Nationals leader in the Senate, Bridget McKenzie seemed outraged that Scott Morrison had breached the coalition agreement by usurping the authority of Nationals resources minister Keith Pitt in April 2021.

‘Our coalition arrangements are a negotiated outcome and they include a ratio of cabinet portfolios in a coalition government,’ she told ABC Radio National on Thursday.

‘By essentially removing the authority of one of those ministers and giving it to a Liberal minister… (he) breached the coalition agreement.

‘It showed complete disrespect for the second party of government… the National Party would not have agreed with having one of its ministers removed.’

Except Keith Pitt knew about the arrangement when he was overruled on the PEP-11 gas permit and he told Q&A host Stan Grant that Michael McCormack knew of Morrison’s co-ministering as well. So clearly the Nationals did know and allowed it to happen without comment.

McKenzie went further on ABC’s Afternoon Briefing, calling the moves by Morrison “absolutely unprecedented”.

“I think these revelations do bring into question our Westminster system of government, the conventions that underpin how we have confidence and trust in our parliamentary system.

“As a former cabinet minister in the Turnbull and Morrison governments I took those conventions very seriously.

“If there were two ministers effectively exercising the same authority within cabinet, who was the senior minister? What if they disagreed? What implications does that have for decisions?”

McKenzie added that the Westminster system has many conventions to keep government officials accountable, but they only work “if everyone within it abides by those conventions” and all parliamentarians should be held accountable, agreeing that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has made the right call to review Morrison’s secret appointment.

But what makes Bridget’s belated outrage even more ludicrous is the fact that her partner, Simon Benson, is the journalist who wrote the book, based on contemporaneous interviews, that disclosed Morrison’s secret power grab.

So spare me your pretence, Bridget. You and your colleagues were complicit in the reign of secrecy and dishonesty because your own political ambition outweighs any respect for good governance.

How will they sell the tattered remains of a discarded and discredited rabble?

The thinning of the Tory herd has provided their tattered remnants with an opportunity for renewal, for some introspection on their electoral drubbing, for a dash of humility or contrition as redress for the embarrassment that was that Jesusing, self-regarding calamity DiddleyScott Morrison.

The light shone on their monetising of crises, their turpitude, cronyism, incompetence and mendacity should’ve elicited a profession of regret or apology or perhaps some distancing from the most odious of their spivs. Now that we’ve been spared many of the colourful personalities who’d come to define the character of the L/NP they could’ve dialed back the awful.

Two outstanding examples of the colour that has drained from their ranks are persons of girth Gorgeous George Christensen and Craig Kelly, both having voluntarily left the building – Georgiebuoy to flog RWFW merch and his conspiratorial fucknuttery via his poor man’s Alex Jones social media, while Cray Cray’s status as “our next Prime Minister” has been down-graded to bouncy castle consultant.

Another of my favourites was Eric Abetz. When, like Eric, you have real Nazis in your family tree – great uncle SS Standartenführer Otto and then also Erwin Rommel, an alleged cousin of his maternal grandfather, you’re a sitting duck for innuendo and cheap shots. Who am I to resist such temptation?

If Eric had harboured any ambitions for launching a panzer attack on Stalingrad he kept it fairly quiet; his right wing fuckwittery was kept within the traditional Tory boundaries of racism, homophobia and cutting the wages of lowly-paid Parliament House cleaners. Eric’s appeal to proto-Nazis in the Tory base became redundant once the embaldened Dutton-dressed-as-yam became tuber supreme.

 

From Twitter

 

A broad sweep of other funsters was also lost to the L/NP. They cover a range of personality disorders from a-holes to Zed. Canny share trader Diamond Dave Sharma, blunderkind Joshie Frydenberg, shrubbery lurker Andrew Laming, Red Gladys Liu aka Bimboo (she’s a thick Chinese plant), Mandy-Jane Stoker (somewhere there’s a camel missing its toe), prayer room supplicant Tim Wilson and that tosser Greg ‘Berkeley’ Hunt. Christian Porter the Tory princeling and darling of the born-to-rule set, those entitled types who complain about the bald kids getting priority in the queue at SeaWorld, had his privileged, consequences-free life evaporate as he punched himself in the face with futile lawsuits against those calling him out for the dirtbag that he is. After such a cleanse how have the Tories behaved?

Hint: They’re not taking it well.

 

Cartoon by Alan Moir (moir.com.au)

 

Sulking and public tantrums were on display from the “natural party of government” as the lolly jar was removed from their grasp. Toys were chucked, dummies were spat, fainting couches were deployed. Tory-spruiker talk shows indulged the pouting and shouting from the remaining dross that populates the smoking ruin of the Lying Nasty Party. As if to demonstrate that women can make it in Tory politics provided they are just as egregious as the men the umbrage was led by Holly Hughes, most notable for her pearl necklaces (subliminal messaging as to Holly’s favourite past-time perhaps) and her crusade against the Marxist ideology of the teaching profession and her dismissal of climate change as a “luxury issue”.

