Internal bickering between ingrained, imported, or cultivated groups can have the most ruinous consequences for a nation’s social cohesion, particularly those of a multicultural mix like Australia.

With its extensive mix of ethnicities, Australia is a prosperous multicultural country that has maintained peace and social cohesion.

We have prospered with this influx of folk from around the world, and I have been party to many grand arrivals in my lifetime. Of course, our early settlers came in the thousands from the overcrowded jails of England. Looking for a better future, the Irish and Scottish followed. Religious differences came with them, but we managed it.

All this in the backdrop of The White Australia Policy, which prevailed as our attitude to immigration, after Federation in 1901, and for the next 70 years. Was it racist? Of course, it was. It was aimed at stopping non-white people from coming to Australia.

Yet such diversity exists nowhere else. We are home to the “world’s oldest continuous cultures, and Australians identify with more than 270 ancestries.” Since 1945, millions of people have migrated to Australia.

In the main, we have maintained social cohesion despite the complexities these folk would inevitably bring. “Populate or perish was the catchcry” of the 1950s. It worked:

• Nearly one-third of Aussies were born overseas
• Half of Australians have an overseas-born parent
• Almost one-quarter of Australians speak a language other than English at home.

It was this immigration that built the Snowy Mountains Hydro Scheme. The richness of their different ethnicities merged into ours to produce a new Australia. It has, in the main, been harmonious. However, some have taken the opportunity to bring their problems with them and act them out on our soil.

Others of Australian heritage have sought to take advantage of these problems to stir up racial prejudice for their own political advantage.

However, some subjects, such as Israel, can be taboo, and the ABC’s decision to go ahead with Q&A without an audience two weeks ago illustrates how volatile some issues can be.

Our history of rejecting refugees is a case in point. John Howard, Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison have a history of stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment and racism for political advantage and religious attachment.

As recently as the first question on the resumption of Parliament (November 14), the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, deliberately misquoted what Penny Wong had said in an interview with David Speers on the Insider program. The Opposition Leader Peter Dutton began Question Time by asking Mr Albanese whether it was the government’s position to call for an Israeli ceasefire.

He put to the Prime Minister that on Sunday, Foreign Minister Penny Wong had:

“… claimed Israel, in carrying out its defensive war against terror group Hamas, is breaching international law and should undertake a ceasefire.”

Here is the transcript of what she actually said:

Speers: So just on the ceasefire argument, as you mentioned, the French President Emmanuel Macron has said that he is calling for a ceasefire. You just said you would like to see the steps taken towards a ceasefire. Can I just invite you to tease out what sort of steps are you looking for?

Foreign Minister: Well, we need steps towards a ceasefire because we know that Hamas – it cannot be one‑sided – we know that Hamas is still holding hostages and we know that a ceasefire must be agreed between the parties.”

Nowhere in her answers can you find that Australia was committed to a ceasefire, yet Dutton’s sleazy question suggested otherwise. The Australian newspaper supported his assertion with this headline: “Albanese refuses to endorse Wong call for ceasefire” (firewalled) and started with this lie:

“Anthony Albanese has refused to back Penny Wong’s call for a ceasefire in Israel’s war against Hamas, or her suggestion the Netanyahu government could be breaking international law.”

The point of all this, of course, is that while these two sides are fighting the most depraved acts of warfare, killing children, bombing hospitals and committing the most terrible crimes against each other. The Opposition Leader chooses to play dangerous politics with what is a war of far-reaching consequences.

On Wednesday, November 15, Dutton launched another attack, attempting to link criticisms of the government’s response to the Gaza conflict and the release of detainees from immigration detention. Albanese was having none of it. Visibly angry and upset, he accused Peter Dutton of “weaponising antisemitism.”

“To come in here and move this resolution and link antisemitism with the decision of the high court is beyond contempt.”

“I didn’t think that he could go this low as to link these two issues'” he said in response to Dutton’s motion.

But Dutton is not alone in these acts that create civil disobedience and threaten social cohesion. The Liberal Party and its leaders have never felt ill-disposed to stirring up racism.

Let’s test our memories for a moment.

