**************************************************
The Sunday Roast #30 - September 20, 2020
Australia is struggling with its identity.
The things that once made us who we are, as a nation, are becoming
increasingly irrelevant.
We are struggling to identify what precisely defines someone as an
'Australian'.
Many countries have cultural customs.
Pick a country, any country.
Whether you agree or disagree, like or dislike a country's cultural
customs, it is those customs that identify a nation and its citizens.
Australia has almost no cultural identity anymore and it's not good.
Does it have a negative effect on the nation? Just a little.
Does society suffer for it? Only slightly.
Life continues on - as normal as it can - as we are only now beginning to
get a glimpse of what a post-covid Australia may look like.
The nation may not typically suffer through the lack of national identity
in the same way as fiscal mismanagement can inflict national suffering,
but it does have the potential to set us back internationally because
without any national identity, we will continue to be referenced as the
nation downunder where kangaroos roam freely, Or worse, we will continue
to be referenced as a puppet to the United States.
While I believe we should remain proud to be known as the "nation
downunder" where "kangaroos roam freely", I equally believe that we can
do better.
We deserve better.
So what do we generally fall back on to unite us and give us all a sense
of Australian pride? Sport.
When I was writing this column, it was fit for purpose that I had the
Supercars motor racing on the television, in the background.
It provoked a fitting thought.
My earliest memories of the Supercars date back to the early years of the
1990s.
I don't quite recall the exact name of the series at the time, but the
cars were known as simply touring cars or super tourers.
The series has gone through many iterations to bring it to its current
format.
I'd argue the recent regulation changes which force compulsory tire
usage, combined with the shortened sprint race format, have ruined the
sport I once loved.
The point is though, whatever the series name and format, Supercars has
always been as much of a pillar of national pride and identity as the
AFL, NRL and cricket.
I think this much is evident when you consider the Bathurst 1000.
The race is watched by much of the nation, including people that
generally have no interest in motor racing.
Why? Because it's a very Australian thing to do.
But I think the pillars have tumbled.
Australia has always been known as a sporting nation, yet the domestic
covid crisis has crippled just about every sporting code we watch and
love.
The Supercars have been forced to make massive changes to adapt the
season to current circumstances that nobody could have foreseen.
The AFL and NRL managed to push forward too, but with highly modified
fixtures.
The passion for the die-hard fans is still there, but remains subdued.
The covid crisis hasn't killed our premium sporting codes, but it has
changed them greatly.
With the summer of cricket just around the corner, that proceeding as
usual looks increasingly uncertain.
Without Australia's much beloved sport to give us a sense of pride and
identity, we've effectively become soulless.
Society appears to have adapted and become complacent with the identity
crisis that the nation is suffering.
Culturally, we are a lost cause.
Yet nobody cares.
Is that perhaps a culture in itself that Australia has embraced? Lack of
interest, lack of care and complacency with the present, irrespective of
how serious an issue is.
I'd like to hope and believe that we can drum up a bit more of an
interesting national persona than that, because that is an awful
proposition to have to consider.
*****
Outside Perspective #29 - August 11, 2020
It's very frustrating when self-righteous political (or anti-political)
mouthpieces decontextualize data and use it with their own adjectives and
adverbs to twist facts to fit their theories and agendas.
This fierce assessment refers to a recent story by The Epoch Times which
reported the corporate presence of Chinese officials within the offices
of ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok.
The Epoch Times is an anti-China left-wing news outlet, but it has swayed
so far left it is no longer balanced in publication.
Yes, China does a lot to ensure businesses comply with the requests of
their government.
This does include the government sending employees to the companies to
audit and advise them on their activities to ensure the corporate
activities are reflective of the interests of the Chinese regime.
But then, so does every other country in the world.
America has dozens of Federal departments from the major branches (DOJ,
Treasury, Congress, Executive etc.) that get headlines when they
investigate some business and request cooperation with their agency in
pursuit of data or executives.
Australia is just as guilty.
Investigating Rio Tinto, ABC or News Corp for some politically motivated
charge or another.
We simply don't refer to it as government interference and certainly
don't see it as any kind of government requirement.
The fact is, that it is all part of the corporate requirements of doing
business and it all amounts to the same thing as what China is doing.
The only difference is how it is portrayed in the media.
All American companies are required to be audited by a third-party
company to check its legal compliance.
Typically, its Federal politicians mandate being included on summaries of
these confidential documents to ensure that the company isn't missing an
opportunity to volunteer support to their campaign.
Federal representatives regularly visit companies like Google, AT&T,
banks and any company that does business with government contractors.
All levels of American government are constantly requesting information
from any company that has a sufficiently large database, including advert
brokers, big retailers, financial institutions, news outlets, casinos
etc.
China is a tightly monitored country, but so is the US and many other
'free' countries also.
It's just that media like to portray, again, China as the 'bad guy' and
completely ignore so many of the same things that happen on domestic
soil.
Perhaps it may be on a lesser scale, but many things are happening that
go unreported out of convenience of upsetting the narrative.
In most cases, the amount of interference from China's government is no
more intrusive or destructive than that of the US.
Americans want to claim our high moral ground, but at the end of the day,
sending Federal troops into US cities to put down protests is no
different than what China has done with Hong Kong.
So many Americans are convinced that President Trump must have some good
reason to be forcing companies to bribe The White House in order to get
permits to do stuff that is already regulated sufficiently.
TikTok is a prime example.
Just as ByteDance starts an IPO for $50billion, the President threatens
to cut them off, unless of course an American company buys them out.
This means that Microsoft is going to need to offer close to the
$50billion and, in order to complete the deal, probably divest some of
its existing services.
Possibly Skype and LinkedIn, or, possibly a couple of other businesses it
owns too, then pay a sum of $20billion 'consulting fee' to the Executive
branch for making the deal possible in the first place.
This is not how it should work, but is how it does work.
You probably just don't know that much about it because the media isn't
telling you.
Guest post by Brett Brennan.
*****
The Sunday Roast #29 - August 9, 2020
Australia is in a politically challenging position.
Thankfully, the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is aware of the
challenges our country faces in the immediate and long-term, and is
responding.
Australia's tensions with China have been stewing for years.
So many years in fact, that it has become difficult to point out a
specific incident that ignited tensions.
I think the tensions have been fuelled through the organic progression of
international politics.
Recent illustrations of the tensions became obvious when Malcolm Turnbull
was Prime Minister.
One notable national response by Australia has been the banning of
Chinese owned global networking giant, Huawei, from contributing to any
core parts of the networks that will make up Australia's national 5G
grid.
The grid is still in development and is expanding, albeit much slower and
at a much greater expense to what it could have been prior to the ban of
Huawei.
Telstra has led the 5G investment charge with a pretty aggressive roll-
out of its new 5G network.
At present, performance is much less than the capacity of what 5G is
technically capable.
Telstra continues to assure its customers that it will improve.
Secondary telcos are also making large investment in their own 5G
networks, but again, it's a brutally slow roll-out and there can be
little doubt the Huawei ban has hurt the entire telco sector.
I have been frequently informed by reliable sources that Huawei was never
any security threat to any Western 5G network, let alone Australia's.
I'm still being told Huawei poses no security threat.
I have always argued that if banning Huawei was a matter of national
security then intelligence agencies have a responsibility to be
transparent and produce some form of evidence to justify such serious and
zealous claims against Huawei.
No Australian intelligence authority has yet provided any evidence that
indicates that Huawei is a security threat.
It's not just Australia that has failed to produce any intelligence
either.
Our 'Five Eyes' intelligence partners from the US, Britain, Canada and
New Zealand have all failed to produce anything.
Nothing! In fact, of all associated parties, Huawei has been the most
transparent and has even offered to set up security research centers in
countries where their products can be assessed for the alleged security
threats.
The 'Five Eyes' has consistently denied such proposals as any kind of
viable solution to their security concerns.
As an added note, the US networking giant of Cisco and its competitors
have negative track records of security breaches and vulnerabilities,
which has at times exposed the data of millions of American and
international internet users.
On many occasions, US intelligence and law enforcement authorities have
deliberately exploited known vulnerabilities to complement their own
domestic and global spying operations.
"Huawei is bad" has been pure political propaganda from the US, fobbed
off to Australia and other allies.
While Britain, Canada and New Zealand had varying domestic decision
making processes that were carried out to reach a conclusion on Huawei,
there was an eventual line of unity drawn for the 'Five Eyes' nations - a
unity which has resulted in any member nation even considering catering
for Huawei in their core 5G networks placing themselves at risk of being
frowned upon by the US.
In a world full of international geopolitical tension, it is often just
accepted that democracy loving countries need to stand together whether
they agree with the path the US paves or not.
Let's face it, Australia needs the US.
That shouldn't put any spotlight of unimportance on Australia though, as
the US needs Australia too as we play a crucial role in maintaining peace
in the Asia/Pacific region.
Despite Australia's attempts to publicly paint a portrait that Australia
makes key security decisions with our own sovereign interests at the core
of the decision making, there is little doubt that pleasing US interests
probably have more of an influence.
I'm starting to see similarities between Huawei and TikTok, with the
increase in hostilities towards Chinese owned social media platform,
TikTok.
The politics of TikTok are complicated, as are the politics of Huawei.
Huawei was part of the secret US trade policies to keep its allies
aligned with American hegemony, not necessarily their sovereign
interests.
US allies knew this.
While this behavior is all part of normal geopolitical engagements that
occur on a regular basis without so much as a twitch from anyone, it's
also part of the right-wing attack policy manifesto to create a 'bad guy'
image of China, where China is being portrayed to the regular freedom
loving citizen as deliberately engaging in bad things, against the US and
the West, and contrary to the principles of democracy.
American business knew exactly what they were doing when they educated
the Chinese on proprietary business techniques.
They knew it would start the clock ticking on how long they could remain
the sole supplier of the world's most advanced technology.
Huawei, the company, has been caught in the web of East/West geopolitical
culture wars.
Now, TikTok is at risk of getting caught in the same web.
Through joining the dots, it was obvious that the US was trying to
control China's influence on the West, by effectively limiting Huawei's
business activities.
What differs with TikTok, is that it is still unclear what the intentions
are this time.
TikTok poses no security risk to the national security of the US, or its
allies.
So the US is unable to play the national security risk card with TikTok.
The personal data of millions of American teenage TikTok users is of
concern, yes.
But in my view, that's only a small problem, really.
And one that could easily be resolved through forcing the operators of
TikTok to store the personal data of US citizens on servers within US
jurisdiction.
It seems President Trump can quickly conjure Executive Orders which ban
whatever bothers him at the time.
If that is what the Trump administration sees as a valid and legal system
of government decision making then I see no reason Trump could not have
provided the operators of TikTok the option to migrate the data of US
citizens, or be banned for failing to comply.
So, there doesn't appear to be any urgent national security problem
related to TikTok.
The aforementioned data problem posed by TikTok could be easily resolved.
We are left to wonder and speculate what precisely is the problem with
TikTok.
To be fair to the platform, it doesn't really collect any data that
differs from that of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter et al.
Microsoft is showing definite interest in a US acquisition of TikTok.
Twitter has shown interest too, albeit limited to some form of
technological cooperative rather than a full acquisition.
It's hard to imagine Twitter outbidding Microsoft in any bidding war for
a TikTok acquisition.
Scott Morrison has made it very clear this week that an Australian TikTok
ban is not currently being considered.
That has really thrown cold water on any potential for the national
security excuse to be played by the US, or by the 'Five Eyes'.
It is certainly not good to speculate, so I will wait for now, as there
is undoubtedly more to play out yet.