From the Tory brains trust

When confronted with their malfeasance the Tories are capable of embarrassment but not shame. They circle the wagons – obfuscating, quibbling, blame-shifting and projecting albeit while blushing and looking at their shoes. Any regret is only ever at getting caught.

DiddleyScott led the Nasties to new levels of heinous behaviour, clad in his belief he had celestial licence to indulge his megalomania. Can the Nasties change? They won’t. Morrison and his messiah complex may be toxic and while now a figure of derision he moved the dial on acceptable behaviour way beyond norms and conventions. He tested what he could get away with; who knows what he was capable of had he been re-elected. The stench still clings to the shady characters who survived. I doubt that Spud has the inclination, the character or the stones to do anything about it.

From https://www.lelievrecartoons.com/

This article was originally published on Grumpy Geezer.

In a long and rambling statement posted to Facebook, former Prime Minister Scott Morrison has defended his actions in seizing control of five ministries simultaneously. In a similar fashion to my response to John Howard’s character reference for George Pell (which I think is also available on this site), I want to analyse and deconstruct Mr. Morrison’s defence. This will be a long one, folks.

The Statement, Part One: Desperate Times Call for Desperate Measures

Morrison opens up his statement with the following:

The devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated recession required an unprecedented policy response from our Government.

These were extraordinary times and they required extraordinary measures to respond. Our Government’s overriding objective was to save lives and livelihoods, which we achieved. To achieve this we needed to ensure continuity of government and robust administrative arrangements to deal with the unexpected in what was a period of constant uncertainty during the nation’s biggest crisis outside of wartime.

The situation required an unprecedented policy response from the government. Hanged by your own words. The government was required to put forth an unprecedented policy response. Not you as an individual. You were a member of a team. Second, how can you simultaneously claim that there was a recession and that you saved livelihoods? Finally for this section, continuity of government and establishing ‘robust administrative arrangements’ means putting in place deputy ministers, acting ministers or assistant ministers. These are people who can fulfil the role of the minister in the event of their incapacitation. The response is not to engage in a personal power grab. Extraordinary times required extraordinary measures, yes, but not to serve your own selfish ends.

The Statement, Part Two: Red Herrings

Ever a master of distraction, Morrison’s statement contains multiple red herrings, as the next section demonstrates:

Information and advice changed daily and even hourly. Meetings with Ministers, officials and advisers were constant, as was liaison with industry and other stakeholders as we were dealing with everything from supply chain shocks to business closures, the overwhelming of the social security and hospital system and the sourcing of critical medical supplies and workforce.

The prospect of civil disruption, extensive fatalities and economic collapse was real, especially in the early stages, which was occurring in other parts of the world.

The risk of Ministers becoming incapacitated, sick, hospitalised, incapable of doing their work at a critical hour or even fatality was very real. The Home Affairs Minister was struck down with COVID-19 early in the pandemic and the UK Prime Minister was on a ventilator and facing the very real prospect of dying of COVID-19

If the situation were as chaotic as he makes out (which, in fairness, it was) and the information was changing as rapidly as he says, should he not have had more hands rather than concentrating power in fewer? His own rationalisation does not work: a chaotic situation requires more people involved, not less. Next.

The red herrings continue when he discusses ministers in both his and the UK government coming down with the virus. As referenced above, this is what assistant, deputy and acting ministers are for. Also, any ministers in Johnson’s government suffering from COVID are irrelevant to discussions of your power grab in Australia. The other major flaw in his reasoning is what if he himself had contracted the virus? If he truly was the indispensable minister because of the risk to others from the plague, how utterly stuffed would the government have been if he had COVID? Once again, his rationalisation does not work.

The Statement, Part Three: The Garbage Continues

Morrison continues with this:

The Parliament was suspended from sitting for a time and Cabinet and others meetings were unable to be held face to face, as occurred with businesses and the public more generally.

As Prime Minister I considered it necessary to put in place safeguards, redundancies and contingencies to ensure the continuity and effective operation of Government during this crisis period, which extended for the full period of my term.

To ensure oversight, the Government, with the support of the Opposition, established a concurrent public Senate Inquiry into the management of COVID that effectively ran for the duration of my term as Prime Minister.

Even if the meetings were unable to be held face to face, this is why video conferencing apps such as Zoom were invented. As I said in the last piece, you adapt convention and the law to circumstances rather than simply destroy them. Blaming the plague for your inability to do your job only goes so far. Further, you speak of safeguards and redundancies. Even if I buy the idea that such contingencies were necessary (ministers fall sick for various reasons all the time; such would be worse in a pandemic), this does not extend to vastly increasing your own personal power.

Finally, this oversight committee that you set up evidently was not effective since it somehow missed you swearing yourself into various ministries. Oh and nice attempt to blame the opposition there, too, but I see through it. You don’t get to blame the opposition here, Scotty, this is all on you.

The Statement, Part Four: Res Gestae Scotti Marketi (The Achievements of Scotty from Marketing)

The former Prime Minister continues:

In addition I took the precaution of being given authority to administer various departments of state should the need arise due to incapacity of a Minister or in the national interest. This was done in relation to departments where Ministers were vested with specific powers under their legislation that were not subject to oversight by Cabinet, including significant financial authorities.

