In the mid 1970s, Australian ‘glam rock’ band Skyhooks released an album titled ‘Ego is not a Dirty Word’. The single of the same title reached number 2 on the Australian ‘Top 40’ in mid 1976. Little Scott Morrison, born in 1968, would probably have heard it on ‘high rotation’ across the airwaves of a Sydney AM radio station (because commercial FM radio was 4 years in the future). If he was fortunate enough he might have had enough money to of to the local Record Bar and purchase a copy of the single. If he was really wealthy (for an 8 year old) he might have bought the album, as downloading the music was something that wasn’t an option until the next century.

‘Ego is not a Dirty Word’ provided commentary on the egos of some famous identifies including Richard Nixon, suggesting if he had kept is ego in check he might not have been one of the few US Presidents to have resigned under a cloud. Like Nixon, Morrison’s political end may have been completely different if he had kept his ego in check.

Since 2007, Morrison has been the Member of Parliament of the seat of Cook, based in southern Sydney. Prior to then he had at different times been the CEO of the government tourism offices in both Australian and New Zealand. Both the Australian and New Zealand Governments of the day asked Morrison to leave prior to the completion of his contracted period. In the case of the Australian Government, the request was made by a Coalition Government. It’s also history that Morrison was pre-selected by the Liberal Party after an internal war that involved the existing Member of Parliament who apparently didn’t have any plans to retire from politics in the lead up to the 2007 election.

Morrison’s rise through the ranks to his eventual appointment as Leader of the Party and Prime Minister is well known, as is his disdain for refugees, those that claim social security benefits and those who actually work for the government. As a part of his claim to be a ‘strong welfare cop ‘strong welfare cop the beat’ he was instrumental in introducing the system now known as Robodebt, where income matching was completed by machines and unusual cases were not checked by a person before the system raised fraudulent debt notices that have been found to be illegal. Someone who had their ego in check would have checked the legality of such a scheme prior to introduction. Instead Morrison stood by and allowed Home Affairs to extort money from Australians. 

Like most schemes designed to extort money, Robodebt was eventually found out for what it was – a scam. Unlike most schemes designed to extort money, this one was implemented and managed by the Coalition Government who seem to have cowered the Public Service into submission. In The Monthly’s emailed newletter last week, writer Daniel James suggests that Morrison certainly has no contrition for his leading roles in the establishment and promotion of the extortion scheme

Speaking to an almost empty lower house shortly after Question Time on Monday, Morrison said: “This campaign of political lynching has once again included the weaponisation of quasi-legal process to launder the government’s political vindictiveness. They need to move on.” 

As James notes

The reference to the royal commission as a “quasi-legal” process is straight out of the Trump playbook – an attempt to reduce the most powerful form of public-interest inquiry we have in this country to that of nothing more than a political pitchfork rally.

Thousands of Australians were wrongly accused of debt, with a significant number of the real victims (those that were extorted by the Coalition Government) suffering mental health problems and the families of others that couldn’t see a way out of their dilemma took their own lives. And one of the architects of the scheme is still collecting his $200,000 per annum salary as a parliamentarian while claiming to be the victim of a political hit job. Ego may not be a dirty word, but contrition and seeking forgiveness for poor decisions in the past takes more than ego, it needs emotional intelligence, something that Morrison seems to lack completely. 

After all the conniving corruption of the Coalition’s Luddite term of office, one might have reasonably concluded that they had drained the swamp of their own making. But more alleged corruption has surfaced from the residue left behind. 

And before the Coalition can defend itself against a backlog of corruption allegations, new ones have surfaced from a seemingly bottomless pit of misdemeanours.

A. As of Monday, 24 July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) received 494 referrals:

“Approximately 13% of the referrals relate to matters well publicised in the media. This figure includes, but is not limited to, referrals relating to Robodebt.”

In other words, LNP scandals like car parks, sports rorts and land acquisitions might also be included.

The NACC will always have Coalition referrals, just as doctors always have patients.

B. Take this last month, for example. First, we had the revelation that the Morrison Government spent $20.8bn outsourcing more than a third of public service operations. An enquiry found the equivalent of nearly 54,000 full-time staff were employed as consultants or service providers for the Federal Government during the 2021-2022 financial year. This equates to one-third of the public service workforce. A Government de-facto workforce was doing work that the public service should have done.

C. Then we had the PwC scandal, where the tax practitioner’s board found that:

“… the former head of international tax for PwC Australia Peter-John Collins had been deregistered by the tax practitioners board for failing to act with integrity and for sharing confidential government briefings.”