Remember when Peter Dutton openly accused Sudanese teenagers of social disobedience by running amok in the streets of Melbourne. (Then) Prime Minister Turnbull followed him up with similar accusations that amounted to straight-out racism.

No one can forget the tensions that developed when John Howard said:

“But we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

The Tampa Affair followed, and the phrase “Stop the boats” further antagonised people. Remember when Alan Jones incited hatred and the Cronulla riots began. Then there were Scott Morrison’s numerous offences as Immigration Minister, Social Services Minister, and Minister for everything.

To the point of boredom, Turnbull told us that we were the most successful multi-racial country in the world, yet at the same time, while Dutton was claiming that people were scared to leave their homes to eat out because of African gangs. Turnbull and Dutton were repudiated in a sensible fact-laden piece by Waleed Aly.

Turnbull seemed to be all over the shop:

“Australia will consider adding a ‘values test’ for those considering permanent residency in order to protect its ‘extraordinarily successful’ multicultural society.”

In London at the time, the Citizenship and Multicultural Minister Alan Tudge, in a speech to the Australia/UK Leadership Forum, suggested a “values” test to fend off “segregation”. Ever the hypocrite, Turnbull agreed.

“Segregation,” I thought to myself. I dislike the word intently for the images it places before one’s eyes. Still, nevertheless, it is something we have practised – especially on First Nations people – for as long as immigration has existed and is as natural as life itself. His speech was full of racial overtones calculated to incite further violence back home.

Craig Emmerson noted that John Howard tried this tactic in 1988 with Asian immigration, adding:

“Who would have imagined Turnbull would try it again in 2018. The Liberals haven’t changed in 30 years. Very sad for our country.”

When the Italians came to Melbourne, they gathered together in Brunswick, the Greeks in Carlton, the Vietnamese in Springvale and the Chinese in Box Hill. And so on. Then, over time, they neatly integrated into general society.

We are now confronted with more odious loathing threatening our social cohesion. This time, it is between Jews and Middle Eastern Muslim groups, both of which can claim the moral ground. These vile events are attracting protesting groups in enormous numbers, threatening to escalate into full-on rioting. On social media, commentary of a xenophobic and anti-Semitic nature is just pathetic.

Australians have a long history of finding fault with things we don’t understand. The complexity of Middle Eastern politics and religion is so electric that they can flare up at any time, and any discussion on the subject is filled with danger.

In our mindless observation at various times, we have blamed communists, Jews, women, the devil, Indigenous people and witches, even God for all manner of things.

Sitting on the platform at Flinders Street Station and watching the passing parade of ethnicity, I can only admire a country I could never envisage from the same seat in the 1950s.

The ‘No’ campaign and the Trumpifaction of the tinpotato

It has been said that Donald Trump appealed to many millions of Americans because he gave them permission to be the very worst of what they always were. In a divided and acrimonious USA a scandal-weary public has become numbed to the orange Trumplethinskin’s outrages, while others have gleefully embraced them.

The botoxed, duck-lipped Fox News Barbies, the goateed ammosexuals, the evangelical god fodder, antisemites, trailer trash and white supremacists, the defiantly ignorant oicks, evolutionary dead-enders, low information, chuckleheaded moon units, the proto-nazi authoritarians and the kooks and goons admire his cruelty. They like the hideous aspects of his character. An increasingly desperate Trump may be headed to prison but Trumpism lives on in the GOP. He has normalised the nasty.

“MAGA voters won’t change. They’re in a statist, authoritarian cult driven by racial animus, lurid conspiracy twaddle, and a corrupt media-entertainment outrage complex that has conditioned them to constant outrage with a steady drip of agitprop.” (Rick Wilson – American political strategist and former member of the Republican Party).

The fight against domestic fascism is as American as apple pie. Even though much of the modern mythology of the western world celebrates the USA as a bastion of democracy, providing a steady and unalloyed example of democratic virtue for the rest of the world, this is misleading. It ignores the actual history of the land.