Given the significant nature of many of these powers I considered this to be a prudent and responsible action as Prime Minister.

It is not uncommon for multiple Ministers to be sworn to administer the same Department. However, given that such additional Ministers were in a more junior position in the relevant Departments, and would not be familiar with all the details of the pandemic response, I considered it appropriate that the redundancy be put in place at a higher level within the Government and not at a more junior level.

Augustus would have been proud of that first sentence. You took the precaution of being given authority? This was forced on you? Oh get that garbage outta here!

The first sentence here is fascinating for another reason: did you see the subtle shift? The inclusion of ‘or in the national interest’ essentially generalises the extraordinary powers Morrison granted himself beyond the pandemic. The rationale here is seemingly contradictory. He seized control of these portfolios (purely as a precaution) because ‘Ministers were vested with specific powers…that were not subject to oversight by Cabinet’. Seriously? So because there was no Cabinet oversight of Ministerial action, you seized their portfolios? The mind reels!

He mentions the existence of additional ministers (deputies, assistants etc) but notes their junior status and consequent lack of familiarity with the details. The obvious follow-up here is why not bring them into the briefings? Why not bring the most senior active representative of a department into the briefings so they can become familiar with the details? It is not as though political convention was sacred to you.

The Statement, Part Five: Scotty on The Details

Mr Morrison finally gets to the point of what happened: his many ministries:

The major Department for which this was considered was the Health Department, given the extensive powers afforded to the Minister by the Biosecurity Act. This was put in place on March 14, 2020. The Department of Finance was added on March 30, 2020.

As an added administrative precaution, as a ‘belts and braces’ approach, the Departments of Treasury and Home Affairs were added some time after in May 2021. I did not consider it was likely that it would be necessary to exercise powers in these areas, but the future was very difficult to predict during the pandemic.

As events demonstrated with the resurgence of COVID-19 in the second half of 2021, we could never take certainty for granted. In hindsight these arrangements were unnecessary and until seeking advice from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet today, I had not recollected these arrangements having been put in place. There was a lot going on at the time.

It is true that then Health Minister Greg Hunt did have issues with his health, but once again, deputies and other junior associates exist. It was not necessary to concentrate his power in yourself. Finance and Treasury both had representatives inside your administration, at least one of whom (minister Cormann) did not know that you had seized his portfolio. In addition, is Home Affairs not separate from the pandemic? Your statement that you did not consider that these powers would need to be used renders curious your decision to take on these portfolios in the first place.

Finally, for this section, we have the classic ‘I do not recall’, which is political speak for ‘this happened but I don’t want to admit it’. Parasite. You do not recall being in charge control of five ministries simultaneously!? Just about the only true thing in this entire statement is the statement ‘these arrangements were unnecessary’. For once, Mr. Morrison, we agree, but for different reasons.

The Statement, Part Six: An Irrational Rationale

This rambling and incoherent justification continues with this:

Thankfully it was not necessary for me to trigger use of any of these powers. In the event that I would have to use such powers I would have done so disclosing the authority by which I was making such decisions. The authority was pre approved to ensure there would be no delay in being able to make decisions or take actions should the need arise.

The crisis was a highly dynamic environment and it was important to plan ahead and take what precautions could lawfully be put in place to ensure I could act, as Prime Minister, if needed.

It is important to note that throughout this time Ministers in all Departments, where I was provided with authority to act, exercised full control of their Departments and portfolios without intervention. Ministerial briefs were not copied to me as Prime Minister in a co-Minister capacity, as this was not the nature of the arrangement. These arrangements were there as a ‘break glass in case of emergency’ safeguard.

I also did not wish Ministers to be second guessing themselves or for there to be the appearance of a right of appeal or any diminishing of their authority to exercise their responsibilities, as this was not the intention of putting these arrangements in place. I simply wanted them to get on with their job, which they did admirably and I am grateful for their service.

The former Prime Minister is an eel. He did not have to use the powers, but if he did he would have disclosed the authority by which he acted. In other words, he was totally justified in keeping this power-grab secret because he never had to use the powers. He says again that the situation was dynamic and that safeguards needed to be in place, and my response is the same: assistants, deputies etc.

The second paragraph of this section is fascinating. Morrison says Ministers exercised their full authority without intervention. Fine, but he then admits that he himself did not receive copies of ministerial briefings. Earlier in his statement, he claimed that more junior members of the government would not be across the details and so it was necessary to put the fail-safes in higher levels of government. But then he admits he was not briefed. So how could he be across the details if he ever needed to exercise the power of a given ministry? If it truly was a ‘break glass in case of emergency situation, having someone not across the details of a situation as the fail-safe is at best useless, and at worst could cause the situation to deteriorate. This rationale is garbage.

The Statement, Part Seven: Jumping in the [Keith] Pitt

In reference to taking over the Resources and Energy Portfolio, Mr Morrison said that:

The decision in relation to the Department of Industry, Energy and Resources was undertaken in April 2021 for separate reasons. This was the consequence of my decision to consider the issues of the PEP11 license directly. Under the legislation the decision is not taken by Cabinet, but unilaterally by a Minister with authority to administer that Department.

