter of policy for me, but a moral imperative to safeguard our planet for the generations to come.

As an administrator of several Facebook pages, I use my platform to challenge the prevailing neoliberal ideology, which I see as a destructive force against our society and environment. My goal is to foster a political system that truly serves the people, ensuring access to essential needs like decent housing, secure and well-paid jobs, education, and healthcare for all.

In this chapter of my life, my mission is clear: to leave behind a world that is better and more just for my grandchildren and future generations. It is a commitment that guides my every action, a legacy of compassion and advocacy that I hope will inspire others to join the cause.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

The Rise of the Desk Clerk Academic

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.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Treaty and Inclusion the Only Way Forward: My Open Letter to the Political Parties

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.

“My message to the QLD Labor Palaszczuk Government hold firm and go away with Treaty even without the support of the LNP Opposition!”

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.

Callen Sorensen Karklis, Bachelor of Government and International Relations.

Callen is a Quandamooka Nunukul Aboriginal person from North Stradbroke Island. He has been the Secretary of the Qld Fabians in 2018, and the Assistant Secretary 2018 – 2019, 2016, and was more recently the Policy and Publications Officer 2020 – 2021. Callen previously was in Labor branch executives in the Oodgeroo (Cleveland areas), SEC and the Bowman FEC. He has also worked for Cr Peter Cumming, worked in market research, trade unions, media advertising, and worked in retail. He also ran for Redland City Council in 2020 on protecting the Toondah Ramsar wetlands. Callen is active in Redlands 2030, the Redlands Museum, and his local sports club at Victoria Pt Sharks Club. Callen also has a Diploma of Business and attained his tertiary education from Griffith University. He was a co-host from time to time on Workers Power 4ZZZ (FM 102.1) on Tuesday morning’s program Workers Power. He has also worked in government.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Pub View: Snowy Hydro

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.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

“Wait for the ricochet … “

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 …

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

We’ve all heard it: “I’m not a racist, but … “

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.

My favourite word is ‘observation’ because it covers a multitude of experiences. With minimal formal education, observation became integral to my private classroom. When I was about 13-14, I became a keen observer. Nothing escaped my scrutiny or sensory surveillance. I watched people, nature and life in general. I carefully examined and evaluated it. It was a habit that never left me.

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.

My thought for the day

The wisest people I know are the ones who apply reason and logic and leave room for doubt. The most unwise are the fools and fanatics who don’t.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

A resounding vote for division

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.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

I’m finding the Yes response to the disaster underwhelming

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.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

A Losing Voice: The Fall of an Indigenous Referendum Measure

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.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

What did the NO vote actually achieve?

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.

My thought for the day

A leader with any character would slap down members of his shadow cabinet who roam the road of racism with all the force of a heavy roller. Dutton, however, is joined at the hip.

 

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Exit mobile version