Back in the real world The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump is certainly not the first case in which the forces of niceness in America have moved to prosecute a bunch of runaway fascists, and it is unlikely to be the last. So, it is comforting to note that while Trump and his clowncar full of fascists do garner an awful lot of attention, they are also incredibly incompetent. Whereas the last time a coup attempt by a bunch of fascists was thwarted by the Justice Department it involved a plot being overseen by competent individuals who were all acting in accord with a potentially viable and well thought out plan.

In the 1930s American Fascism was on a roll. It must be remembered that until the entry of the US into WWII, in December of 1941, the idea of fascism was perfectly respectable in the US. Great swathes of the American population were avid followers of political activists who were avowed and self-professed fascists.

At this time the polarisation of Europe was echoed by a domestic polarisation within the USA. The large and growing domestic socialist movement in the USA, that had existed prior to WWI, had been the target of a concerted domestic backlash both during and following the war, with groups such as the American Defense Society in concert with many federal government authorities leading the charge. A similar polarisation was evident inside the workers organisations in the US, with the revolution in Russia forcing a schism between more moderate forces and the radical Leninists.

All of this context is mentioned so as to stress that up until the commencement of WWII, the idea of fascism in the US was perfectly respectable. Not like being a nasty un-American commie, or a Unionist. Fascism was popular. It was a growing trend.

Throughout the late 1930s radical demagogues such as Father Coughlin were drawing huge radio audiences. This Hitler loving cleric talked directly to more than thirty million listeners every week, preaching an anti-Semitic, antidemocratic, racist ideology to a growing and ever more radicalised listenership. As Mark Twain has observed, while history might not repeat itself, it often rhymes. So, at this point it is helpful to once again broaden our focus to include Trump and his clowncar. This is because, regardless of the epoch, American fascism – as with fascism everywhere – always remains much the same. It hums an ‘us and them’ song. A populist, ultranationalist, ditty that preaches the need to return to the values of a glorious past – a far greater and more glorious past. An utterly mythical past. But the focus is always on the unpatriotic hordes.

The targets change but the song remains the same. Coughlin was anti-Jew, anti-Black, anti-Labor, anti-atheist. He sympathised with strong man regimes around the world. He quite deliberatively provoked hatred for those he deemed to be un-American. He praised Hitler, urged his followers to get involved in politics at every level, and demanded that they strive to rid the American political system of Jewish, Socialist, Communist, and Atheist sympathisers. By the late 1930s Coughlin led a broad populist movement that was spread right across the USA.

The targets change but the song remains the same. Trump rants that gay transgender druggie leftists are stealing America. That black criminals are stealing America. That refugees are stealing America. That welfare queens, unionists, students, feminists, the entertainment industry, Silicon Valley, teachers, fully stocked libraries, RINOS and Democrats – and the rest of ‘them’ – are all engaged in stealing America. As with all fascists, the list of those who are patently unpatriotic is endless.

Father Coughlins’ fascistic dreams culminated in 1939. In February the American Nazi’s held a rally at Madison Square Garden that was attended by more than 20,000 supporters. This caused the Attorney for the Southern District of New York to become concerned. His office publicly petitioned the Feds to take action. In response, in December of the same year, the FBI raided the offices of the Christian Front and so famously thwarted a well-funded, carefully organised and more than adequately armed insurrection plot, just two weeks away from launching a full-blown coup to take over the government of the USA.

Following the raid seventeen people were indicted. They were charged with conspiring ‘to overthrow, put down and destroy by force the Government of the United States and by force to take its property’, as well as the theft and stockpiling of ‘Federal munitions and property’. Then history intervened.

Late in 1941 the USA entered the war against Germany, and as the Naz’s were allied with the fascists, the fight against ‘fascism’ was a now national security priority. At once the national mood changed. Fascism was instantly uncool. The charges against all the Christian Front operatives were vacated in the first year of the war. It was deemed to be against the public interest to engage in a lengthy and somewhat embarrassing trial during wartime, especially as there were bigger fish to fry. The domestic fascist threat was suddenly a thing of the past.

Yet even though the Trumpian hordes sing a fascistic song, and his followers dance a fascistic jib, which is all directly comparable to that which was celebrated by millions during the 1930s in the USA, most media outlets in the land still refuse to label it ‘fascistic’. Or acknowledge we have seen it all before. Which is entirely understandable for those outlets that have declared a partisan political allegiance, but not the rest. Or the major political parties.