I sought and was provided with the authority to administer matters in relation to this Department and considered this issue observing all the necessary advice and issues pertaining to the matter before making a decision, without prejudice, which I announced publicly.

Once having been given the authority to consider this matter I advised the Minister of my intention to do so and proceeded to consider the matter. I retained full confidence in Minister Pitt who I was pleased to have serve in my Ministry. I believe I made the right decision in the national interest. This was the only matter I involved myself directly with in this or any other Department.

The first sentence here says much: this decision was utterly separate from the pandemic and the associated crisis. Mr. Morrison just wanted a particular outcome and, since he could not direct the minister explicitly, he took the decision himself. Perhaps he should have tried to persuade Mr Pitt instead of grabbing power for himself. Also, why was it necessary to state that he made his decision ‘without prejudice’? Every decision Scott Morrison makes is (in my opinion) motivated by some external force (typically money). Finally, it is curious indeed that the only time he actually used his powers had nothing to do with the pandemic. Shock Doctrine, anyone?

The Statement, Part Eight: Conclusion

Morrison ends his rantings with the following

The use of the powers by a Prime Minister to exercise authority to administer Departments has clearly caused concern. I regret this, but acted in good faith in a crisis.

I used such powers on one occasion only. I did not seek to interfere with Ministers in the conduct of their portfolio as there were no circumstances that warranted their use, except in the case of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources which I have explained.

The pandemic has been a difficult time for Australia, although we have performed better than almost any other developed country in the world. There is no guide book in these circumstances and there is much commentary that will be offered in hindsight from the comfort of relatively calmer conditions. It is not surprising that some of this commentary will have a partisan or other motive, but that’s politics. In a democracy it is a positive thing for these issues to be discussed and for experience to inform future decisions and I hope my statement will help inform that process.

I have endeavoured to set out the context and reasoning for the decisions I took as Prime Minister in a highly unusual time. I did so in good faith, seeking to exercise my responsibilities as Prime Minister which exceeded those of any other member of the Government, or Parliament. For any offence to my colleagues I apologise. I led an outstanding team who did an excellent job and provided me great service and loyalty as Ministers.

The concern is not the use of Prime Ministerial power to administer various departments, but how you achieved this. You swore yourself into these various roles. I know you say you ‘sought authority’, but the sheer volume of lies you have told in the past makes any claim you make difficult to believe. Further, to claim that you acted in good faith is laughable. Alternatives to a vast expansion of Prime Ministerial power were available. To suggest that your intentions were pure is ludicrous.

You say that Australia has performed ‘better than almost any country in the world’. By what metric? In what way? That statement was almost Trumpian in its vagueness. Further, to claim that commentary and analysis have a partisan motive is an attempt to poison the well, delegitimising any criticism of your plainly unconstitutional actions as mere partisan hackery. It is entirely possible to be critical of you (as some of your colleagues, including former Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews, have been) without being partisan. Kindly cease conflating the two.

The final insult to the electorate within this barrage of nonsense is the phrase ‘for any offence to my colleagues, I apologise’. So you apologise to your fellow Liberals, but not to the nation as a whole? It is truly remarkable that you can make a statement like that and accuse your critics of partisanship. Get that garbage outta here! Finally, you did not lead ‘an outstanding team’. You led what was possibly the most incompetent, corrupt (in my opinion), cruel and destructive government in the history of the country.

Conclusion: The End of Scott Morrison

The former Prime Minister may spin this any way he likes, it does not look good. Swearing one’s self into several ministries (while not being briefed) in a blatant usurpation of Executive Authority vested in the Governor General renders both your and his positions untenable. It falls to you, Scott Morrison, to emulate that last iota of patriotism that Richard Nixon displayed on August 9th, 1974:

Resign.

By 2353NM

Some years ago, a plumber was telling me when they came back from the local pie shop with lunch to that day’s worksite, they heard someone inside. The plumber and his trades assistant were the only people scheduled to be on site that day, so they split up, covered both entrances to the building and discovered someone removing the copper pipe the plumber had spent the morning installing. The Plumber called the Police and detained the intruder. While waiting for the Police, the plumber asked the intruder what he was doing stealing copper pipe from building sites and was flabbergasted by the response, “I was recently made redundant and taking copper pipe and selling it was the only way I could think of to make an honest living”.

The mindset of the intruder seems similar to that of a number of conservative political leaders – the ends justify the means. An investigation by the Department of Home Affairs determined that former Prime Minister Morrison

pressured public servants to publicise the interception of an asylum seeker boat on the day of the May 2022 federal election, a damning report has found.

But the officials in Home Affairs had acted with integrity and refused to amplify a media statement they were forced to write about the Border Force operation unfolding on the high seas.

The report into the extraordinary circumstances surrounding one of the last acts of the previous Morrison government was prepared by the secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Michael Pezzullo AO.