*****
Outside Perspective #28 - July 14, 2020
I'm tired of trying to explain science.
You social distance to reduce the number of viruses that get to you.
You wear a mask to finish the job, by reducing the number of particles to
the point where the few that you do actually breath in are taken out by
your innate immune response.
SARS-CoV-2 is actually not that contagious.
It has an uncontrolled infection rate (R0) of between 1 and 3, depending
on the situation.
So 3 means one contagious person infects three fresh people.
Because each disease has different infection characteristics, infection
only happens when all the conditions are met.
Measles, for example, has an R0 of 12-15.
Each person with measles will infect 12-15 other people before they stop.
Since measles is a rapid infection, the person spreading it is only
exposing others for a day or two before their illness takes them out of
interactions.
Measles infects a person with only a few hundred virus in the blood
stream.
It reproduces rapidly and causes symptoms in just a few hours.
That's why one child with measles can wipe out an entire school if the
rest of the students aren't vaccinated or survivors.
But, if 85% or more of the students are vaccinated or survivors, the
chance of encountering a susceptible victim is low enough that the
contagious student will be too sick to stay before finding someone to
infect.
This is what is called "herd immunity".
All of this is important to understand the difference between Measles and
Covid.
Covid doesn't spread rapidly (R0<3), and it takes longer to make a victim
sick enough to stay home.
Usually about 7-10 days.
What this means is that in order to contract a Covid infection, you have
to spend more time near someone that is infectious (hour(s)) and you need
high concentrations of the virus in the air, on surfaces, on clothes, on
hands etc.
If people are wandering around Coles, Woolworths or Aldi and are few
enough that the virus is dilute in the air and not on many surfaces, it
is actually very hard to get infected.
Social distancing of 2-3m is plenty with conditions of fair air
circulation.
In the US, however, it just doesn't happen.
People pile into Walmart or Safeway, or at the beach where other people
are much less than a meter apart and are exchanging breathing,
constantly.
Because of the summer heat, air is recirculated constantly with nearly no
exchange.
And even at the beach, with fresh breeze, people are sitting at tables
within 25cm of each other drinking beverages.
The concentration overwhelms the immune system, and while it's not
measles, the spread is accelerated.
In my home State of Arizona, we have new Covid cases of over 1000 per
day.
Bullhead City is adding just under 100 per day, in a province with about
70,000 people.
Wearing masks would help to eliminate 80-90% of these new cases.
Unfortunately, masks are only used between 20%-50% of the time in crowded
environments.
Most of those are over 65 demographic.
20-60 year olds have between 5%-20% compliance and are the demographics
most likely to gather in large groups.
So Australia simply has the low population density that allows social
distancing alone to work, hence its success in reducing infection rates
without high rates of people wearing masks.
The US doesn't have that luxury.
Unfortunately with distortions and lies in US media more prevalent and
believable than actual science, no matter how much evidence is presented,
it's already considered 'Liberal Lies'.
We have the constant situation of Governors split on the subject, or
kicking the problem down to Mayors and County Supervisors.
I think what worked in Australia wasn't just social distancing or masks.
It was full lock-down, which actually eliminates the requirement for
social distancing and masks by simply preventing any gatherings, period.
The 'problem' has shifted from isolation to just how we can return to
life as we knew it, where humans physically interact again.
People are going to be part of the solution.
Social distancing only works when everyone takes an active role and
coordinates their actions.
If there are hour-long queues to get into Aldi, social cooperation will
last until the first person pushes past the guard.
For all the politics of America's response to Covid, we tried the same
route.
And it failed on the first day.
Maybe it's because we only have mega-stores like Walmart and not
something as tiny as Aldi.
We were incapable of social distancing without draconian lock-down
measures.
Now we're doing social distancing and masks, where even that has
degenerated to a political power struggle.
Guest post by Brett Brennan.
*****
The Sunday Roast #28 - July 12, 2020
Oh, the mask debate...
how tiring it has become.
It's tiresome for both sides.
Advocates of wearing a mask are tired of telling people to "wear a mask",
while those that refuse to wear a mask, whatever their reason, are sick
of being told to wear one.
I'm sure each side has their reasons, but the subject has quickly shifted
from a debate of the benefits of each position, to become a question of
which side is right and which is wrong.
Today, we saw images of US President Donald Trump wearing a mask for the
first time.
These images shocked the world because up to this point, Trump has held a
firm position of not wearing a mask.
What has become more common though is celebrity profiles wearing a mask.
I'm sure you've noticed this while scrolling through your Instagram!
Heck, even political press conferences have become an opportunity to
advocate the message of "wear a mask".
I think there are some problems though which continue to go
unacknowledged and conveniently ignored.
I think there is still a lot of unsurety about the actual reasons of
wearing a mask.
Whichever side you choose, I think the same problem is applicable.
The problem is people are making decisions for ideological reasons,
instead of what should be decisions made on conclusive scientific data.
There is an innocent lack of clear knowledge and understanding of the
facts associated with the use of protective masks and the message needs
to be much better defined.
Currently, masks are being framed as offering a high level of protection
from Covid-19 infection when it's simply not the case.
What we do know, based on scientific data - let me repeat that, based on
scientific data - is that wearing a mask adds another layer of protection
which should always be accompanied with appropriate and required social
distancing rules that are currently in effect, to best protect from
Covid-19 infection.
At best, a mask will only minimize infection risk by up to 60%, or near.
A mask on its own is not sufficient and there is no scientific data to
prove it, to the best of my understanding.
From my understanding at the time I write this column, there is no peer
reviewed scientific data which concludes definitively that even the
highest quality mask, on its own, will protect a person from Covid-19
infection.
Instead, the risk reduction still appears to be very limited.
There is perhaps a legitimate reason the science on protective masks is
still lapse and inconclusive.
Perhaps it has simply been a classic historical case where psychological
effect of wearing a mask has convinced so many, over a long period of
time, that it adds a sufficient level of protection and nobody saw any
requirement of producing any scientific data.
I don't know for sure.
But what I do know, is with the continued rise in infection rates of
Covid-19 around the world, the lack of conclusive scientific data to
prove the effectiveness of wearing a mask without complementing it with
social distancing protocols is actually not helping the advocacy and
messaging for wearing a mask.
The lack of conclusive scientific data is being used as ammunition,
validly, to boost the position of those who choose to not wear a mask.
Simply questioning the benefits of wearing a mask of those that have
already convinced themselves that wearing a mask offers a high level of
protection often returns an angry response.
When I am returned an angry response, I ask on what scientific data have
they based their decision to wear a mask.
In just about every case, the same reoccurring angry response is
predictable.
Because of the lack of any conclusive scientific data, I am finding it
extremely curious that people are willing to wear masks with such
confidence which has come from a very loosely framed message.
The debate around masks is not too indifferent to the debate around
vaccines.
We have the natural right to question the science behind vaccines, as we
have the same equal right to question the science behind masks.
Or, to point out the lack of definitive science when there is none
available.
On masks, the science which claims to validate their purpose is very
thin, unconvincing and inconclusive.
I want to finish by saying one final thing.
I'm not advocating that people do not wear a mask to protect themselves
and their families from Covid-19 infection.
In just about every case I question why people are wearing a mask, they
immediately presume I advocate people don't wear a mask.
At the moment, I have chosen to not wear one.
But I also certainly do not, and have never, advocated people do not wear
a mask.
I simply ask that if you are choosing to wear a mask, then you must also
accept the lack of definitive scientific data on how much protection
masks actually offer and also understand that a mask alone will not
protect you from infection from Covid-19 if you are not following social
distancing protocols too.
*****
Outside Perspective #27 - June 2, 2020
You know, even political observers and silent contributors, such as I,
get sick and tired of the same old political games.
It's repetitive, perplexing and some days so inexplicably stupid that
it's enough to make you want to just stand up off your chair, walk out of
the office and watch everything burn.
Surrender.
While you let that image sink in for a second, also consider how
reflective that statement is to the scenes we're currently witnessing
coming out of the US, with the civil unrest.
This is occuring in a country we call the supposed leader of the free
world - the United States of America.
More on the US in just a second.
On domestic politics, Prime Minister Scott Morrison continues to undo any
credit that he acquired in the midst of the Covid-19 crisis through a
swift Government response.
What credit Morrison acquired during this historically challenging time
is deserved.
The Government's response was calm, effective and mostly right.
Yet, he now seems to be so keen on undoing and unwinding all the fiscal
assistance that has genuinely helped those that would have otherwise been
faced with poverty as a result of the fiscal burden associated with the
crisis, while putting himself at risk of becoming another political
victim to his own selfish power-hungry political motives.
I was happy to commend Morrison while he was in the spirit of
understanding, but that spirit appears to have quickly vanished.
I'm not afraid to critique any decisions made by Morrison, as is evident
from many of my previous columns.
In the US, the murder of another black man was captured on video.
It shocked me, like it shocked many around the world.
Many have been brought to tears by the images, they are so haunting.
Again, a white cop arresting a black man, George Floyd (a name now
plastered in history for what could be a revolutionary change for the
US), bringing him to the ground with a knee dropped onto his neck.
Floyd couldn't breathe and died as a result.
This was blatent police brutality and cold murder.
The culprit cop has been charged with murder, as he should be.
Yet the three cops that just stood around watching, without flinching and
without intervening should also face charges, in my opinion.
The death of George Floyd was effectively the precursor to the civil
unrest and a revived #BlackLivesMatter campaign.
I am extremely resistant to referring to the civil unrest as "riots".
To refer to the unrest as "riots" is to present those engaging in
peaceful protests as being involved in something they're not.
Conflict between protesters and police was never the purpose of the
#BlackLivesMatter movement.
Instead of having peaceful protests with a modest police presence and
both parties respecting each other, we have the third-party groups which
have taken advantage of the cause and are committing violence and looting
en masse.
While all this occurs, the peaceful protests continue to get lost in the
media hype.
Constant observation of the civil unrest in the US, combined with
terrible management of Australia's Covid-19 economic recovery, becomes
very draining.
It's no surprise that sometimes we can feel the inclination to just walk
away from it all and watch it burn.
From my perspective, these are small concerns.
But it makes me wonder, if I'm feeling like this - as a white man -
imagine for a second how angry and frustrated the black populations in
the US are feeling after multiples of decades of continued failure for
black rights.
They're angry, frustrated and sick and tired of the same old race games.
The racial tensions are synonymous to the problems we have in Australia
and the treatment of our Indigenous populations.
Like the race games in the US which continue to fail instead of bringing
about improvement, the race games in Australia continue to fail.
How difficult can it be to get this respect thing right, really.
*****
The Sunday Roast #27 - May 31, 2020
COAG - or Council of Australian Governments - has officially been
replaced with the National Cabinet.
The formation of the National Cabinet was intended to serve as a
temporary platform with a goal of political unity and cooperation between
the Federal, State and Territory governments for Australia's response to
the Covid-19 crisis.
Its establishment was welcomed and has to date appeared to serve its
purpose quite well.
Whether the relatively modest success that has come from the National
Cabinet to date will continue, is yet unclear.
There is lots of hope and promise, but as we know already, hope and
promise in politics doesn't always equate to positive results for the
nation.
Let's be honest, ditching COAG and replacing it with the National Cabinet
is the equivalent of removing a red apple off the shelf and replacing it
with a green apple.
Sure, it's a shiny new apple with a different color, but it's still an
apple.
Many political analysts are conveniently side-stepping an inconvenient
truth that our current collective of governments are built up from
different political idealogies.
Diversity is a great thing in democracy, sure.
But it offers no guarantee of automatic unity on key decisions.