I feel this is largely down to category confusion. Many are critical of Trump but are nevertheless confused regarding what they are seeing occur. They are careful to avoid calling it a ‘fascist’ movement as they mistake this as being a reference to a political movement or idea. Which is simply a failure in comprehension more than anything. Fascism is expressed politically but it is not at all about politics. Fascism is all about populism and raw power, it is always both anti and non-political.

Which is to say, fascistic movements everywhere in the world have always derived their strength and support from drawing from all sides of an existing political spectrum. But more significantly, they are populist movements that serve to mobilise a large proportion of otherwise politically unengaged citizens. Consequently, one of the defining characteristics of both the movement in the 1930s, and the Trumpian horde, is that a large proportion of these people were previously politically unengaged and unaffiliated. These are voters who are largely new to any sort of political discourse or action and who commonly profess to be largely disaffected with all sides of the political process prior to their becoming fascistic supporters. Thus, these are people who are seeking a different message and solution to those that are being considered and offered by mainstream political parties. In simple terms, a fascistic movement is always characterised by simple, dangerously fantastical, ideas. The propositions of a mythical past might differ (be it a glorious Roman or American Republic), but the systemic denigration of minority groups remains the same. The targets change but the song remains the same.

Therefore, the principal threat that is posed by the rise of a fascistic dialogue (as is perfectly illustrated by the MAGA movement), is generally missed. It is unlikely that the fascists will take outright power. Yet the concerns and arguments that are pedalled by the fascists nevertheless do take a terrible toll on our social life and governmental institutions. This is because fascism is not politics, it is organised hating. Fascism is an ideology that hinges on the identification and civic defenestration of mythical enemies. It is undemocratic, but to dismiss it as being ‘unpatriotic’ simply leads to an ever more determined failure to focus on the imaginary world of American nationalism and the need to be careful and considered in our political speech. It only serves to further blur the line between mythic representations and reality. When we entertain or respond to ‘culture war’ idiocy in our media, policy discussion is thus slowly abandoned. It is far less interesting. It catches fewer eyeballs than any good culture war fight.

Thus, seamlessly and slowly, the possibility for any sort of rational and coherent policy discussion is largely obviated. Idiot propositions are normalised. All that is left in the commercial ‘mainstream’ is the proposition of nonsense and the countering of the nonsense; an ongoing, ever-expanding and ever more nonsensical culture war. Thus, in my opinion, the biggest threat from fascism in the modern age is that it serves to debase our pollical discourse. The real threat from the Trumpian discourse is not that a fascist government in the USA is a likely prospect. The real threat is the normalisation of idiocy.

The biggest threat is to allow people to spout overtly fascistic idiocy and false information in public, without this drawing hoots of derision and guffaws of astonished laughter. Without these idiots being laughed off the stage. The real threat is that large swathes of our media now actively indulge in fostering an ‘us and them’ fascistic worldview, where cultural uniformity and traditions, in accord with a (mythical) glorious past, are always privileged, regardless of the topic under consideration and usually instead of the topic under consideration.

In such a manner, fascistic thinking is caustic. It rots the brain by privileging the basest tribal instincts. A lot of time can be saved by simply identifying the one small segment of the American population that is ignored by the fascists. When considered from this vantage, it is very soon obvious that the only ‘real Americans’ in the USA – according to both Father Coughlin and Trump – are white, affluent, Christian and heterosexual. It is simple bigotry and runs counter to the intent of the founders of the American Republic and the plain text of the American constitution.

The battle is against the celebration and retailing of idiocy and bigotry. Not Trump. There are commercial forces in the media that have decided that they will dictate that the political dialogue of the whole world will be either Trumpian nonsense or the refutation of Trumpian nonsense, as this averts all eyes from much needed media and monopoly law reform, and for as long as we are thus engaged in arguing about nonsense, we suffer the crazy status quo.