The Liberal Party then sent text messages to ‘undecided’ voters early in the afternoon urging a vote for the Liberals and Nationals to ‘stop the boats’. Apart from the obscene use again of human suffering to make a political argument – something all Australians should be ashamed of – the action breached the Coalition’s 8-year facade of not commenting on ‘on water matters’.

Former Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews claims that no ‘caretaker’ conventions were breached, something that the investigation questions. According to media reports, the Coalition was pressuring public servants to upload a ministerial statement by Andrews, promote the boat arrival on social media as well as briefing ‘selected’ reporters.

A departmental statement was eventually issued minutes after Mr Morrison announced the interception in his final press conference as prime minister, but the report concluded officials refused requests to post it on social media or send it directly to journalists.

The report also reveals public servants were pressured to upload the statement online, with a publishing delay leading one ministerial staffer to write “a lot of people are furious”.

Fortunately, the public servants understood impartiality.

Alan Kohler recently wrote in The New Daily about a discussion he had with US Economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz. Stilglitz has apparently never been a supporter of the conservative ‘freedom’ and ‘small government’ ideology

“This is a revolution. We are at a juncture in history where the tide has turned. Forty years of ideology of markets and experiments in many countries has failed. The last straw was COVID-19.”

By which he meant, among other things, that America’s market-based economy was unable to supply its citizens with masks and they had to get them from China. And the mRNA vaccine breakthrough was the result of government money, not private enterprise.

Other market failures cited by Kohler are Germany’s reliance on gas from Russia, currently subject to supply restrictions due to ‘maintenance issues’ and the USA importing baby formula as the company that had half their market was forced to close down until product safety could be improved.

Kohler then considered other options and wondered if the small government ideology was religious after all. He quotes a small part of Morrison’s recent 50 minute ‘sermon’ at a Pentecostal Church service in Perth

“God’s kingdom will come. It is in his hands. We trust in him; we don’t trust in governments. We don’t trust in the United Nations. We don’t trust in all of these things, fine as they might be, and as important as the role that they play. Believe me, I’ve worked in it, and they are important. But, as someone who’s been in it, if you are putting your faith in those things, like I put my faith in the Lord, you are making a mistake. They’re earthly. They are fallible. I’m so glad we have a bigger hope.”

A concerning statement from a current Member of Parliament and on a par with a lot of conservative politicians from the USA. According to Kohler, discussions with unnamed members of the Morrison cabinet suggested Morrison was a ‘believer’ when it suited him, so that wasn’t the reason for Morrison’s behaviours either.

Morrison – like Abbott and Howard – attempted to remake the ‘broad church’ of Menzies’ Liberal Party into a far more conservative and narrowly focused organisation. Current Opposition Leader Dutton shows no sign of encouraging greater diversity of thought or action in the current Parliament than Morrison did when Prime Minister. Is this due to a religious belief that God rewards those that trust in him or is it a case of doing whatever it takes to gain and retain power along with the trappings that are afforded to the powerful?

What do you think?

Even typing those words has an unreal feeling. Will he come back? Will his poisonous personality rear up out of the darkness? Will he make a miraculous comeback? Or will he pull the pin on his parliamentary career, and move to the U.S. where some believe he belongs?

Some might find such trepidation, caused by one very unimpressive individual to be over-wrought, but it is no exaggeration to describe him as a catastrophe dodged.

The single worst prime minister in our history, aided and abetted by the most aimless, and spineless collection of chancers and rent-seekers ever gathered. And yet he went close to setting up a government which was almost impossible to remove.

The power of the Murdoch press pack is still very much in evidence in Australia, but the rise of the independent media, and the very powerful effect of the Twittersphere, undermined what looked like a forever government.

Anthony Albanese’s day 1 failure to name the unemployment figure also gave rise to fears that Labor’s run would be sabotaged. The performance of the ABC and its political commentators was woeful, probably fuelled by the constant threats of funding cuts, and the intimidation by the ministry.

But failures in disaster management, naked vote-buying which favoured, as always, LNP electorates; the performance of electoral liabilities like Matt Canavan and George Christensen was a reminder of how low our democracy had fallen.

On any measure now the opposition will be made up of the remnants of the shattered Liberal Party, and also by those in the National Party who escaped annihilation by the skin of their teeth, but are too obtuse to know that their time must be nearly up.

Peter Dutton is so spectacularly unsuitable as a leader of anything, that it immediately forces one to cast around for something, anyone, to present an alternative government. Of course looking at Dutton’s performance since rising to the leadership could fill one with despair.

Instead of looking contrite and accepting the crushing verdict of the voters, his first words as opposition leader were to suggest that he would be ‘on hand’ to clean up Labor’s “inevitable mess” in 2025.

No sense of looking for redemption. No shame regarding his own failures, from his first days as a minister. No embarrassment regarding Australia’s fall from grace within the international community. No regrets about the fate of refugees, stranded and victimised by a series of bullies, as Morrison allowed his cabinet to participate in some group cruelty.