The board of PwC has since confirmed that Collins had “made unauthorised disclosures” to partners and staff at PwC of confidential information.

The information concerned new rules to stop multinationals from avoiding tax. 

D. This one occurred when Peter Dutton was Home Affairs Minister. The crux of the matter is that it has been alleged that Home Affairs gave a multimillion-dollar offshore detention contract to an Australian businessman only a month after federal police informed Dutton that the man, Mozammil Bhojani, was under investigation for bribery.

Indeed, Dutton would/should have passed on information of such importance to his department. Maybe he had a reason for not doing so. And why wasn’t he involved in the contract process? If he were on top of his portfolio, he would have passed on this vital information as a matter of course. Or so one would think.

And they say our international reputation has been damaged by the cancellation of the Commonwealth Games. What about all these allegations.

That’s not all.

We have the farcical situation where a businessman linked to Stuart Robert won’t face a parliamentary committee hearing because he has severed ties with Australia. Why is that do you think?

Last April The SMH reported that:

“Senior Liberal MP Stuart Robert stood to gain financially out of a consulting company called Synergy 360, which was part-owned by his business partner and chief political fundraiser and helped multinational companies win millions of dollar’s worth of government contracts.

The former Government services minister’s friend and co-owner of the controversial firm, John Margerison, gave evidence before a parliamentary committee inquiry that Robert was a part-owner of a company that Margerison nominated to receive funds from Synergy 360.”

(A joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) is looking into how the Government awards contracts.)

There are grave allegations:

“… which include suspect payments being made to senior politicians from Nauru and Papua New Guinea, requests for bribes, and complaints to Home Affairs falling on deaf ears.”

These allegations need to be seriously looked into.

Home Affairs and Peter Dutton gave out contracts without ministerial oversight. The question is why. 

E. On a lesser note, we find that parliamentary expenses are in the spotlight again.

The expenses watchdog is chasing former Liberal politician Andrew Laming for a further “$8,000 over taxpayer-funded travel to Sydney and Melbourne.”

F. To finish, there is the matter of a $33 million grant to a company in 2017 without due process:

“The former government led by Malcolm Turnbull awarded a $33m grant to a company that was developing a mental health app after months of lobbying from one of its own mental health commissioners who was also a shareholder in the months-old startup.

The one-off grant was awarded in 2017 without a competitive tender to Innowell for a series of collaborative research trials into a digital mental health platform. Its shareholders include PwC, the University of Sydney and former mental health commissioner Prof Ian Hickie.”

There was no suggestion of wrongdoing by Hickie, who, together with PwC, were shareholders in the company Innowell. 

All above board except for the non-competitive tender process.

Where does all this leave the average voter? The person who fronts up at every election thinking that the Government has been acting in their best interests only to find that they have been serving their own.

The answer to that question is like looking at a piece of art and finding that their opinion differs significantly from others.

However, their seriousness cannot be dismissed arbitrarily. That is due to the weight of the material; it must be that we investigate. To find the truth in all these accusations or alleged criminal activity. In all this, there is an unspoken suggestion that all is not right.

The Prime Minister has asked the Leader of the Opposition to explain why he didn’t tell his department that Brojani was under investigation (see D above). In doing so, Peter Dutton invoked the politician’s favourite defence of lousy memory on this week’s resumption of parliament.

Why did Home Affairs give out contracts without ministerial oversight? Is that normal?

In response:

“Labor has announced an independent review of the management of regional processing procurement by the Department of Home Affairs after revelations it granted contracts to a company linked to the subject of a bribery investigation.”

If deemed necessary, the inquiry can refer matters to the NACC. Undoubtedly, the Leader of the opposition’s memory will have declined even further by then.

A worry for the reader is whether the newly formed NACC can investigate all the referrals with any degree of urgency. And further, do the AFP and others have the capacity to prosecute? In other words, will law enforcement agencies be able to investigate the avalanche of suspected criminality?

If either of these assumptions is negative, nothing will have been gained. If the NACC decides not to investigate, the public will be none the wiser. In the words contained in the following sentences, there needs to be more for the general public. There needs to be more transparency of accountability. Who and what are the referrals about? What is the test for public hearings? 

The only one l see making it to public hearings is Robodebt.

For me, you could drive a truck through the outs for politicians.

Note that the:

“NACC does not have to consider or respond to every referral it receives. The Commissioner can also decide not to take any action concerning a referral.”