The argument could be made that, that is precisely why the National
Cabinet exists - to achieve political unity.
However, isn't that supposedly why its predecessor COAG existed too, at
its core? The division is already rooted and that is evident by the
gradual implosion of the National Cabinet in its already very short life.
I don't wish to be misunderstood.
I think the intentions of the National Cabinet are genuine.
But already some political analysts are concluding that the platform is a
real "game-changer" in the way the Australian Federation functions.
Not really, I say.
The Federal, State and Territory governments are receiving no expansion
of existing powers, nor are they losing any.
At least none that are assured by the governing constitutions.
To be touting the National Cabinet as a "game changer" is a premature
overstatement which has no reliable data as yet to give credit to such
assessment.
I see it as an attempt to consolodate Federal Government powers by way of
influence.
For now, let's be cautious and hope that an artificial expansion of
Federal Government powers through persuasion and deliberate seeding of
motive for gradual erosion of State and Territory decision making grit is
not the aim of the Federal Government and the Prime Minister, Scott
Morrison.
Perhaps it's time to reconsider a reboot of the republic debate.
*****
Outside Perspective #26 - April 7, 2020
Every single morning you boot up the newspaper on your cell phone, like
everyone else, you see the same topic (Covid-19) and the same core
details.
Welcome to the era of the coronavirus news cycle.
It wasn't always like this, of course.
In Australia, the months of February and March was when it began to grip
the nation and effectively consumed the daily news cycle.
Among the latest Covid-19 updates, case numbers and the rather depressing
global death counts, there is two deeper stories building momentum.
If you have been paying attention you may have already noticed that there
is much more conversation now, compared to just two weeks ago, about the
growing threat to our civil liberties and the credibility of the data
being used by the Government to justify the heavy restrictions that have
been placed on citizens.
Polls published this week by The Australian suggest a majority of
citizens have rallied behind the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, during
the Covid-19 crisis.
Despite enthusiastic support offered by leading commentators at Sky News
- Peta Credlin, Andrew Bolt and Paul Murray, among others - there are
some obvious signs of frustration seeping through.
Commentary is beginning to shift from response praise to absence of an
end-game.
Morrison has failed to publicly outline at what stage he will be prepared
to announce an easing of the restrictions that have basically placed
Australia into an effective civil lockdown, despite his own reluctance to
use the term.
If we are in fact 'at war' with Covid-19, as it seems we are, then we are
fighting with one eye open and one eye closed.
That isn't to dismiss the success we've had so far in keeping infection
rates relatively low.
But as the stability of the mental health of citizens begins to degrade,
accompanied by boredom for some, as the lockdown drags on, defining an
end-game for Australia to declare victory over the coronavirus must, and
will, become a priority for Morrison.
We do not know what specific data and scientific modeling is being used
to guide the Covid-19 response and decision making because no intimate
details have yet been publicly released.
We have been promised that data will be released, this week.
I certainly hope that is the case, for two reasons.
The rating of Morrison's response to the Covid-19 crisis so far has been
first class.
To fail on delivery of the promise to release data and scientific
modeling would seriously damage the impeccable record he has managed to
build.
Also, by releasing the data as soon as this week, Morrison could put to
bed the growing concerns and questions over any impeding of civil
liberties.
Until the public can see the data and scientific modeling, citizens have
been left with no choice but to draw the clumsy conclusion that there
isn't any precise scientific guidance and that decisions are being made
on-the-fly by uninformed and incompetent politicians.
That is a false conclusion to draw and Morrison deserves better.
The data and scientific modeling must be released, as promised, and made
accessible to the public.
*****
The Sunday Roast #26 - April 5, 2020
'Team Australia' has fragmented.
But not through any intentional process of ill contribution from
Australians.
The fragmentation is the result of a host of different issues.
When the Covid-19 health crisis hit, there was an immediate feeling of
unity throughout Australia.
It was inspiring and encouraging to see Australians, albeit briefly,
unite and band together in a time of health and economic crisis.
While the immediate threat of a catastrophic health crisis for Australia
appears to be under control, the economic crisis is still very
unpredictable.
There does not yet appear to be an economist brave enough to make any
kind of prediction with great confidence of just how deep the economic
impact from Covid-19 will be.
I have commended the response by the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, on
multiple occasions already.
As I have done the same for the health professionals, advisors and the
National Cabinet, which is functioning reasonably well, considering the
historical State versus Federal hostilities that usually take priority
over actually producing united decisions of national benefit.
What I do believe has justification for critique, however, is the
delivery of the consumer economic stimulus packages.
Both the consumer and business economic stimulus packages are complex.
By complex, I mean some elements require legislation to pass through the
Parliament, while other elements are able to be implemented with minimal
delay using existing laws and fiscal infrastructure, with obvious
unobstructed collaboration between Centerlink and the Australian Tax
Office.
Some packages are still outstanding and have required Parliament to be
recalled for another limited sitting, on Wednesday.
On timing, a couple of weeks feels like an eternity while consumers await
their first stimulus payment.
Emotion takes over rational and reasonable thought processes in the midst
of a crisis.
If you are lucky, you may have already received the first one-off
stimulus payment, since April 1.
Many are still waiting for the payment, which will effectively kick-off
further assistance packages that follow.
While Australians still carefully consider the performance of the Prime
Minister, it is the delay of fiscal assistance which is quickly becoming
the cause of the fragmentation of "Team Australia".
Many hope future assistance is delivered much quicker than what has been
delivered so far.
We continue to see big corporations stand-down staff, small businesses
close and workers lose jobs.
The vulnerable are still forming unacceptably large queues at Centerlink
offices around the country.
That's not to poke at Centerlink for any specific failing of service
delivery.
They have simply been overwhelmed by the amount of new applicants and are
doing their best to assist everyone under cirumstances Australia's
welfare infrastructure has not had to endure for 75 years or more.
The Government has by no means gone back on its word.
To paraphrase, they said 'assistance will come'.
And it is coming.
To question the time frame of delivery of the stimulus packages is very
different to questioning its credibility and justification.
The economy still continues to limp, ebb and flow, and stutter.
There is no longer any traditional stock market buy and sell pattern
which has been used historically to foster the economic narrative.
Consumers that will have extra dollars in the bank as a result of any
assistance received, will have limited means to actually spend it.
The reality is, the brick and mortar retail industry is crippled at
present.
A sudden overnight revival isn't very likely to occur.
Despite the potential spending limitations, any assistance will still be
welcomed by many that continue to struggle and wonder how to feed their
families and pay the rent.
There has been much criticism that none of the Federal assistance
packages have included anything specific for rental residents.
Many are struggling to pay the rent due to either loss of employment or
underemployment.
It is unfair to expect the Federal Government to have every aspect of
every industry included in its fiscal response, upon first attempt.
The rental property sector is under the jurisdiction of the States.
But it would be unjustified to use that as any excuse to not consider
further assistance specific to the rental property sector.
This week, the issue was placed on the agenda of the National Cabinet
meetings.
There has been a temporary ban placed on rental property evictions for
tenants unable to meet rent payments, but watch this space, as I feel
quite confident there will be more announcements to come.
For the sake of the vulnerable and for the sake of the nation's economy,
I hope the assistance comes soon, before the economy bottoms out and
Federal debt levels reach beyond Australia's capacity to ever pay it
back.
*****
Outside Perspective #25 - March 24, 2020
Federal Parliament has been suspended until the latter half of the year.
The month of August has been scheduled in as the month Canberra will once
again be the center of the political microscope.
Even the new schedule is shrouded in haze at the moment and could still
be subjected to change.
The Labor Party is a little upset that Parliamentary proceedings have
been suspended, however there doesn't appear to be many actually
listening to them right now.
As the coronavirus crisis continues to eat away at society, it has also
managed to grab the 24/7 attention of the world.
Just about every media origanization in the world - commercial, public
broadcasting and indepedent - has shifted almost all of their resources
to coronavirus reporting.
Most newspaper sites have now added a dedicated section to "Coronavirus"
related news.
The Labor Party has found itself in an unpleasant position.
I regularly speak of political relevance.
Naturally, the party in power is tasked with the job of governing the
country.
There is no set of strict rules that are to be followed for a party in
opposition.
However, it's widely accepted that the party in opposition is tasked with
breaking down the governing party - policy by policy, decision by
decision, minister by minister - with the aim of fracturing the governing
party with minimal interruption and negative consequences to the lives of
citizens.
It will never be admitted publicly, but ultimately, the opposing party
wants the governing party to fail.
They may strategically attack the governing party and force it into a
difficult position where they either fall on their own sword or become so
fractured that early elections become inevitable, allowing the opposition
to capitalize and take full advantage of an ailing governing party.
The end game is this - the party in opposition want to win an election
and want to form government.
So what does a party in opposition do when the nation is hit by a crisis,
such as the coronavirus and the general playbook of politics no longer
applies? The Labor Party leader, Anthony Albanese, has been plodding for
so long it placed the Labor Party in a weak position before the
coronavirus crisis hit.
Labor have been circling on the fringes of irrelevance.
Despite polls suggesting Albo had a slight chance of gaining further
traction on Scott Morrison as favored Prime Minister, we now must remain
skeptical of the indicators polls throw at us, as often the indicators
don't play out in reality as they theoretically probably should.
The Labor Party continues to fall out of relevance.
Now the coronavirus crisis has hit, and hit hard, that irrelevance has
just got mightily worse for Labor and the prospects of Albo becoming a
future Prime Minister of Australia, has equally got worsened.
He has made a few keen efforts to make himself relevant during the
crisis, at least.
He believes the newly established National Cabinet, which has been formed
to deal with the coronavirus crisis management, would be better served as
a bi-partisan tool where he could also occupy a seat.
So far, Albo's call hasn't resonated well.
Labor has been forced onto the side-line and politically crippled out of
action.
There's not much else Albo can do other than ride out the crisis, like
every other Australian, and then hope when we come out the other side of
all this, Australians start to assess the overall management by Morrison
and conclude his performance was not good enough.
Or, if the opposite were to happen and the majority of Australians
conclude Morrison's handling to have been great, this would throw the
Labor Party back even further into irrelevance.
If the latter were to play out, then that would be a crisis in itself for
Labor.
Then, unfortunately for Albo, there would be no doubt that the ongoing
leadership prospects of Albo would be placed up for scrutiny among Labor
ranks.
All of this is ultimately up to fate, as there's almost zero of anything
that Albo can do to motivate Australians to criticize the management by
Morrison just yet, during the midst of the coronavirus crisis.
That would just be inhuman and seriously insensitive.
Albo is better than that.
*****
The Sunday Roast #25 - March 22, 2020
Countries close international borders, cities go into lockdown, events
get cancelled and almost all of the world's major sports codes are in a
state of indefinite suspension.
It's no surprise news and updates on the coronavirus crisis has consumed
everyone's attention.
We're living in different times now.
Our lives have changed, and so has politics.
The way politics plays out in the public has changed, indefinitely.
The focus of political writing has morphed.
We sit here judging, writing about the mood of the Prime Minister, the
decisions, the actions and the lack of cooperation by civilians.
All that plus more, has become the new focus of political commentary.
We are no longer comparing political left with political right, and where
The Greens and other minority parties compare and have any influence.
All that has been replaced, it seems, with an all new organic political
commentary formula.
The coronavirus crisis initially had prompted a swift reaction which saw
a global-level of unity and cooperation which we just haven't seen in
recent history.
The unity was welcoming, yet comes under such unfortunate circumstances.
There was hope and promise.
It is now becoming apparent it was an odd kind of false hope, as the
aggressive coronavirus continues to spread and infect at rates which are
outperforming government responses.