Appointing Angus Taylor as the Treasury shadow serves to highlight the lack of able members to choose from. His known difficulty with numbers, a la Clover Moore, and also emissions reduction, and his vulnerability on matters of integrity regarding water related matters, means that possibly the most important role in opposition is being filled by someone who will struggle, especially against such a polished performer as Jim Chalmers.

There was never any acknowledgement that the election was fought on climate action, fixing corruption and a demand for honest government. Every action the LNP took, from the botched pre-selections in New South Wales, to the last minute weaponisation of prejudice against trans-gender kids, to the memories of Robodebt, added up to a tone-deaf government which people did not just want gone, but one that many actually feared.

The only possible excuse for the conscious bastardry shown by the LNP through nine long years is that they were all struck with a group hysteria, in which they lost their minds, and their moral compasses, in the naked arrogance of never-ending power.

That is why so many in the community, with little or no interest in politics, finally woke up to the nasty excesses, the blame shifting and the outright theft, and mis-use of taxpayers’ funds.

How can we be expected to accept members of parliament with the obvious character flaws of some of the casualties of ‘the reckoning’? For such it was.

We woke up that the leader was from a religious cult, who only recently admitted, through a ‘sermon’ he gave at Margaret Court’s very own church, that he doesn’t believe in government, and thus does not believe in democracy.

His playbook was spectacularly unsuited to Australian conditions. We are not a nation of religious bigots. We are not a nation of patriarchal misogynists. We are a nation which has always honoured the principles of fairness and justice before the law.

We have always believed that our representatives must act in a manner befitting their high status, and the rewards which accrue to politicians.

Morrison and his ‘vandals’ trashed the conventions, laying bare the lack of regulation and accountability, which had never been so nakedly exposed as it was by the behaviour of the LNP government.

If you are confronted by visions of Barnaby Joyce, apparently the worse for wear railing about whatever the issue of the day was, then Australia’s voters decided to disempower this collection of misfits, and to give the other team a go.

Anthony Albanese is not much of a speaker, and he can stumble on a simple answer, but he appears to be decent, caring, and competent. These qualities are in short supply, and especially on the opposition front bench.

Simon Birmingham is what I would call an old fashioned Liberal. He appears to be decent, caring, and competent. I expect that in the not too distant future, the LNP rump, following a couple of disastrous polls on Dutton and Ley, will decide the neo-liberal far right experiment has failed, and will attempt to reset the coalition.

Sadly the coalition parties have been stripped of talent, and so we could see a Labor government for years to come. That poses a series of future problems. A good government needs a good opposition. Morrison has pretty much made that impossible.

If you want an example of the Australian media’s ingrained toxicity, the reporting of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s decision on Saturday to reinstate COVID payments to casual workers is a splendid one.

Mr Albanese had earlier and wrongly decided that the payments, mandated to end on June 30 by the previous LNP government, should not be renewed. This unwise decision, taken in the midst of surging infection around the country, provoked alarm from many quarters including some media. It was accompanied by startlingly ill-informed comments from the Prime Minister, suggesting that “good employers” ensure that their casual employees can work from home when unwell. A great deal of casual employment cannot be undertaken “from home,” a fact one hopes would not escape a Labor Prime Minister’s notice.

However, after taking the criticism on board Mr Albanese announced that the payments would be extended until September and backdated, so no one would suffer from his earlier error in judgement.

Media, including the Canberra Times ($), the Sydney Morning Herald the Australian, Sky News, the Guardian and 6 News Australia are among those who chose to report these events as a “backflip” by the Prime Minister. “Backflip” is a derogatory term only ever used by media to imply weakness and inconsistency. The use of that one word signified the negative nature of their narrative. Albanese had not “reconsidered after listening to critics.” Albanese had “caved under pressure.”

“Backflip” in this context is a failed metaphor. All backflips result in the performer facing the direction from which they began the action so are not a change at all, but rather an elaborate means of returning to the same point of view. Nonetheless, the word has become a fundamental component of the lexicon of political commentary. This in itself could be considered a metaphor for the state of the industry.

The message conveyed to politicians is toxic: You must change this decision but if you do we will attack you for your weakness and inconsistency.

If you continue to attack someone for making a change for the better you’re likely more invested in attack than you are in change. Regrettably, our media frequently create the impression that they are far more dedicated to furthering the former than the latter. So wedded are they to negativity they are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that a government capable of reversing its bad decisions is a democratic rather than an autocratic body, and the kind of government we so desperately need at this time.

The “backflip” narrative is an elaboration of the press conference “gotcha” moment so beloved by many Australian journalists. It’s nothing to do with speaking truth to power or responsibly informing the public, rather when it works it’s a “look at me” reporter’s power trip, an opportunity to momentarily grab the spotlight if a politician can be made to look foolish, inept, or ignorant.

The moment a journalist employs the term “backflip” they have fallen into editorialising. They have made a choice, perhaps unconsciously given the prevalent misuse of the term, to contaminate their reportage with biased language rather than simply reporting the facts. It is a fact that the former Morrison government mandated the termination of COVID payments on June 30th. It is a fact that Mr Albanese initially intended to uphold that termination. It is a fact that he reconsidered this decision and extended and backdated the payment. A choice is made by journalists as to how to present these facts to the public: as reconsideration, or backflip. There is a glaring difference in the impressions created by these two words.