And also that:

“A hearing must be held in private, unless the Commissioner decides to hold the hearing, or part of the hearing, in public. In deciding whether to hold a hearing in public, the Commissioner may consider:

• the extent to which the corruption issue could involve corrupt conduct that is serious or systemic
• whether certain evidence is confidential, or relates to the commission (or alleged or suspected Commission) of an offence
• any unfair prejudice to a person’s reputation, privacy, safety or wellbeing that may be caused
• whether a person giving evidence has a particular vulnerability, such as working directly to someone in a position of power, and
• the benefits of exposing corrupt conduct to the public.”

What we will eventually know about the crimes committed by those in power during the Abbott-Morrison years may be forever shrouded in mystery.

Continued from Part 1

Peter Dutton’s motives for supporting the No vote are questionable. I devoted most of part one to the character of the man who will lead the No vote. I did so because it is essential to question the motives of those who lead Conservative parties. I have concluded that (as part one shows) Peter Dutton has no moral ethics and that, in their absence, he is saying No for purely political reasons. 

He and his Coalition partner, the Nationals, stand between justice for our First Nations people and continuing the status quo. As is usual in these circumstances, they offer no alternatives to what they oppose.

It is fair to say that in my lifetime, governments of both shades spent many billions of dollars seeking to improve the lives of Aboriginal folk. However, the programmes were devised by whites and implemented by them. It is also fair to say that many programmes failed for that reason.

Our First Nations people are asking first that they are recognised for what they are; the descendants of those who inhabited the lands for thousands of years. They would expect this be noted in our Constitution. Most of us, those who believe in a fair go, would agree.

Those who don’t are throwing spurious objections that are false or fake and intended to confuse the listener or reader.

Secondly, they ask that they be given a ‘voice’: One that will go directly to Parliament and be heard by those who make decisions. Parliament would not tolerate frivolous propositions and ambient claims. Thought-through proposals would be considered on merit, accepted or rejected.

It is a simple request for the First Nations people. There is nothing sinister to read into it. After long and thoughtful consideration, they have requested that they have a say in their future and be recognised in our Constitution. 

Adding logic to the debate, Mark Kenny recently wrote that:

“It was not right-wing cowardice that defeated apartheid but moral clarity and fierce purpose. It came from Nelson Mandella, Steve and Ntsiki Biko, and countless others.” 

Let us take a little time to examine what is meant by “moral clarity and fierce purpose” Kenny wrote (above) concerning the Voice.

We’ll start at the explanation of the referendum question and constitutional amendment:

On referendum day, voters will be asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on a single question. Subject to the Parliament’s approval, the question on the ballot paper will be:

“A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

Constitutional amendment

The proposed law that Australians are being asked to approve at the referendum would insert the following lines into the Constitution:

“Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples

129 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

1. there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
2. the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
3. the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”

Constitution Alteration Bill

The Government has introduced the Constitution Alteration Bill into Parliament. The Bill sets the question that will be put to the Australian people later this year and includes the proposed alteration to the Constitution.

A Joint Parliamentary Committee will consider the Bill and report by 15 May 2023. Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s website.

You can follow the progress on the Constitution Alteration Bill on the Parliament of Australia website.

Referendum 2023

• Referendum question and constitutional amendment
• How a referendum works

Conclusion

There it is. It’s so clear-cut and easy to follow that blind Freddy could understand it. So why is Peter Dutton so intent on wrecking something that should have been done and dusted twenty years ago? 

In his unwarranted attacks on the Voice, the Opposition Leader suggested it would re-racialise Australia. I must admit I hadn’t come across the phrase before. However, it may confirm thoughts he may have had when he so shamefully turned his back and walked out on the National Apology in 2008.

The concept of a Voice is but a step away from a treaty, so Dutton would also take down any hope of an accord or a republic.

Many in his party agree with Dutton’s sentiments, but they are from the Trumpish, brutal right flank of conservatives. Others ostensibly can see that the Voice is an opportunity to heal the divisions of the past.  

It is also about truth-telling, recognising, listening and talking. If Dutton cannot identify those virtues, he has no place in Parliament, now or in the future.

It worries me; no, it disturbs me that now a little over a year since Labor won the election, no word of regret for their many failures (those who committed suicide or others hurt by their lack of empathy) has been uttered by anyone in the Opposition. Instead, its leader has indicated that he intends to take his party further right.

Admitting that you are wrong is an absolute prerequisite to starting anew, redefining who you are and what you and your party stand for. Dutton has yet to do this. Instead, he has opted to sabotage an idea put forward in good faith. One that would resolve generations of angst. After scaring the life out of decent people, will he drive them six miles out of town and let them find their way back.