Society as we know it is falling apart pretty quickly.
I don't believe this is any direct fault of government action or response
times.
It is simply a mix of inappropriate preparation for a global virus
emergency and pure mathematics.
We are seeing increases in infection rates which continue to rise at
extremely rapid pace, daily.
It's all mathematics.
As infections double, 15 quickly converts to 30, to 60, to 120, to 240
and so forth.
As these numbers get higher, so does the rate of infections, in addition
to the chance of infection.
Even the most simple analysis and interpretation of the mathematics shows
how quickly cases can rise.
As media organizations and journalists around the world scramble to
adjust to the new political commentary formula, proven methods of
traditional reporting appear to no longer apply.
The tired and often predictable right-wing/left-wing rivalry appears to
have morphed into a strange unity ticket which has seen traditional
political reporting take a more modest and tolerant approach, with
criticism being minimal.
It's expected, I guess.
You'd have to be a pretty low journalist to critique any leader over the
handling of the coronavirus.
With the exception of China, most of the world's leaders have done a
reasonable job, so far.
These are difficult times which require difficult decisions.
There was never going to ever be any doubt that the difficult decisions
that do get made, and will get made in the future, will upset somebody,
somewhere.
On China, it is increasingly difficult to judge on just how well the
coronavirus crisis was handled by the Chinese Communist leader, Xi
Jinping.
Accurate information does not flow so freely inside or outside of China.
The information that does get released is almost certain to be
manipulated or exaggerated by the Communist Party machine, to portray the
response as positive and effective.
Much of what has been released has been accepted with extreme caution.
Peculiarly, the most trusted information has come from leaks by Chinese
journalists and scientists with free press motivations.
In China, these types don't spring up often.
When they do, they usually only have one shot to get the information out
to the free press in the West, before the Chinese regime pounces.
Once identified, the journalist(s) and/or any other identified leaker(s)
will then be pressured into silence or disturbingly, be disappeared.
This has happened and it is concerning.
This week, I wrote a column for The Canberra Reflection.
I mentioned that my usual critique towards the Prime Minister, Scott
Morrison, had been placed on hold.
I don't wish to repeat myself verbatim, but I feel it's important to make
the point that not only have I changed the way I write about the Prime
Minister, and politics in general, but others have too.
This has also been outlined by several leading and reputable contributors
in The Australian and ABC News.
We need to respect the position our nation's leader, representatives and
advisors have been placed under.
They have been placed into an awkward position and continue to face an
incredible amount of pressure that most people would cave under.
Let's be realistic - who would have thought after the last Federal
Election the serving government would be facing a health crisis the
coronavirus has produced? Not many.
It's not all rosy though and I'm certainly not saying Morrison will
handle the crisis to perfection without misjudgment.
Yesterday, cracks began to emerge in the management of the crisis.
We've seen grocery store shoppers continue to ignore pleas of calm, after
a passionate and stern rebuke by Morrison.
We've seen Sydney beachgoers stubbornly ignore demands to cease large
crowd gatherings by sitting on the beaches of Sydney.
It was announced the beaches had been ordered to close to keep the crowds
away.
Then oddly another announcement came stating the beaches were not closing
afterall.
But then that decision was again reversed and it was announced a second
time the beaches were to be closed.
It was confusing and was the first signs of minute cracks in the
management of the crisis.
Also yesterday, it was revealed the New South Wales Government had
approved the docking of a cruise ship with a couple of thousand
passengers on board, despite borders being closed to international
arrivals.
Then to add further problems, four more cruise ships were given approval
to dock.
How much blame the New South Wales Government should cop and how much the
Australian Government should cop for the cruise ship debacle is up for
debate.
State and Federal political blame games aside, there can be no question
that Peter Dutton has a lot of questions to answer on this matter.
However, he got lucky.
He appears to have been able to duck the media on this occasion due to
being in quarantine in his Queensland home.
Irrespective of the blame one might place, it was clear that Australian
Federal and State Governments are increasingly struggling to maintain
control of the coronavirus crisis and struggling to enforce the decisions
and rules they set.
I suspect more police control is to be introduced in the coming weeks if
civilians continue to ignore the advice and rules being put in place.
If required, a military control response can not be considered to be out
of the question too.
We're in uncertain and unpredictable times where nothing seems impossible
and Prime Minister Scott Morrison no longer appears as tolerant for
civilian mischief as he once was.
Let us watch this space.
Frankly, we have no choice because there is nothing else happening
anyway.
*****
Outside Perspective #24 - February 25, 2020
Australia is going to be the last country to embrace electric or hydrogen
vehicles.
It's not because of a corrupt Parliament or Prime Minister.
Australia has the same problem as in the US, only an order of magnitude
worse.
The US has insufficient infrastructure to fully support more than 15%
electric vehicle mix, at present.
Also, the US has two forces that no other country has to drive (no pun
intended) infrastructure build.
First, the US is the home of Tesla.
Elon Musk decided single-handedly to challenge the automotive-petroleum
hegemony by building a superior vehicle regardless of power, and build
out the infrastructure single-handedly with his network of superchargers.
Because of the capabilities of the Tesla cars combined with the vertical
integration of the charging infrastructure, Tesla was able to adequately
support the major cities and interstate routes in the US on its own, for
Tesla vehicles only.
Thanks to cheap flights, there wasn't pressure to immediately build the
interstate support for electric vehicles.
Second, the US was the big winner of the Volkswagen emissions scandal.
As part of the penalty, Volkswagen agreed to spend (US) $1-2billion on
building infrastructure for electric vehicles.
This was both a major boost for other electric vehicle makers in the US
and self-serving to Volkswagen as they had a European mandate to
eliminate all internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles by 2025.
This gave America a second universal charger standard (the ISO combo
charger standard) and support from many other auto makers to support
their investment.
Electric vehicles have been able to jump quickly into competition with
ICE vehicles because, unlike gasoline vehicles, the entire gasoline
refining and service station industry didn't need to be created before
electric vehicles could operate.
As the electrical network infrastructure was already in place, electric
vehicle chargers could therefore simply tap into the existing
infrastructure and go to work.
Electric vehicles don't have the same maintenance needs of an ICE
vehicle, which also reduces the support infrastructure needed for
repairs.
Australia has none of these advantages to jump-start an electric vehicle
industry.
There are no native electric vehicle makers in Australia - no auto makers
at all, actually - so the head start Tesla gave the US simply isn't
available to Australia.
And Australia was not a major recipient of the benefits the Volkswagen
payout provided the US to build more electric vehicle infrastructure.
Europe is also different.
Because of the population density, even short-range electric vehicles
make perfect market sense.
Plus, Europe benefited more than any other jurisdiction as a result of
the aforementioned Volkswagen payout.
Australia is geographically too big, too sparsely populated and lacks the
industry to create an electric vehicle market on its own.
There are other countries with comparable geography and population
density that also suffer.
Canada has no electric vehicle manufacturers.
However, since the US is so close, Canada has access to the same
inventory as Americans, meaning that Teslas, Bolts, Mustangs, KIAs etc.
are available for purchase.
And, since Canada is just as much a country of island cities as
Australia, infrastructure only really matters in half a dozen cities.
There is no reason for Australia to feel ashamed of its electric vehicle
situation and lack of a market.
Australia is just going to grow behind the larger, denser countries but
it will end up a low-pollution paradise.
Most likely just 25 years after everyone else.
Australia will become an electric vehicle nation when the majority of
cars from China, Japan and Europe are only electric and ICE vehicles are
gradually made redundant.
Fortunately, that is at least 10 years out, which gives Australia plenty
of time to start dealing with the infrastructure challenges.
Guest post by Brett Brennan
*****
The Sunday Roast #24 - February 23, 2020
There is a continued united call from the public and those within
Canberra, for the establishment of a misconduct commission body at the
Federal level.
The States have similar bodies, which function reasonably well.
Currently, there is none at the Federal level.
There are other forms of checks and balances which are designed to
monitor, audit and assess the activities of Ministers of Parliament in
Canberra, but I cite the recent misconduct demonstrated from the former
Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Agriculture, Bridget
McKenzie, on the "sports rort" scandal which proves that whatever checks
and balances are in place, are failing.
They are not failing completely on detecting ministerial misconduct, but
they are failing by having very limited abilities to enforce any action
when misconduct is found to have occurred.
This has lead to the breeding of a culture of ignorance in Canberra where
the rules and guidelines placed out before them are outright ignored and
assessed as irrelevant.
The 'do as you please' mentality has engulfed the behavior of politicians
who do everything in the best interest for their party while retaining a
personal interest with the aim of providing some kind of assurance they
retain their seat at future elections.
While the actions of McKenzie may not be illegal, they are absolutely
100% unethical and you will be hard pressed to find anyone that
disagrees, outside of the ranks of Government.
Despite the unethical behavior of McKenzie, Prime Minister Scott Morrison
continued to support the Member of The Nationals and continues to claim
she done nothing wrong and all decisions made during the time of the
"sports rort" scandal, were legal and ethical.
But there lies another problem which draws my very attention to the
points I make in this column, that being we do not know precisely whether
the actions of McKenzie were legal or illegal.
There are multiple problems which impede this determination.
We have no Federal level misconduct commission to really look into this
matter in the detail required.
We have an Attorney General who makes legal assessment of issues based on
personal opinion of individuals rather than the legal assessment of the
actions in question.
Additionally, the Attorney General makes an assessment based on the
health status of his working relationship with individuals.
We have a Prime Minister who fails to act, fails to answer tough
questions and often refers questions to Ministers who hold responsibility
of the portfolio which in-turn respond by saying it's not something
they're able to talk about.
Finally, we have the culture of the well established government secrecy
infecting party operations with crucial investigative reports into these
types of important matters being kept secret, by the Prime Minister
refusing to allow public release of the documents.
If the documents and reports contain the information and proof that the
Prime Minister keeps reiterating that clears McKenzie from any illegal
misconduct, then release it.
Instead, we see the Prime Minister embrace and take the secrecy culture
to all new heights, knowing he is accountable to almost nobody.
Australia is very lucky and I've touched on this specificity before.
We are lucky because we have a democracy which ensures the separation of
powers.
The Parliament sets the laws, law enforcement agencies enforce the law
and the courts interpret the law.
This makes us not exactly unique, but ensures our democracy functions
probably as good as democracy can function.
However, until recently it has gone unnoticed that there is a big problem
present in our beloved democracy, that being the Parliament appears to be
unaccountable to anyone.
Forget the Governor General.
Forget the Queen.
The Monarchy is a formality of the system.
To cite another example, Angus Taylor presented to Parliament what has
been proven to be a forged document.
Yet there has been no repercussions and he continues in his role as
Minister for Energy.
While the specifics of the forged document case of Taylor might be
clouded in confusion, if we are to interpret the decision made by the
Australian Federal Police after they supposedly looked into the matter,
forgery is not forgery if it's done by a politician.
If by legal definition the actions by Taylor are not forgery, then they
are the best example of unethical ministerial behavior to date when it
comes to presenting information and data to the Parliament which has
knowingly been manipulated to make a political opponent look bad for
personal gain.
That Taylor continues to receive the support from the Prime Minister, as
did McKenzie, is beyond belief for the average Australian.
In the early 1200s, the King of England agreed to the charter known as
the Magna Carta.
While the purpose of the Magna Carta in its original form failed to stop
all parties abiding by the clauses and the charter as a whole, it did lay
the important early foundations of establishing laws that determined that
the elite and most senior of persons in power are not above the law and
should be subjected to the same laws as civilians.
Many historians have varying degrees of agreement on the relevance of the
Magna Carta in modern democratic law.