While we have managed to elect a new government, we are still stuck with the same old media who cannot or will not imagine a non-toxic politics. This will likely not be the last time the Albanese government may have to change its position. Any government must be granted the space in which to reverse bad decisions without enduring toxic criticism from toxic media who are more interested in furthering discord than they are in facilitating positive change.

The Coalition came to power in 2013 with the promise to wreck things and they didn’t disappoint.

Labor had introduced a price on carbon that was working well. It encouraged polluters to reduce emissions, investment in renewable energy, and research and development. It gave money to farmers for carbon abatement. Trade exposed industries were compensated as were consumers with a tripling of the tax-free threshold, increased pensions and energy supplements to welfare recipients.

We also had a tax on mining superprofits with the revenue to be redistributed via company tax cuts, small business instant asset write-offs, increasing the superannuation guarantee and super tax concessions, an infrastructure fund for the states, increases to family tax benefits, a supplementary allowance for those on income support, plus the schoolkids bonus.

And then along came Tones who got rid of it all.

Investors in clean energy fled as the Coalition “axed the tax” and cut the renewable energy target. Soaring profits from mining continue to be funnelled off to foreign shareholders as they squeeze every cent of profit from what are fast becoming stranded assets, leaving this energy rich nation to deal with exorbitant power prices and the insecurity of an aging fossil fuel generation fleet.

Under the Gillard government, a real FttP rollout of the NBN had begun.

Abbott’s response to this nation building infrastructure as he instructed then shadow communications minister Malcolm Turnbull to “demolish” it?

“The Government is going to invest $43 billion worth of hard-earned money in what I believe is going to turn out to be a white elephant on a massive scale. We can be certain the NBN will be to this term of government what pink batts and school halls were to the last term of government.”

It is telling that they chose Murdoch’s Fox Sports studio to announce the demolition.

We are now paying billions to redo NBN connections to all those poor bunnies who had the totally inadequate FttN thrust upon them.

Over the last nine years, our relations with other countries soured. Our rankings for human rights, transparency and corruption, and press freedom have all tumbled, as has trust in government and other institutions.

These will all have to be rebuilt.

From the way Peter Dutton has started as leader, it seems the wrecking mentality continues in the federal Coalition. Luckily, the Australian electorate has made them irrelevant.

A person’s appearance is the most challenging thing to write about because one doesn’t want to be insulting. Nevertheless, when such things have a direct bearing on the electability of an individual, the writer needs to make a judgement.

Many factors come into play when accessing one’s ability to lead, and I referred to them many times during the past decade when criticising Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison.

Now the Liberal Party have elected Peter Dutton as their leader and finds themselves confronting the same problem: a leader has no character.

His appearance is but one of the numerous flaws that make him unelectable. At times his appearance can be positively frightening. I watched an interview with him last week in which he appeared grotesque to the point wherein he looked menacing, even absurd. Perhaps it was the lighting, but his face seemed to lack definition. From it, two small black eyes appeared. The right one was blacker than the other.

No doubt he can be a frightening-looking man. Women, in particular, I’d assume find him so. I’m not being silly here, but perhaps he should consult a make-up artist.

But let’s take a few steps backwards and do a background check.

Wikipedia tells us that:

“Peter Dutton … is an Australian politician who has been Leader of the Liberal Party and Leader of the Opposition since May 2022. He has represented the Queensland seat of Dickson in the House of Representatives since 2001 and held ministerial office in the Howard, Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Coalition Governments.

Early Life

Dutton was born on 18 November 1970 in the northern Brisbane suburb of Boondall. He is the eldest of five children, with one brother and three sisters. His mother, Ailsa Leitch, worked in childcare, and his father, Bruce Dutton, was a builder. Dutton finished high school at the Anglican St Paul’s School, Bald Hills.

Police career

Upon leaving high school, Dutton graduated from the Queensland Police Academy in 1990. He served as a Queensland Police officer for nearly a decade, working in the drug squad in Brisbane in the early 1990s. He also worked in the sex offenders squad and with the National Crime Authority. In 1999, Dutton left the Queensland Police, achieving the rank of senior detective constable.

Business activities

On leaving the police, Dutton completed a Bachelor of Business at the Queensland University of Technology. He and his father founded the business Dutton Holdings, registered in 2000; it operated under six different trading and business names. The company bought, renovated, and converted buildings into childcare centres, and in 2002 it sold three childcare centres to the now-defunct ABC Learning. ABC Learning continued to pay rent of $100,000 to Dutton Holdings. Dutton Holdings continues to trade under the name Dutton Building & Development.

Note: A comprehensive biography of Peter Dutton is available on Wikipedia, and I suggest you go there if you require more information.

What we know about his character

(My apologies for repeating what I wrote a little over a fortnight ago, but I feel that it was important to include in this article).