So, while I expect that in the next few months we will see the long-awaited implosion of the current fascistic movement in the US, in much the same manner as it dissipated very quickly last time around, I suggest that it will take a very long time to repair the damage done to our media and political discourse. Which requires that we all refocus our attention on all of the boring yet actually consequential topics that the current political discourse seems to ruthlessly avoid.

(Funny thing that. Have a nice day.)

So incensed was I with the Leader of the Opposition’s response to the Royal Commissions report into the Robodebt Scheme that for a brief moment, I actually felt sorry for him.

However, in an equally brief deliberation, I realised that it was us, the people, that my sorrow was better directed. We deserved more than what Peter Dutton gave us. The Leader of the Opposition’s standing is fundamental to our democracy because he leads the alternative Government and therefore represents its philosophy and policies.

But alas, when responding to matters of importance, he attacks with all the ferocity of an angry Abbott or a lying Morrison. Let me explain his reaction to the Commission’s report in four instances.

1 “When the problems were brought to the government’s attention at the time, the program was stopped,” Mr Dutton told reporters.

FACT: The Commissioner identified the many times the scheme was found to be illegal and was never stopped. So that was a lie.

2 “I think the people of Fadden are much smarter than that – they’ve seen the personal smears against (Liberal candidate) Cameron Caldwell, they’ve seen the political advantage in the timing of the release of this report…

They’re not stupid. They can see that.”

FACT: The Government instigated the Commission, and its delivery date was decided before a bye-election became necessary. The Electoral Commission, not the Government, decided on that date, so any collusion was impossible. A lie.

3 “I caution the glee of the Prime Minister and Bill Shorten at the moment. They’ve sought to politicise this issue from day one.”

Glee means merriment, gaiety, joy, delight or cheer. Albanese and Shorten couldn’t be accused of being gleeful in all the media coverage I read or saw. Another one of your lies.

4 Dutton also accused the PM of trying to “unseal” the secret chapter of the report for political gain.

“Albanese has said he is seeking advice about whether the confidential, sealed chapter from the Commission’s report, which details these referrals, can eventually be released after further actions against named individuals and legal appeals are exhausted.”

Oops. Another lie.

Albanese can’t name anyone. He only went as far as the report would allow. Bill Shorten has also sought legal advice on revealing the names. There is no conspiracy to open any envelope.

The dilemma here is that, on the one hand, the public, after spending millions on a Royal Commission, deserves to know who was responsible for the gross mishandling of a scheme that oversaw many deaths.

On the other hand, those accused deserve the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

One cannot dispute (although Dutton doubtlessly will) that this Royal Commission was conducted with the highest ethics and integrity by Catherine Holmes, but at this point, it needs completeness. There has to be just transparency.

Heads of departments in the public service are empowered to take immediate action against public servants who are found to have acted unlawfully or incompetently, meaning that Kathryn Campbell and Renée Leon will lose their positions. So, might others. The Commissioner found adverse findings against 7 public servants.

Just who the politicians are is still unknown. Suppose there is no accountability or consequences, and the culprits remain unknown for what has transpired. If they remain unaccountable and unknown, the Commission will have achieved little other than telling our politicians they are free to continue their deception and corruption.

Of course, we have yet to determine how many names are in the sealed section of the report, but I imagine names like: Scott Morrison. Kathryn Campbell. Alan Tudge. Stuart Robert. Christian Porter. Annette Musolino. Serena Wilson. Jonathan Hutson. Mark Withnell. Paul McBride. Emma Kate McGuirk. Karen Harfield. Jason McNamara and Craig Storen would be shaking in their shoes right now.

There may be others, of course. All that can be said of these individuals other than the damming commentary in the report itself is that they are of a category of humanity that most of us are unfamiliar with.

Of the former Prime Minister, the Commission found that:

“It was Morrison’s pathological incuriosity that allowed cabinet to be deceived.

“Mr Morrison allowed Cabinet to be misled because he did not make that obvious inquiry,” Holmes’s report says. “He took the proposal to Cabinet without necessary information.”

Of Minister Alan Tudge:

“Tudge, Holmes found, was motivated by a desire to “save face” both personally and on behalf of the Government. He wanted to “minimise public embarrassment” after he had publicly trumpeted the new era of debt compliance when he became minister the year before.”