But it is often referenced in the Anglo-sphere as the document that laid
the foundations for the democracy we enjoy, now.
Modern politicians in Canberra appear to ignore all the responsibilities
they have, as elected members, to adhere to the guidelines that set the
standards for acceptable Parliamentary behavior and activities which are
to be performed for the public interest.
To continue to operate without a Federal misconduct commission with real
power to recommend criminal proceedings for illegal misconduct of
politicians is an insult to the Magna Carta and the birth of Anglo
democracy.
*****
Outside Perspective #23 - December 3, 2019
The republic debate had been shamefully dormant for quite some time.
For a brief moment it looked as though it had been revived by former
Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, a leading republic advocate.
But as quick as Turnbull was to attempt to revive debate, it appears to
have been silenced once again just as quick, not through fault of
Turnbull.
Turnbull has always been one of Australia's leading political advocates
for our country becoming a republic.
I absolutely support the republic notion and believe it's inevitable.
Some day, hopefully in my lifetime, we will separate ourselves from the
ridiculous and outdated governing model that is the monarch.
We will grow up and form an independent democratic political model
developed by Australia and under the sole control of Australia.
Whether Australian democracy will erode so much before this point, making
any transition to a republic model nigh impossible, is a pessimistic
position to take, yet a very valid position which shouldn't go ignored.
Erosion and removal of democratic pillars can occur very quickly.
We've lost a few already.
What continues to astound me is just how unenthusiastic the Australian
public are in supporting any republic notion.
Is it civil complacency? Is it a growing disinterest in politics? Is it
the continued erosion of democracy I regularly speak of feeding the
distrust of the political establishment? Whatever it is, it often feels
like those that lobby for an Australian republic are a niche group - a
minority.
In 1999, the referendum on the issue illustrated a genuine interest.
Sure, the referendum failed with the final results showing 45% voting YES
and 55% NO, but it was encouraging.
Upon reflection of the 1999 referendum, political historians have blamed
not the republic notion itself, but the question that was asked.
Personally, I think the question was just fine.
I think support was there - this much is clear by the 45% that voted YES
- but 45% isn't a majority, yet still a large chunk of the vote to say
the least and should have been used as fuel to continue to lobby.
There aren't any accurate figures to represent how Australians feel about
the republic notion in 2019, making it difficult to compare now to 1999.
Since 1999, the debate has been buried, risen from the ashes only to be
burned again.
This cycle has occurred several times.
Bashing of the republic notion as soon as it begins to rise sinks any
momentum with almost immediate effect.
Unless republic advocates can find a way to change this ugly and
unhelpful pattern, then I feel a presumptive complacency will continue to
set the trend and we will be stuck with having the very head and ultimate
authority of our nation sitting on a medieval throne in another country.
It's a system that may have made sense when the British empire had
significant global influence.
There is no longer an empire and British influence on the global stage
has been reduced to something of insignificance, probably not helped by
the Brexit disease which goes uncured.
Australia needs to separate ourselves from this rubbish and become a
republic.
The assumption that any future Australian republic would no longer enjoy
our existing international alliances in trade and military is a fallacy
with no evidence to support the suggestions.
In part, it's these misinformed suggestions that add to the republic
debate bashing.
The Parliament is wrapping up this week, for the year.
It's been an ugly week for the Liberal Party, which I already touched on
in The Sunday Roast.
The Coalition has been placed on the back foot and will need to do some
serious thinking about their approach for 2020, or the shift in momentum
will continue to flow against them.
The shift in momentum, albeit only minor, benefits the left of the Labor
and The Greens.
But it could be a temporary fix only.
I look forward to the fight in 2020 and will continue supporting The
Greens.
This is my last column for 2019 writing for Outside Perspective.
It's been a busy year and there's always lots to talk about, not just on
The Greens but across the entire political spectrum.
After a short break over the holiday period I will be back some time in
January to stimulate your brain in preparation for the resumption of
Parliament in early February.
Until then, take care over the holiday season and take care of
yourselves.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
*****
The Sunday Roast #23 - December 1, 2019
'Tis the 1st of December and 'tis the season to be merry.
The countdown to Christmas begins and that also means this will be my
last column for 2019, for The Sunday Roast.
But I will be back in the chair again in January writing about all things
politics.
For now, let's stick to what happened this week in the Australian
Parliament.
Political commentators have used many words to summarize the week -
terrible, shocking, horrifying - by any account, it was a bad week in
Parliament, particularly if you're a Liberal and more so if your name is
Angus Taylor.
If you're reading this column and are unfamiliar with what Taylor has
done to attract so much negative attention, or if you're unfamiliar with
who the man is for that matter, then let's recap shall we.
Angus Taylor is the Liberal Member for Hume and the Minister for Energy.
What's he done? I'll attempt the short version, which includes him being
accused of producing a fraudulent document with manipulated figures.
We understand the figures he has produced are incorrect and at the
moment, it's unclear where he got his figures from.
It has become clear it was not from the source he originally claimed it
to be.
There's a bit more involved, but that's the basic summary.
The matter has become so serious though, that it has now drawn the
attention of the NSW Police, action which was supposedly initiated at the
request of the Labor Party.
Then we have Prime Minister Scott Morrison entering into the fray by
calling up his mate at the NSW Police, supposedly to ask questions about
the investigation.
The latter activity is being viewed by many as potential interference in
an ongoing investigation.
That is not my personal view, but I can absolutely understand how so many
are coming of that view.
Taylor has come under additional fire for failing to step down from his
post as Energy Minister while being investigated by the NSW Police.
There are two issues at play.
The first being that it appears that Taylor has used a fraudulent
document for political purposes, willingly, and has been caught.
Tough for him.
He must now face the consequences of his stupid actions.
Let's be honest, it's not the first time this man has drawn attention to
himself for questionable actions of integrity.
The second issue is Labor calling for Taylor to step aside from his
energy portfolio or for the Prime Minister to stand him aside until the
NSW Police conclude their investigation.
This is hypocritical, yes, because former Labor Ministers held their
ground when being investigated in the past for several different matters,
refusing to step aside from their portfolio.
It doesn't matter how Labor spins this, they are in no position to be
lecturing the Liberal's on integrity of stepping aside while under active
police investigation.
All the negative commentary on the subject of political integrity of
Taylor has been bad, for Taylor personally.
However, there's no doubt Morrison made everything worse by calling his
police mate.
That kind of stupid decision making from the Prime Minister was always
going to raise a few eyebrows.
By the end of the Parliamentary week, the Lower House wasn't in good
spirits.
Over in the Upper House, things went from bad to worse for the Liberal
Party when their legislation aimed at cleaning up the integrity of unions
went sour, as One Nation turned their backs on the Liberals and voted
against it, despite providing prior assurance they would support it.
With the prior declared support from One Nation, the Liberals were
confident of the legislation's safe passage through the Senate.
It's unclear what deal One Nation has done and with whom they've made a
deal with which prompted such an unexpected vote.
Frankly, I don't care too much about One Nation, Pauline Hanson or the
unions, so my personal interest is moot on this one I'm afraid.
With only one week left of sitting of Parliament, can the Liberal Party
restore confidence in the Government after such a horror week in both
Houses? We'll see.
But for now, I'm off to set up a Christmas tree.
*****
Outside Perspective #22 - November 5, 2019
In Australia, we need to remind ourselves just how lucky we are that we
can still go onto national television and - within the constraints of the
law of course - say as we please.
As the Morrison-led Government continues to impinge on many of the civil
liberties we enjoy, it's anyone's guess as to how much longer this will
remain the case.
One of the leading television platforms that allows us all to witness
such public expression of freedom of speech to a national audience is the
forum provided from the ABC program, QandA.
The program enjoys a general dose of healthy respect from most
Australians, including myself.
However, recent episodes have been putting that respect to the test.
None more so than last night's episode, which consisted of an all female
panel which contributed very little insightful dialogue relevant to the
topic of activism.
Instead, we were subjected to one of the very worst public displays of
feminist-charged hatred towards all things male.
I was so disturbed by what I saw that I can say that it was on more than
a couple of occasions I considered turning it off.
However, in a bid to uphold my own personal beliefs in freedom of
expression, I persevered and heard what the feminists had to say.
I'm gonna be honest and say I didn't plan to write about the week's
episode of QandA for Outside Perspective.
But I felt I had no option other than to drop my planned topic for
another fortnight and write about what I would describe as possibly the
worst episode of QandA that I have ever watched.
Trust me, I've watched many.
I was unaware of who the panel members were before the show started.
But that doesn't matter.
Whether the viewer knows who they are or not is irrelevant.
What I truly didn't understand was the reason for an all female panel,
which was not only ridiculously unnecessary but a decision as queer as
some of the panel members.
I'm not judging them for being queer, by the way.
The topic was largely based around activism, or more specifically online
activism.
How that prompted the producers of QandA to appoint an all female panel
is beyond me.
For that, the producers should be questioned.
If an all male panel was appointed I have no doubt the program would be
called out for gender imbalance.
If an all Labor or Greens panel was appointed I have no doubt the program
would be called out for being left-wing partisan.
If an all Liberal panel was appointed I have no doubt the program would
be called out for being right-wing partisan.
So why should we not call out the program for its all female panel?
I am not about to engage on a firestorm and unleash on the ABC and QandA,
because anyone who reads my columns regularly already knows that it would
be the complete opposite of what I preach, as I have made regular calls
for increased funding of the ABC and public broadcasting.
Not only do I value its importance, but I believe it is crucial that
Australia protect our ABC as if it were permitted to fold, it could never
be revived in the form of serving the public good that it does.
Still, that can certainly not be used as any excuse for the tripe that
was delivered last night.
We need to ask, does a panel full of feminists consistently expressing
their personal hatred towards men and all things men have contributed to
serve the public interest? If there was any kind of discussion, then yes.
Unfortunately, nobody can really call last night's forum a discussion,
because it was so far from that.
Eventually, the feminist gossip moved to domestic violence where there
was no backing down on the attacks on men.
It was pretty predictable where it was going to lead.
And yes, predictably, the panel quickly made the incorrect assumption
that all domestic violence consists of cases of men imposing violence
against woman.
It would have been interesting to see how much more disciplined the panel
would have been if Tony Jones were in the hosting chair.
But as Jones' regular hosting appearances begin to diminish, last night
the chair was filled by the respectable ABC radio host Fran Kelly.
I have a lot of respect for Kelly.
However, last night she appeared to give the male-hating-feminists free
reign and made almost nil attempt to implement any kind of boundaries of
respect to the program.
I lost count of the amount of times the F*bomb was dropped.
It was shameful and disturbing to watch.
I sure hope this is not repeated.
*****
The Sunday Roast #22 - November 3, 2019
Once, just once, I would like to be able to write about something
positive the Government has done.
Not only about something they've done, but also about some kind of
positive plan for the future.
Instead, here I am forced to write another bitter column that could pass
for something written by a grumpy old man with a born hatred towards all
things politics.
It's nothing like that at all.
But I am forced to once again turn my attention to the crazy politics of
Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his threats to democracy.
In my column just afortnight ago for The Sunday Roast, I spoke about the
Extinction Rebellion (XR) protests and the overzealous response from,
specifically, the Queensland State Government.
I warned that the message of the XR protests was getting lost and being
ignored.
Instead, the protest tactics are being used as political leverage to
clamp down on the democratic right to protest.
To recap a little more, in my column I warned, "There is little doubt
that if the State succeeds in passing the laws, which I'm sure they will,
other States will get a sniff and try something similar.".
Then I also warned, "the Federal Government has all the encouragement it
needs to act and it will continue to erode the democratic rights of
citizens which includes the public right to protest.".