1 Let’s begin when:

“… News Corp Sunday political editor Samantha Maiden wrote a column critical of Jamie Briggs. Dutton drafted a text message to Briggs describing Maiden as a “mad fucking witch” but inadvertently sent it to Maiden. Maiden accepted an apology from Dutton.”

2 Before the 2016 election, Dutton said of refugees:

“… many won’t be numerate or literate in their own language let alone English”, and “These people would be taking Australian jobs”. Turnbull defended Dutton by stating he is an “outstanding Immigration Minister”.

3 And this:

“Dutton denied claims made by Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young that she was spied on during a visit to Nauru.”

4 But:

“The spying claims were later confirmed by the Immigration Department and Wilson Security who carried out the spying operation.”

The spying claims were later confirmed by the Immigration Department and Wilson Security, who carried out the spying operation.

5 When the then-prime minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Stolen Generations in 2008, Dutton was the only member of the Coalition frontbench to ‘boycott’ the apology.

He excused his absence by saying the apology was:

“I regarded it as something which was not going to deliver tangible outcomes to kids who are being raped and tortured in communities in the 21st century,”

– Dutton explaining why he boycotted the apology to the Stolen Generations.

And he thinks he’s fit to be next PM #auspol

— Kon Karapanagiotidis (@Kon__K) May 25, 2022

Dutton continued and said:

“Now, if I thought for a moment that it was going to deliver positive outcomes to those kids, to their families, to those communities, then I would support it in a heartbeat. But I thought it distracted us from that.”https://t.co/KTBcmEJ4Ob

— Kon Karapanagiotidis (@Kon__K) May 25, 2022

Five years ago Dutton told the Sydney Morning Herald that he didn’t understand its symbolism and importance to Indigenous people at the time. This was when his name was being brought up as a potential future PM. This albatross around his neck over the apology has been there – and will continue to be there – for some considerable time. He can make all the excuses he likes, but he’s going to have fun trying to find someone who believes his excuses.

5 Sudanese gangs. In January,2018, Dutton claimed people in Melbourne were “scared to go out to restaurants” due to “African gang violence”.

6 Peter Dutton resigned from the Police Force 20 years ago, but a cloak of mystery has always hung over it.

In his maiden speech in Parliament in 2001, Dutton said he’d witnessed:

“… the best and the worst that society has to offer during his time in the force.

I have seen the wonderful, kind nature of people willing to offer any assistance to those in their worst hour, and I have seen the sickening behaviour displayed by people who, frankly, barely justify their existence…”

Interesting observation. I wonder which one has had the most influence in his political career.

7 Mr Dutton, during the 2019 election, was forced to apologise after he accused his rival of using her disability as an excuse to not move into the electorate.

8 He thought that performing an anti-marriage equality song at the NRL Grand Final was a good idea. Because it was “free speech”.

Dutton also criticised a list of 20 high-profile CEOs who signed a letter urging the prime minister to legislate for same-sex marriage and singled out Qantas CEO Alan Joyce.

“If Alan Joyce and any other CEO wants to campaign on this or any other issue in their own time and on their own time, good luck to them,” he told a Queensland LNP conference crowd.

9 Dutton did, however, raise a few eyebrows when he suggested “special treatment” of white South African farmers earlier this year, claiming they were being “persecuted” and faced “horrific circumstances”. Apparently, this didn’t go down well in South Africa – its government demanded Dutton retract his comments.

10 In 2015 Dutton joked about the plight of Pacific Island nations facing rising sea levels due to climate change. And who was he telling the joke to? Well, none other than Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. Abbott was prime minister then and had just returned from talks with Pacific Island leaders about climate change in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

They were late for a meeting about Syrian refugees, and Dutton remarked that they were running to “Cape York time“. Abbott replied that there was “a bit of that up in Port Moresby.”

“Time doesn’t mean anything when you’re about to have water lapping at your door,” Dutton quipped back.

11 Peter Dutton identifies as a Christian, but his public activities in that space are rare.

12 More recently, as the new Opposition Leader, Dutton suggested that specific portfolios required a different tone or a different language than others and that he hoped people wouldn’t judge him by it.

13 Dutton’s wealth – including extensive property holdings and his wife’s childcare business – continues to be a talking point. Estimates have been anywhere between $5million and $300million, depending on who you read and how it is calculated. I have no idea what his worth is, and I refuse to engage in speculation.

Summary

After all the racist overtones, the belittling comments, the callus detachment and straight-out xenophobia, is he really saying it was only an act because that’s what different portfolios demanded? How insulting to those who sought our refuge and demeaning to those who would offer it. And how evil of those who would believe him.

Dutton’s worldview seems to have been formed from a series of pessimistic experiences without comprehending the meaning of optimism.

And for old time’s sake:

#AnthonyAlbanese: "Sit down, Boofhead!" #Peter Dutton: "Glass jaw!"
A moment of real intensity between two men who both want to be Prime Minister during #QuestionTime. @10NewsFirst pic.twitter.com/S1EJu9zTo8

— Hugh Riminton (@hughriminton) November 30, 2021

My last post: Why is Scott Morrison remaining in the Parliament?