“As a minister, Mr Tudge was invested with a significant amount of public power,” the report says.

“Mr Tudge’s use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the scheme’s problems represented an abuse of that power.”

Of Minister Christian Porter:

“Mr Porter could not rationally have been satisfied of the legality of the Scheme on the basis of his general knowledge of the [new policy proposal] process, when he did not have actual knowledge of the content of the NPP, and had no idea whether it had said anything about the practice of income averaging,”

Minister Stuart Robert:

When Stuart Robert was appointed minister for Government Services, he was briefed on a Federal Court of Australia case concerning a Robodebt victim in which the Australian Government Solicitor had provided draft legal advice warning the scheme was almost certainly not lawful.

However, Robert:

“… denies being briefed on this advice in June 2019, but the Royal Commission does not believe him. This poses a significant problem for the former minister because it was another five months before the opinion of the solicitor-general was sought. This was the definitive, scheme-killing legal advice.”

Why was there such a long wait? Officials argue it was simply a long process:

“In the Commission’s view, none of this justifies the five-month delay in preparing and delivering the brief.”

Further, Commissioner Catherine Holmes said also that:

“… elements “appear to exist” of the little-known tort of misfeasance in public office, in detailed findings that targeted various former Coalition ministers over a scheme she described as wracked by collusion and dishonesty.”

The term misfeasance means that the victims could sue the Ministers directly.

There needs to be a form of obligation on the agencies receiving the referrals for potential civil action or criminal prosecution, the Australian federal police and the National Anti-Corruption Commission to take further action. As it stands, they need do nothing if they so desire. Therefore, I come down on the side of revealing the names of those ministers referred. They would still have the right to defend themselves.

I agree with Anthony Whealy, a former NSW Supreme Court judge and chair of The Centre for Public Integrity, who said:

“It’s better, I think, in the public interest that those people be named, and we know who they’re being referred to because I think that’s what the public is entitled to know.”

“Certainly, it’s a job unfinished … because the commission has the power to make referrals to various disciplinary or criminal agencies, and until we know exactly what it’s done in that regard, we don’t see the finished product, and therefore, I think, you know, there’s a certain air of dissatisfaction with that aspect of the outcome.”

Dutton’s response showed not the slightest concern for the victims of this corrupt and wicked scheme. He apologised to them, but it was an empty graceless apology that lacked empathy and emotion. 500 thousand Australians were affected, and 2000 committed suicide. By saying the things, he did, he put on display all the reasons why he would never make an Australian Prime Minister.

He is from the Abbott/Morrison mould that tried so hard to wreck our democracy.

Let me remind you of our immediate political past under conservative rule

Never in Australian politics did the Australian public so unintelligently elect a series of right-wing governments over a decade that were rotten, to the core, infected with hatred for the less well-off but happy with the burden they carried. So ignorant of its own incompetence. So willing to break laws and trash convention. So utterly corrupted with lying that they sometimes knew not when or why they were telling them.

So brutal toward those seeking a better life on the waves of empathy. So unsympathetic to those domestically in need of help. So full of ministers who didn’t care about the corruption that engulfed them. So unendowed with leadership were they that every decision passed through cabinet uncaringly and unquestioned.

That so many remnants of that era still exist in the ranks of conservatives must surely remind our citizens of how badly they governed. A sobering thought when the current Leader sees nothing wrong with their ideology.

PS: Commissioner Catherine Holmes said:

“It may be that the evidence in this royal Commission has gone some way to changing public perceptions. But largely, those attitudes are set by politicians, who need to abandon for good (in every sense) the narrative of taxpayer versus welfare recipient.”

Former Queensland Premier Johannes Bjelke-Petersen frequently used the expression ‘don’t you worry about that’ when he either didn’t want to answer the question, or knew the the question would suggest additional requests for information.