Journo stumps Peter Dutton by asking why he hasn’t bothered to meet with the CEO of the Alice Springs Traditional Owners’ organisation Lhere Artepe, while he is there in Alice Springs.
Peter Dutton says he’d rather speak to “shoppers in shopping centres” 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/RiuROo9mfI

— stranger (@strangerous10) April 12, 2023

You are probably thinking, referring to the headline, that it is a stupid thing to say, and on the one hand, you might be right given the Government still has two years to serve. On the other, going early when your chances of winning are second to none is a good idea.

The Constitution provides that:

“… terms for the House of Representatives continue for a maximum of three years from the first meeting of the House after an election. This means that a Federal Election for the House of Representatives may be called at any time in the three years following the first sitting of the House. The Governor-General may also dissolve the House sooner than the three-year term.

The latest possible date of the next election is within 68 days from the expiry of the House. As the 47th Parliament first met on Tuesday, July 26 2022, it is due to expire on Friday, July 25 2025. The election for the House of Representatives must therefore be held by September 27 2025, the last Saturday within these 68 days. However, elections are generally called well before constitutionally or legally necessary.”

To make it clear, I support fixed election dates with 3-year terms, but in this instance, my support for an extended period of punishment for the conservative side of politics is as important to me as it is rising every day. And at my age, that is important. 

Now, allow me to put this into perspective. After almost ten years of the worst kind of grossly offensive governance, the Liberal and National parties lost the 2022 election on May 21.

In the time that has elapsed since that date, not once have I heard from the lips of a conservative politician any form of regret or apology, even remorse or shame. On the contrary, we have been served a recipe of poached platitudes, banalities and lies.

To listen to them is like listening to those who cannot express themselves adequately and repetitively mumble, “but we were still born to rule.”

People will, over time, forget their crimes of corruption, the scandals and their men of mad, destructive political beliefs and decisions. Of inequality toward women and lacking equality of opportunity. All of which have been identified in various media over the years and will now be investigated by the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC).

We must do as I am now, reminding everyone of how foolish and rotten they were. Then repeating it repeatedly because another ten years would be unbearable and disastrous for our nation.

And this is why we must remind the electorate right up to the next election and beyond. Now you ask what would prevent another Luddite period of (mostly) men.

Going early is not uncommon. It allows you to govern for five straight years in circumstances primarily to your benefit. It will enable you to fulfil promises in an unfulfilled, more orderly manner.

An early election campaign creates the opportunity to remind the punters of just how deplorable the conservatives governed.

Another reason the conservatives will be up against it in the next election is that many mature-aged voters dropped from the rolls and were replaced with a cohort of young folk seeking change. This is guaranteed to transpire again. Both parties knew this would happen sometime, but the LNP did nothing about it. A note of caution is that the young are desperate for change. By that, I mean significant, meaningful change that excites and promotes new ways of doing things.

Women still feel ostracised by a party that showed them an indifference that harks from an Elizabethan period when women weren’t allowed to vote or inherit. Labor needs to remind women of the LNP’s misogyny and unrefined manners.

On the road to a new election, events will emerge to focus on the former Government’s corruption. A steady stream of bad news will be revealed on the road to the latest election. I speak of Robodebt and the long list of severe misdemeanours that will be placed before the NACC in June. The Robodebt Royal Commission report will be handed to the Governor General in mid-July. The report is expected to be explosive.

Of course, the best thing Labor has going for it, is Peter Dutton himself. On all accounts, he thinks there is nothing wrong with the party he leads. Its philosophy, its morality, its trust, its economic credentials and its equality. Peter Dutton is so disliked by all and sundry that he couldn’t win an election if he started now.

Having said all this, it must be noted that there is much to do. Labor’s first year has also seen many challenges. 

Inflation is still high, as are interest rates, the cost of living is higher than it should be, and housing and rents are also high. Most of this mess the Government has inherited from the LNP. Much of it has come from events beyond Labor’s control, eg the war in Ukraine and the pandemic.

Then there is The Voice referendum. If it were to pass despite Peter Dutton’s hatchet job, it would give our First Nations people a voice in their future and allow Labor a free hand to complete its agenda. Dutton, in dismissing any form of bipartisanship, has played to form. 

Labor has fulfilled 18 of its significant commitments, whilst others, like The Voice are a work in progress, and some are on hold pending the release of reports.