Was I correct? Well it certainly seems like I was onto something, because
Queensland did pass the laws as I expected them to.
To my surprise, the other States have not yet showed any significant
interest in following the same path by implementing protest laws that
mirror the Queensland example, but give them time.
It was certainly enough to wet the appetite of Scott Morrison and his
'how to curb democracy' agenda.
I had also previously warned of the political portrayal of environmental
activists and XR protesters as an "anarchic" mob.
Seems I was right on that too.
Scott Morrison has called climate protesters "anarchists" and accused the
progressive side of politics as trying to "deny the liberties of
Australians".
On the latter, I'm absolutely certain he is referring to his own party
because it certainly doesn't fit the progressive model of the political
persuasion.
Morrison has threatened to implement Federal protest laws to attempt to
halt the efforts of climate protests and other forms of protest he claims
is getting in the way of the lives of ordinary Australians.
As I continue to warn, despite claims of targeting one group of
protesters and their cause, these kinds of loose laws have deep and harsh
consequences for all groups.
The proposals spoke of by Morrison are still imprecise and vague, but has
already drawn the ire of The Greens, the Australian Conservation
Foundation and even the Human Rights Law Center.
They claim the types of proposals he speaks of are "undemocratic", and
according to The Guardian, "a bid to stifle a social movement fighting
for Australia to take action on climate change".
Well, that's exactly right.
The Greens understand what is going on.
The Labor Party are still too preoccupied on working out what they stand
for.
The Nationals and the Liberals continue to be awkward bed partners but
agree to deny all forms of climate change and the accompanying science,
as does One Nation.
Please, don't ask One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts on his thoughts of
climate science (or lack thereof in his opinion) because I can assure you
it will probably invoke a spiel which involves aliens planting seeds
among the populace.
With the exception of The Greens, the leading Australian parties really
don't offer voters concerned about climate change much hope.
While Morrison and others continue to portray climate protesters as
anarchists, their acts are far from reflective of core anarchy.
But I can tell you, with the major political parties failing to provide
voters with real genuine choice at the ballot box, anarchy is starting to
become rather appealing.
*****
Outside Perspective #21 - October 22, 2019
This week saw Australia's leading news mastheads step up their "right to
know" campaign, as their joint effort to protect the free press and
journalism.
While the campaign is encouraging, I am forced to ask the question of
what took them so long? I have been working with independent media since
2013 in many different forms and continue to do so, and we've been
pressing for better protections of the free press for the last seven
years.
But it goes back much further than 2013.
2010 was a particularly active year which saw the free press come under
heavy attack as a result of major publications released by Wikileaks and
its media partners.
We banded together then and fought for the free press and journalist
protections.
What I also struggle to accept is how the leading news mastheads can
justify the position they've placed themselves in by claiming to be
pioneers of the campaign to protect the free press.
They might certainly find themselves placed in the best position for such
a campaign to gain maximum exposure and in-turn maximum momentum because
of their national reach, however they should never claim to be the
pioneers.
Instead, they are actually followers of pre-existing campaign examples
which have been launched and supported by independent media
organizations, NGOs and activists.
Readers of this column should be careful to not misinterpret my words.
I am proud mainstream media has finally decided to act and stand up to
protect the free press.
I welcome and support the cause in its entirety as I would advise others
to also support it.
But I also believe they have a responsibility to acknowledge previous
efforts by the many others that have stood up before them with the same
motives.
Or perhaps mainstream media stand by previous representations they've
published, portraying us all as tin-foil hat wearing anarchists.
We might wear tin-foil hats, but we sure as hell foresaw the erosion of
the free press at the hands of heavy handed Government tactics,
interference and increasing secrecy years before those that refuse to don
the tin-foil hat.
I for one am proud to be a member of the tin-foil hat wearing group of
anarchists.
We are the pioneers of the campaign to protect the free press and deserve
at least a little bit of recognition.
*****
The Sunday Roast #21 - October 20, 2019
There is a lot that could be said about the recent climate protests.
The way I see it, there is four perspectives which all require scrutiny -
Extinction Rebellion (XR), the responding law enforcement and the
Governments of both Queensland State and Federal level.
Unfortunately for the Australian public, much of the content in the media
has been focused on the limited aspect of the protesters and have almost
completely ignored the actual reason of the protests.
Deliberately? I can't say.
After the week-long worldwide climate protests organized by XR, which at
times turned ugly and aggressive, the media continues to focus all their
attention to the disruption caused by the protests while again ignoring
the reason of the protests.
Some of the more extreme claims presented accuse XR protesters as people
simply out to disrupt the daily lives of city commuters and continue to
portray XR as a mob organization with an anarchic mentality trying to
disrupt the establishment, when it is simply not the case.
It is about the climate and I can't understand why so many are still
missing the point.
Is it simply ignorance? I would hope not.
Let's be clear about one thing - I'm not defending all of the tactics
used by XR protesters.
I actually question the allegiance of some of them which have taken their
acts too far and I'm sure that XR would not endorse every tactic used.
The problem XR suffers is similar to that of the Anonymous hacking group
where there's no 'official' member list or management structure.
Anyone who supports the cause can claim XR association.
This can make it all easy for those who oppose the protests to join the
XR hate club and the silly acts of a few unfairly tarnish the reputation
of XR because the media is so focused on the silly behavior and nothing
else.
It is the failure to acknowledge the issue XR pushes that continues to
anger protesters.
Initially, climate protests associated with XR were peaceful and
disruption was minimal.
But as politicians continue to ignore the issue of climate change and
twiddle their thumbs thinking everything is just fine, protesters
continue to stew and draw themselves to the conclusion that more extreme
acts are required in order to get headline attention.
It might be true that they are getting the headline attention they seek,
however the message is still failing to get through as intended.
This continued failure justifies one to question whether media is part of
the problem of climate change denial as much as the political attitude
that it's all somehow one big global hoax supported by the world's
leading scientists.
While the Federal Government might take the crown for the thumb
twiddling, Queensland's Premier, Annastacia Palaszuczk, continues to
parade around making threats of shutting down climate protests and making
specific forms of public protest illegal.
While Palaszuczk parades in public, in the backrooms of the gritty State-
level politics she engages in a game of secrecy by concealing
information, data and locations of photographs which have been used to
justify the proposed laws.
There is concern that climate protests are not the only target of new
laws, rather all forms of public protests.
As if the secrecy wasn't shifty enough, it's topped off by labeling
climate protesters as "extremists" and citing cases from 14 years ago.
Queensland might be the first State in Australia which introduces laws
which could have serious unintended consequences to curb public protests.
There is little doubt that if the State succeeds in passing the laws,
which I'm sure they will, other States will get a sniff and try something
similar.
Then the Federal Government has all the encouragement it needs to act and
it will continue to erode the democratic rights of citizens which
includes the public right to protest.
Before you judge what you see on your biased commercial nightly news and
carelessly jump to support laws that curb public protests, take a look at
XR yourself and the cause they fight, and make your own judgment based on
facts from an organization that are transparent in their activities.
The same can't be said for Queensland and the Federal Government which
continue to embrace secrecy and introduce laws based on filtered
information which isn't always entirely accurate.
*****
Outside Perspective #20 - September 24, 2019
As the United Nations wraps up the latest environmental conference in New
York, sadly the US President and Australian Prime Minister still don't
take the science supporting climate change serious enough to have any
representatives speak at the conference.
Instead, the world watches as the brave Swedish teenager and
environmental activist, Greta Thunberg, lectures the world's leaders on
their consistent lack of inaction on climate change and emissions
reductions.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison continues on his 10-day US tour which seems
more like just a holiday, as nothing significant appears to have come
from the tour so far.
I'm not actually sure what the point of the whole 10-day tour has been.
To have dinner with the US President Donald Trump? To visit a new Pratt
Industries plant in Ohio which makes cardboard boxes? Who knows.
If it were to simply reaffirm US/Australia international relations then
there's two things that could be said on that.
Did a reaffirmation of a pre-existing healthy diplomatic relationship
really require a 10-day tour? Also, if it was to discuss rising tensions
between the US, China and Iran then that has been a big failure because
we've learned nothing new on that front.
The US obligingly continue their trade war with China while Australia
continues to be squeezed in the middle and reminds each party of how
important Australia's relationship is with both.
Same old story.
On Iran, Australia is committed to protecting shipping routes in the
Strait of Hormuz but that's where our commitment stops.
All of this we knew before Morrison set out on a 10-day tour of the US.
There's something disturbing about the image the public is presented of
the world's most powerful leaders - leaders of the free world.
The latter reference could be debated, however for the sake of argument
we'll stick with that tagline for now.
But there's something particularly discomforting about seeing videos of
Trump standing side-by-side with Morrison.
It's a bit like looking at Goofy and Pluto.
To say it's discomforting is an understatement.
There's many words you could use to describe it.
I make the comparison to the videos we saw in the early 2000s of then US
President George W.
Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Australian Prime Minister John
Howard.
Ignoring their past political records for a second, when you observed all
three leaders standing side-by-side you knew they remained united on a
specific issue and you knew they meant business.
The same cannot be said for today's leaders of arguably the world's most
important democracies.
Trump standing next to Morrison is bad enough.
Imagine adding Boris Johnson to complete the modern day trio equivalent.
An almost haunting thought.
It is true that in politics actions are more important than
presentation, but it cannot be underestimated the importance the
presentation of a leader has on a nation's people.
In uncertain times people need assurance that everything will be alright
and their lives, the safety of their families and their freedoms will be
protected.
At the moment our leaders are failing us.
It starts with presentation and if the people are not comforted by the
presentation of their leaders, then it's not a good start.
A good example is the former Queensland Premier Anna Bligh.
During the 2010-2011 Queensland floods Bligh made herself very public and
was holding regular televised updates and news interviews during the
worst of the floods.
Some believe her presence was too much and that she should have stayed
out of the public eye, paving the way to allow the professionals to do
their jobs.
To be fair to Bligh, despite the very public presentation she never
hampered the hard work of emergency workers and the professionals.
Her constant presence was widely approved though and it proves the theory
of the importance of presentation of our leaders.
A counter-example is the recent choice by current Queensland Premier
Annastacia Palaszczuk to go to Switzerland to meet with the International
Olympic Committee for discussions on a possible future bid to host the
Olympic Games, while at the same time aggressive bushfires were raging
across the South-East of her State.
Many Queenslanders believed Palaszczuk's Switzerland trip should have
been immediately canceled and she should have returned home.
Others believed she made the right decision to stay in Switzerland and
let the professionals do their jobs.
The argument for and against can always be debated.
But if she had of made the decision to return to Queensland I believe it
would have made the people and specifically, residents that were affected
by the devastating bushfires, take a bit of comfort to see that their
leader cared and was monitoring the situation.
What happened to our leaders.
Right now, democracy is like an abandoned boat adrift in the open ocean
with no captain.
*****
The Sunday Roast #20 - September 22, 2019
For a long time I have been accusing the Liberal Party of attempting to
strip the democratic pillars out of Australia's political system.
There is plentiful legislation already in effect to support my notion.
The general political behavior of the Liberal Party and its members
support my notion further.
On September 10 (2019) it became evident during Question Time that the
country's leading law man in the House of Representatives, Attorney
General Christian Porter, was willing to create a public spectacle to
demonstrate the Liberal Party just isn't interested in democracy.
It could further again support any notion that the Liberal Party of
Australia will sink to just about any depths to attempt to censor, divert
or abolish any kind of democratic debate.
I'm certainly not suggesting anyone has broken the Parliamentary rules.