Bjelke-Petersen’s National Party oversaw a gradual erosion of civi rights and equality in Queensland. Bjelke-Petersen was portrayed as a strong leader that got things done. It was claimed that Bjelke-Petersen used the number of cranes constructing high-rise buildings in Brisbane as an indicator of the state’s progress. There was also considerable spending on infrastructure to service coal mines, such as new coal haul railways, better roads in coal mining areas and so on. Part of the National Party’s sales pitch at the time was that the same amount of economic activity would not be generated by the Opposition ALP. A debatable claim at best, as the world was beating a path to Australia’s door for coal and other minerals in the era and unlike a lot of other products, you can’t move mineral extraction to a country that offers a cheaper cost of production unless they also have the same minerals.

Meanwhile services to the Queensland public were lagging the rest of Australia. Health, education and other services that should be supplied by governments were starved of funding with Bjelke-Petersen priding himself on running the ‘low tax’ state. Unfortunately, the effects of the lack of investment are still being experienced today. A considerable number of Queensland voters didn’t worry about it at the time, figuring “Joh” would do the right thing by them and keep the ‘unruly’ unions and rabble-rousers that questioned the leadership at bay. The National Party government was ‘tough’ on unions and (it turned out selected) crime, labelling those that opposed the government as discontents and criminals, banning street marches and protest activity. The marketing was assisted by a generally compliant local media.

In the late 1980s the Fitzgerald Enquiry demonstrated that corruption had been evident at the highest levels of the Queensland Government. Subsequently, there were a number of referrals to the criminal justice system. A number of then government Ministers and the then Police Commissioner all served periods of time in jail. Bjelke-Petersen was personally never found guilty of corruption as the court case was abandoned due to the malfeasance of a juror. A second trial was considered but later aborted due to Bjelke-Petersen’s age and deteriorating health.

When you think about it, the Abbott, Turnbull, Morrison Coalition government used a lot of the same playbook as Bjelke-Petersen and other similar regimes around the world. In time, will the Robodebt Royal Commission have the same aura as the Fitzgerald Enquiry’s report in 1989?

Both governments were popularist paternal governments using a compliant media to reinforce the sales pitch that if you weren’t with the government, you were somewhat lacking in intelligence and really didn’t deserve a say. Bjelke-Petersen turned on ‘socialists’ and ‘unions’ as the necessary dangerous influences in his script of being a protector of morals and economic progress of society. Morrison suggested we should call him ‘Scomo’ and turned on fraudulent activities by ‘welfare cheats’ and refugees to present the myth he was keeping Australia safe for ‘god fearing Christians’ like himself. Like Bjelke-Petersen, Morrison also relied on a compliant media for support. According to the Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Homes

“The evidence before the commission was that fraud in the welfare system was minuscule, but that is not the impression one would get from what ministers responsible for social security payments have said over the years,”

The recommendations for sanctions and criminal referrals in the Robodebt Royal Commission’s report is in the ‘sealed section’. It’s likely that as those named are brought to account for their impropriety, there will be sections of the media that will be quite happy to ‘name and shame’. It could be that a number of former Ministers and senior public servants – all of who should have known better – will end up serving time in prison.

The Fitzgerald Enquiry spawned the Criminal Justice Commission which is now known as the (Queensland) Crime and Corruption Commission. It is absolutely not co-incidental that Commissioner Holmes requested a 7-day extension so that matters could be referred to the Federal Government’s new National Anti-Corruption Commission.

While we don’t know for certain, there is no evidence to suggest that Albanese’s Federal Government will ignore the recommendations of the Robodebt Royal Commission. They will probably support efforts by law enforcement agencies and the National Anti-Corruption Commission to take action against those named in the ‘sealed section’. We do know that when the ALP won power in Queensland after the Fitzgerald Enquiry, Premier Wayne Goss (who’s Chief of Staff was Kevin Rudd) implemented the recommendations of the Fitzgerald Enquiry and allowed the authorities to press charges against those named in the Enquiry’s findings.

Like the Fitzgerald Enquiry, the Robodebt Royal Commission has caught the public’s attention. You would hope we all learn from recent experience. The next time a political leader invites us to call them a derivative of their first name, tells us not to worry about that and they will save us from some claimed endemic fraudulent or radical activity by some group of people that really doesn’t exist – it’s really the time to commence worrying. Those that forget their history are destined to repeat it.