While writing, I also had Question Time playing on my iPad. The deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Susan Ley, asked the Prime Minister a question that she couldn’t seem to make coherent. The House burst into laughter at its stupidity. The Prime Minister admirably addressed it by calling it a salad, which I thought; “That the word salad sums up this Opposition.” It’s a combination of many ingredients. I’ll leave the dressing with you. 

Later this year, Labor must announce significant changes leading into a fresh election. One that will cement the middle ground and a further three years.

Stan Grant has made it known that he is quitting ABC television Program Q&A. In a heartfelt piece published by the ABC he said that “On Monday night I will present my Q+A program, then walk away. For how long? I don’t know.”

His time hosting Q&A has not been without controversy as with the time he took the extraordinary step of expelling a member of the audience from the studio after the young man, named Sasha, expressed support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This decision was greeted by cheers from the studio audience and met largely with approval on Twitter, although some saw this as an attempt to restrict freedom of speech and communication on this serious global conflict – you be the judge.

Grant was also part of a panel discussion prior to the coronation of Charles III and some, again on Twitter, castigated him for trying to direct the conversation towards colonisation and the wrongs inflicted on the Aboriginal people at the instigation of the British monarchy.

Stan also has a problem with the ABC for not being more supportive of his situation even though they have registered a protest with Twitter about the amount of abuse directed towards Grant much of which is in the form of racial hatred. ABC Managing Director has also personally apologised to Grant.

But it’s not just Twitter, data obtained by the Guardian from media monitoring firm Streem has found that there were more than 150 mentions of the ABC’s coronation coverage by the Australian and Sky News in the two weeks since the broadcast.

That included 18 mentions in the Australian online, four on Chris Kenny’s program, three on Sky News’s media show, and two each on Bernadi, Outsiders and Paul Murray Live.

 

Q+A host Stan Grant standing down from ABC show after racist abuse

 

That coverage included the Australian’s media writer Sophie Elsworth on Kenny’s show describing the ABC broadcast as a “pile-on” and “hate-fest”. Outsiders hosts Rita Panahi and James Morrow said the ABC’s broadcast was “over the top”, “race-obsessed” and a “woke bin fire of self-loathing”.

The ABC did not specifically call out Sky News or the Australian but we know that Murdoch outlets will never miss an opportunity to attack the public broadcaster. Indeed SKY has a media show weekly that seems to be fashioned around denigration of the ABC. A spokesperson for the ABC indicated that the ongoing coverage of the coronation broadcast could “clearly generate or contribute to fuelling abuse” that had led to racist attacks on social media.

Grant, has been the sole host of Q+A since August last year. Before that he had been one of three – alongside Virginia Trioli and David Speers – who shared hosting duties from August 2021, following the departure of Hamish MacDonald, who also cited social media vilification as a factor in his decision to quit.

It was only weeks ago that ABC morning television host Lisa Miller received a barrage of personal abuse on social media evidently related to what she had been wearing one morning. She is clearly a strong woman and took the opportunity to make an on-air statement which read, in part :

“I’d like to take a minute to talk about what went on during the last 48 hours. If you’re blessedly oblivious and you’ve just been getting on with your life – great! – I won’t dwell on it,” she said.

“The fact that what I wore on Monday attracted obnoxious commentary on Twitter – foul disgusting personal abuse that I couldn’t and wouldn’t repeat – was upsetting.”

She clearly found the episode personally confronting as Grant has found the racist comments hurtful but they are by no means the only public personalities in Australia or elsewhere to be personally attacked on social media. As far as this commentator can ascertain, the main delivery vehicle for this abuse is essentially Elon Musk’s Twitter. Whilst the Murdoch media takes every opportunity to attack the national broadcaster, clearly the problem is not just Sky and The Australian. The ABC is used to attacks from the Murdoch minions and is more than capable to fight back. Twitter (and it is mainly Twitter of the various social media players) on the other hand seems to have no effective moderation and since Musk took over it seems that it has taken a deep dive into the global sewer.

So, I pose the question : do we really need Twitter ?

Over eighty years ago Prime Minister John Curtin prepared a New Year’s Eve message for the Australian people. It was written three weeks into the war with Japan. It was published in the Melbourne Herald on 27 December, 1941:

‘Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.’

With this message he informed the world that Australia’s foreign policy direction must change, in response not only to the military situation with Japan, but to Australia’s location in the Pacific. From then on, he states, Australia will be proactive, the architect of her own interests.