That assertion is wrong because censures and motions are thrown around
Parliament House all the time.
Still, when a motion can be used to essentially shut down debate and stop
democracy in its tracks you have to wonder whether radical change of the
rules is overdue.
When I was working with Democratic Pirates Australia, these were the
types of radical reform options we started to explore.
Sadly, the party's operations ceased before any kind of democracy reform
blueprint was drafted.
Perhaps this is something that requires a serious revisit and
consideration.
Obviously, any reform proposals must be drafted within the constraints of
the Australian Constitution - which is a double-edged sword in itself,
offering some level of democratic protection while also limiting options
for much needed reform to the very function of our democracy.
The series of events in the Lower House I refer to occurred when
Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese tried for a censure motion.
I am not exactly sure what the censure motion was in response to, but
it's not relevant to my point.
It was immediately followed up by a motion the member no longer be heard,
directed at Albo, and signaling retaliation by Attorney General Christian
Porter.
This silly game played out two or three more times with Labor members
attempting to speak out against the Liberal Party, which then prompted
immediate motions from Porter.
It was silly and embarrassing to watch.
My account might not be entirely accurate verbatim, but you get the idea.
If you're really keen on details it's all there in Hansard.
To be fair, I should point out that it was all started by Albo's censure
attempt, but the response from the Liberal Party through Porter's
retaliatory motions was silly and immature, and highlights where our
democracy can fail.
It is no surprise that the Australian public has lost confidence in our
political leaders when you observe these meaningless games unfold in the
public view and broadcast on national television.
I am losing confidence in our two major parties having the ability to
have a mature and sensible debate.
Where do we go from here to restore confidence in our democracy and our
political leaders? I'm afraid for the general public our power of
influence may be very limited.
We have the power of our vote, which also draws me to clarify that
although I'm critical of the erosion of democracy in Australia, I remain
grateful that we do have compulsory free vote during elections.
It really does allow the public to retain some description of power by
deciding who retains office and governs the nation.
Also, we can contact our local members, or any member of Parliament for
that matter, and express our displeasure of their behavior and remind
them that it is a failure of the representation of the electorate.
Because after all, Parliament is built from representatives who are
elected to represent their electorate.
I genuinely believe this fact has been forgotten by so many in Parliament
House.
Instead, we see a House full of ministers who each have their own
personal agenda and will go to any length to achieve that agenda.
Shamefully, the Liberal Party is chocked full of this type, and it's
getting worse.
The Liberal Party doesn't represent the people anymore.
The sad reality is neither does the Labor Party.
It's time that these grown adults that act like children step aside and
let the real adults take control and go back to the basics of
representing the people, which also includes indigenous peoples.
*****
Outside Perspective #19 - August 13, 2019
There are a lot of ill feelings about Cambridge Analytica, or the company
that was.
It's important to remember Cambridge Analytica was doing the same thing
my wife and I do, but we don't generally get into behavioral
measurements; some customer emotional weighting based on word frequency
and proximity in call analysis and social media mining.
The issue with Cambridge Analytica may be simply an ethics problem - if
that - because they were mining emotional data regarding what issues had
the biggest response.
What they found was racism, perceived money gaps, government spying,
hatred of socialist programs and gun control.
The campaigning triggered by this research was and is no different than
dirty tricks practiced in American politics since our first election.
And these hot-button issues are determined by the press.
Racial tensions weren't an issue until Trump mentioned them and the press
amplified them into dominant issues, and continue to.
The big headline political problems are completely disproportional to
their propaganda.
If the news stopped covering abortion protests, this wouldn't be an
issue, because only a small percentage of people actually get abortions.
Racism is triggered by saturation reporting on perceived black
mistreatment, to the exclusion of larger more relevant issues.
Eventually people get tired of the same stories night after night.
These may be real problems that need fixing, but excluding America's
other problems, eventually drives people to resent the privilege that the
protesting groups receive.
Especially when it's issues over old forgotten statues.
Stirring up emotions to the point of violence with lies and too much
focus have been around a long time.
Using better data only makes them more effective, not more reprehensible.
Finally - and this is something that there doesn't appear to be any
credible and conclusive information on - we ask what happened to all the
data that Cambridge Analytica acquired? They were a data analysis company
and the data they had acquired over years in operation would be very
valuable, and still potentially very profitable.
As stated in the recently released Netflix documentary "The Great Hack",
data mining and analysis will go on and there will always be a Cambridge
Analytica even though there is no Cambridge Analytica.
Still, what Cambridge Analytica done was probably morally and ethically
wrong.
But you have to wonder whether it was fair they were singled out for
doing something that so many other companies continue to do without the
same level of attention placed on them.
Guest post by Brett Brennan.
*****
The Sunday Roast #19 - August 11, 2019
What happened to the general art of kindness.
When you observe the emotion of kindness and how people express it in
society you quickly realize that it is expressed not very often.
It's becoming a more prevalent problem and sometimes is either not
noticed simply because people are not going out to pay attention to
society behavior, or it is simply shrugged off as not an important issue.
While I understand that some people may not notice because they genuinely
just do not notice, those who do notice and shrug it off or are
effectively complicit in the act of not being kind, are actually helping
the problem fester.
Forgetting to be kind has stemmed from the basic collective we call
'society' to a class of people we call those 'in power'.
Although personally I treat all equal and do not like the term power when
the term is attached to describe a person, title or status.
But generally speaking, and for the sake of making my point, we generally
refer to those with this so-called 'power' as the politicians, their
advisors and those that have significant influence around the world.
As I take a more serious approach to my Buddhist philosophical beliefs
and interpret the texts I read, I am quickly coming to better understand
the art of kindness and its ultimate purpose.
Politicians, their advisors and those working in the public sector or
have significant power of influence in global events, in any way, should
take heed and practice the art of kindness.
It may sound like a ridiculous suggestion at first, but it's not
ridiculous at all.
There is a point to my suggestion.
I'm not calling for a Buddhist revolution.
It's not about that at all.
In fact, it has nothing to do with religion or philosophy, rather a
common human expression and something all humans are capable of.
Kindness, accompanied by a little bit of understanding and respect could
instantly release much global tension that the world is experiencing at
the moment.
While some in society are willing to throw their hands up and give up any
hope that politics has any chance of regaining any credibility it may
have had, I'm not like that.
I take a more philosophical and pacifist approach.
Global tensions are having an effect on society that cannot be ignored.
Tension and differences between world governments is really beginning to
flow through down to society.
I have had two conversations this week with two separate people who both
said something different, yet interestingly, their comments stuck with
me.
The first person expressed a genuine concern among society about how
difficult it has become to find happy and kind people.
The person also said that when they do engage with society they struggle
and feel they are alone, treated as the outcast because they are happy.
The second person said to me that they "worry about the future of the
world".
A rather short and blunt expression of their specific worry but it was
just another example of the discontent among society.
Look at what's happening in Hong Kong - it's discontent of democracy in
Hong Kong which has drawn hundreds of thousands, if not millions, out of
their homes and workplaces to protest.
It has reached a critical point with no peaceful solution in sight.
But that's just one international event as an example.
There is many more.
You might be asking yourself how on Earth I have come to the conclusion
that the world's most influential people are causing discontent among
society by being unkind? That's a reasonable question to ask.
Well, I'd say it's actually pretty obvious, and I'm no psychologist.
Protests in Hong Kong - threat of a new trade war breaking out between
South Korea and Japan - the ongoing trade war between the US and China -
souring diplomatic relations between Australia and China - legitimate
concerns of Chinese influence and their illegal expansion in the
Asia/Pacific region - increasing threat of war between India and Pakistan
- the increasing hostilities from Iran - renewed threat of an arms race
between the US and Russia - Venezuela on the brink of collapse of its
political structures and economy - Yemen, the world's worst humanitarian
disaster at present with no end to the war in sight - and the stalemate
of North Korea and its nuclear program - all of these problems are tense
and unique in their required resolve.
People are worried.
Obviously it is unreasonable to expect all of these problems to be solved
easily and overnight.
They are all extremely complicated problems.
As the world becomes more integrated and globalized all the time, it's
had a nasty side-effect that nobody could have predicted in that it has
made international problems extremely complex, therefore making it
difficult to find common interests and resolve.
But all problems can be solved and it doesn't always have to be through
military conflict.
I genuinely believe that no country ever wants to go to war.
All differences can be solved and compromises can be made when personal
agenda doesn't intrude.
It usually does.
Society expects the world's global leaders and those in power to lift
their game, act in the best interests of their nation, for sure, but also
the world.
World peace matters.
We are a globalized society now and we must all re-learn to be kind,
respect, tolerate and compromise where necessary.
The immediate problem the world faces is the standoff between the US and
China.
Not limited to economic impacts, they are the two nations that will have
the most serious and negative impacts on the rest of the world if
tensions are not cooled soon.
Some international political experts are already worried the situation
has passed the point the US and China can once again share a common view
and understanding.
The US has a hot-headed ill tempered leader.
And China has a stubborn and ignorant totalitarian leader who sacrifices
almost all civil and human rights to get what he wants.
These are two grown men who both know better and can both find a
solution, easily if they want to.
But like I said, personal agenda intrudes.
It's a big problem for the rest of us.
While society does not wake up in the morning worried about this single
global problem of the US versus China, the tension it generates is
causing society to lose faith in politics.
There is no center democracy anymore.
The left continue to call for free speech to be curbed and the right
branches out even further to the right bordering on the extremes which
don't really have a name yet.
Right wing politics has almost reached the point it that it cannot see
the center anymore, on the horizon behind.
It should be no surprise that citizens feel their own political vision
has no home anymore.
Kindness; perhaps the world's leaders should just try it and see where it
goes.
*****
Outside Perspective #18 - July 30, 2019
For Outside Perspective I actually had a different topic in mind that I
was going to write about.
I'll return to my original thoughts in coming weeks as I feel today's
topic is more important and requires attention.
Outside Perspective this round has kind of flipped and unofficially
become Inside Perspective, as I speak from direct experience.
This will also probably read more like a personal blog post rather than a
supposed politically focused column.
I do not apologize for raising an issue which needs more calling out.
As momentum continues to accelerate within the Australian Parliament for
raising the amount for Newstart Allowance - a justified call - it's a
good opportunity to raise another problem Australia is suffering.
Although not directly related to the calls for an increase to Newstart,
it is indirectly related.
Australia has a problem with an attached stigma to people on welfare.
I'm not referring to a specific welfare group or specific payment type,
just welfare recipients in general.
Many have seen the effect of the stigma being attached, and experienced
its negative effects.
I have seen it, and personally experienced it too.
I do not aim to draw attention to myself or my life personal
circumstances.
But I can say that I am a proud single male parent to my sole son.
I receive government welfare payments in the form of single parenting
payment.
This will most likely remain the case until he is at the age to enter the
public school system.
I have personally been accused, very recently, of being "unemployed" and
enjoying the benefits of having a "day off everyday".
This blatant disrespectful accusation comes from somebody I personally
know.
I'm not going to sit here and call out this person by name in the public
domain.
But I will call out their offensive actions.
I am very angry.
I have now experienced the negative effects of a falsely constructed
stereotype which somwhere in Australia's modern history has been applied
to welfare recipients.
It's offensive.
It's hurtful.
And it's plain damn wrong.
I always hoped Australians were better than this.
It seems I was wrong and it's quickly turning out that I had a severe
case of wishful thinking.
It makes it worse when it comes from someone you personally know.
However the part that really bothers me is how easy this person has
adopted the inaccurate view which has come into being from a pre-existing
stigma, without any careful consideration to the eventual impacts it can
have in someone.