Australia disengaged from the ‘general war’ to concentrate on the Pacific conflict. Both Churchill and Roosevelt were surprised, and dismayed, but the die was cast. Australia survived the war, but only with massive assistance from the U.S. America has been the cornerstone of our foreign policy ever since.

Eighty years later, are Australia and the U.S. still a ‘perfect match’, or is it time to re-consider the partnership? Although America is still the pre-eminent power on earth, does Australia need its protection, and secondly, does America provide that protection, and if it does, at what price?

Is there a credible threat to us, or would we be more sensible to take a leaf out of New Zealand’s book, and be no-one’s enemy, and no-one’s target? It is important to look at our similarities, but also at the areas where we diverge.

Shared history, shared values?

For years, at least until President Trump was elected, there was a type of consensus that what we had in common far outweighed our differences. Recent events, particularly in America’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and then the Black Lives Matter protests, have thrown some doubt on that shared vision.

Many have used the “shared history, and shared values” argument to justify our continued relationship. Others question the value for Australia, which has stood loyally by its mighty ally, through its many wars, with not much to show for the effort, except in terms of lost lives, and wasted military resources. We were never there as equal partners.

We supported American wars whenever we were asked

Australia joined the U.S. in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the First Gulf War in Iraq, the Afghanistan War, the Second Gulf War in Iraq. We even joined the so-called War on Terror.

When push comes to shove, Australia is expected to step forward, no questions asked. Perhaps the debt from 1941 – 1945 has been repaid?

Democratic standards

Australia and the U.S. are both nominally democratic societies, and yet there is a tradition in the U.S. of actively trying to suppress the vote for minorities, and to rig elections by gerrymander. There are efforts to outlaw postal voting, begun when in the midst of a global pandemic.

Australians are used to electoral matters being decided by independent umpires. We are not only encouraged to vote, but we are punished if we do not. So is America still a democracy, and is it worth defending?

Guns in America

Probably the most contentious right Americans possess is the right “to keep and to bear arms”. Covered by the Second Amendment and intended to permit the personal use of arms as a defence against state tyranny, it has mutated into a violent and uncontrolled gun culture.

In 2021, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 48,830 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC.

This was the highest number of gun deaths since 1968 (see here). Another side of this tragedy is that suicide accounts for almost twice as many deaths as homicide.

By comparison Australia’s gun deaths in 2019 were 229. It is incomprehensible to us living in Australia that Americans insist on their right to kill, and to be killed.

This situation is exacerbated by the militarisation of the various state police forces, and the sheer number of mainly gun-fuelled deaths. Most of those deaths are of Black men, arguably by overzealous police. Do we share the values of a nation which practices officially sanctioned, racially based murder?

Did Scott Morrison commit us to a war with China?

Our previous, unlamented Prime Minister ramped up the hysteria and the rhetoric concerning China. He committed a sum of $270 billion to defence, which included funding for long range missiles. These are presumably to warn China that we are deadly serious about defending ourselves, militarily, against our largest trading partner.

This can be traced back to a slavish desire, on Morrison’s part, to please Donald Trump. The ex-President, in an attempt to divert attention away from his own criminal governance of the country, had sought to demonise China for somehow ‘inventing’ Covid19.

By jumping on Trump’s bandwagon, Australia is going to be ‘protected’ if China reacts badly to our belligerence. That must be why we are investing in nuclear powered submarines, to be ‘delivered’, in dribs and drabs, if at all, in the 2040s.

It is uncertain whether human civilisation will even survive until the 2040s. Already climate change is contributing to mass migrations; droughts and floods are affecting food and water security; the West is already fracturing under the political pressures of exploding refugee numbers, and political volatility is out of control. Russia is just the first rogue state to bust out of the bubble.

Labor has drunk the kool-aid

The logic behind following the United States anywhere is flawed. It is a nation which seemingly needs wars, in order to keep its over-sized military busy, and focused outwards. How else to restrain its generals and admirals?

The American Century is over. The country is hopelessly divided, and its people are not only divided on political grounds, but also on economic, religious and racial lines. Inequality has morphed into something resembling the Middle Ages.

If America was once a trusted ally, the Trump presidency must have caused us to reconsider where we stand. A buddy this week, maybe not so much next week?

We need to tread carefully until the U.S. has a leader who can be trusted. Joe Biden is 80 years old. At his age, how long can we rely on his common sense? His main opponent will probably be Donald Trump, who is crazy, old and unstable.

This then is the horse we have hitched our wagon to. In Australian terms, “have we backed the wrong horse?”