Please, we need to stop calling welfare recipients "dole bludgers".
We need to stop calling single parents "unemployed".
And we need to stop calling the severely disabled "unemployed" too.
People who find themselves in difficult and sometimes non-preventable
circumstances deserve better and should not be subjected to unnecessary
judgment from those unqualified to be making judgment.
There are some welfare recipients that abuse the system, sure.
Nobody denies these dishonest people exist, yet they are the minority and
it cannot be used as a weak excuse for attacking the legitimate majority.
The majority of young and mature unemployed want to find suitable and
secure employment, but until that situation arises, they also want and
deserve to be treated with dignity.
Single parents are doing it tough too.
It's not an easy task to raise a child on your own.
The sacrifices you have to make are simply incomprehensible to those not
in the situation.
Australia - stop being judgmental.
Stop stereotyping groups of individuals for self-satisfaction and ease up
on the bitterness.
As a society, we can be better than this.
But at the moment, this nation has a real attitude problem.
*****
The Sunday Roast #18 - July 28, 2019
After another short break, I'm back, and I'm fired up.
Actually, I'm very calm.
Upon return to the office I've realized that there is lots to be done,
many political issues that require attention and much communication that
needs to be had.
But hey, I'm feeling relaxed and content and am taking things as I
please.
But that's not to take away the serious nature of many important issues
that I will be focusing my attention on in the latter half of 2019.
What has grabbed my immediate attention this week is the release of the
final report of the Digital Platforms Inquiry, which has been delivered
by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or ACCC as we all
know them.
The report is extremely extensive and weighs in at a heavy 600 plus pages
- 623 to be precise.
This is a good thing.
In fact, it's a brilliant thing.
It shows that the ACCC has done the job properly and not just skimmed
over the area which let's be honest, needed this type of deep inspection
inquiry.
This was the inquiry that needed to happen and probably should have
happened at least three years ago.
There is a side-effect to how extensive the report's content is.
It will take some time for the Government and relevant ministers to go
over the report in detail.
Unfortunately, many will just take a brief look at the Executive Summary,
which comes in at a measly 42 pages.
For the real lazy ministers, and there's many I suspect, they will have a
staffer go over the Executive Summary for them and task the staffer to
provide a further brief summary for the minister.
This would undoubtedly reduce the information set further.
By the time the information reaches the minister, it could be reduced to
something that resembles the pathetic summary of the Mueller Report that
was drafted by US Attorney General Bill Barr's office, of which could be
read over lunch and comment as they see fit.
I'd like to give Australian bureaucrats and public servants a little more
credit than our American friends, though.
I would hope that any Australian Government minister (including those in
opposition and the crossbench) who is serious about reforming the digital
sector and regulate the digital giants operations in Australia, would
take a closer look at the report's content.
It will take time.
Time? Well, yes, the Government has plenty of it.
Post-election we've seen a Government who has become complacent.
They have no agenda.
They won the election on an economic platform.
However, the economy appears to be holding up nicely, for now, and
there's very little the Government needs to do at the moment with the
economy as it is not exactly in a state of emergency.
So it needs to refocus on something else.
The Government needs to take the time to seriously look at the report and
do this right.
They've stuffed up national security legislation and eroded our civil
liberties.
They certainly don't see the urgency in acting to protect Australia's
free press.
They continue to be hostile towards the public broadcasters.
They don't appear to be giving Indigenous recognition much thought, with
the exception of the brilliant and much respected Ken Wyatt.
But on this issue, it feels like Ken Wyatt is a man batting for the
entire team with his fellow team members continuing to play the role of
side-line coach.
The Digital Platforms Inquiry is deeply personal to me too.
I was the co-author of two Submissions to the inquiry.
I led a small team at Freedom Publishers Union to narrow down the
organization's focus to five key issues which we would hope the inquiry
addresses.
Upon brief examination of the report released by the ACCC, the inquiry
appears to have recommendations that do touch on the issues Freedom
Publishers Union expressed concern about.
Plus, the inquiry has actually drawn attention to more issues which were
previously not thought of by myself, or anyone I work with.
Many of the additional recommendations by the ACCC I would urge Freedom
Publishers Union to support.
Any response by Freedom Publishers Union will be considered and
responsible, and will also try to remain realistic and doable in the
recommended action.
The Australian Government must do the same.
Media executives have been out in the days following the public release
of the ACCC's report, touting its content and crying urgency that the
Government act swiftly.
I hope they take their time and get this right.
Because technology and digital giants' activities are moving quickly and
this is our only shot to get this right.
The Government now has an agenda, an agenda which has been delivered to
them by the ACCC.
*****
Outside Perspective #17 - July 2, 2019
When anyone departs a place of employment it is only natural that one
embarks on a search for a new role which satisfies the human curiosity
for something different, but which is also something we feel confident
doing and takes complete advantage of the previous acquired knowledge and
experience we have attained through life and previous roles of
employment.
These same basic principles of working life should be applicable to
former politicians too.
It is the first week back for the Parliament since the Federal Election
and Labor has already decided to embark on a bickering journey.
I really thought they'd have learned some lessons from the past 6 years
in opposition.
Clearly they've learned nothing.
Labor has taken particular aim at former government ministers,
Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop.
Pyne has accepted a part-time role with a consulting firm which has
working relationships with the Australian Defense Force.
While Bishop has accepted a role with a firm which deals with foreign aid
contracts and may also have working relationships with the Australian
Government, indirectly.
The names of the firms is not important, nor is the level of working
relationships the firms may hold with the Australian Government, directly
or indirectly.
Both of the aforementioned roles will have no impact on the operations of
the Government or place any compromise on the security of the nation.
However, Labor has decided they don't approve of the roles that Pyne and
Bishop have accepted and are calling on the Prime Minister to act, and
intervene.
What powers the PM precisely has over former government ministers, I do
not know.
I do know there are rules that are in place that are supposed to guide
former government ministers by outlining what roles of employment they
should avoid, to remove any chance of conflict of interest that may arise
from the information they have obtained as being a government minister.
However, I understand the rules are not legally binding and set to act as
a guideline only.
I hold a firm view that implementing or attempting to enforce any rules
on former government ministers is silly and would prove ineffective if
any attempt was made to try to intervene.
I am not naive though.
I completely understand the motive and intent of the rules, but we need
to take a grown-up view to this and make a realistic assessment of each
case.
If the former government ministers are not directly and publicly lobbying
for their former party attached and there is no direct threat to
intelligence and security of the nation which has come as a result of
information they have shared which was acquired from their former roles
in government, then there really is no cause for concern by the current
government or any other current member of Parliament from either House.
Former politicians are human too.
Stop treating them like a contagion and making them feel like they need
to be placed in quarantine.
If I had a former workplace trying to dictate where or who I could work,
I'd certainly have some colorful language to throw in their direction.
Pyne and Bishop are certainly not weak by nature and I'm sure the
negative commentary won't bother them in the slightest.
It's fair to say they can take care of themselves.
Labor really need to sit down and assess how they - as a party - will
approach the next 3 years of opposition.
If they continue down the same old path of negativity that Labor has
become infamous, largely thanks to former Opposition Leader Bill Shorten,
then there's no chance they'll escape the trap of opposition in the
foreseeable future.
*****
The Sunday Roast #17 - June 30, 2019
The changing of the Liberal guard last August unfolded in the ugliest of
fashions.
I don't wish to go over all the gory and unnecessary details, again, in
this column.
But whatever occurred based on who you choose to believe, saw Scott
Morrison become leader of the Liberal Party and the country's latest
Prime Minister.
I genuinely hope we don't see a repeat of that ugly episode in the
Liberal Party, or the Labor Party for that matter.
While both parties have implemented rules which aim to curb the chances
of the culling of party leaders, I'm still skeptical as to just how
effective the rules in place would be if the party internals had lost
absolute confidence in their leader.
If they wanted to overthrow a party leader, they would seek a way to roll
them.
While I'm not familiar with specifics of the party rules that have been
implemented by either of the major parties, I'm sure there are loopholes.
There are always loopholes.
Why am I raving on about leadership changes? Well, you can blame the
mainstream media pack for sparking the conversation, again.
Particularly The Australian, which have gone to great lengths this week
to dig up further dirt and attempt to paint former Prime Minister,
Malcolm Turnbull, as the sole destroyer of his own political destiny.
The latest revelations have come at a curious time, coinciding with the
soon to be released book by writer and columnist, Niki Savva, on the
leadership coup.
Savva's version of events detailed in her upcoming book, according to
excerpts published in The Australian, reveal details previously not aired
in the public sphere.
Although I personally find Savva's writing difficult to read on occasion,
she deserves credit in this case and proves that even after her time as a
former political staffer for John Howard and Peter Costello, she appears
to retain her sources inside the Canberra bubble.
Although to be completely fair, there is no way to verify the accuracy of
the details of anything she writes.
At least not yet.
Also, the politician I find the most sickening and bad smelling pile of
toxic ooze in the entire Parliament, Peter Dutton, has latched onto the
opportunity and attempted to form a new public image of himself by
working with Sky after dark and revealing, in intimate detail, key
moments and details of heated meetings which are his version of events
that have supposedly unfolded during the time of the leadership crisis
last August, involving the Attorney General Christian Porter, Malcolm
Turnbull and himself.
I tell yah what, for someone who has an addiction to secrecy and
continues to attempt to place a blanket over Australia's continued human
rights abuse, Dutton certainly has a lot to openly reveal on this
subject.
Don't be fooled.
Be wary.
This man is no saint.
It's worth noting that Turnbull has been relatively quiet on the latest
details that media has been dishing out, led by The Australian.
Whether Turnbull will respond, I do not know.
It's very possible he no longer cares about the moment where his
political career came crashing to a screaming halt.
And the moment those he thought were his most loyal turned out not to be
so.
He has probably put the entire saga into the 'don't care' basket and
moved on with his life.
You can't blame him.
Until The Australian regurgitated the episode with supposed new details,
most Australians had moved on too.
It all screams of promotional marketing for Savva's upcoming book, to be
perfectly honest.
Parliament resumes tomorrow, for the first time since the election.
Let's hope we see some fresh debate and fresh thinking by the Government
on important topics that Australians actually care about and will
actually improve the nation.
Oh wait, we're still stuck on that tax bill debate.
That darn thing...
nothing changes in Canberra.
The Liberals are determined to ram all three stages of the tax bill
through and Labor remain as determined as ever to oppose it.
It will get through, eventually.
Like I said, "Nothing changes in Canberra.".
*****
Outside Perspective #16 - June 18, 2019
This column is not my first public expression of outrage on the media
raids from the federal cops.
Certainly not.
And if this constant erosion of the free press in Australia continues
under the newly reelected Coalition Government, then it's certainly not
going to be the last either.
Nor am I to be restrained in the serious tone of the words that I use
when I publicly condemn these people for raiding through the underwear
drawer of a female journalist, on a treasure hunt to find the concealed
golden USB stick.
All "standard procedure" of course, according to the feds.
And they go out the next day and make a public spectacle of themselves by
raiding the national headquarters of our ABC.
Come on guys, this is Australia.
We are better than this and this is a country where rubbish like this
should not happen.
I've sat down and carefully tried to piece together the pieces of just
how Australia - a once free and proud nation - reached the point where we
see a united voice of condemnation over the actions of our federal law
enforcement officers who's actions are impeding our press freedom.
These people - many of them good men and women, I'm sure - are paid by us
all to protect our nation and fight serious federal crime which has real
potential of real harm.
Instead, we see them on our TV screens carrying out actions which
resemble, frankly, that of totalitarian regimes where there is no such
thing as the free press and intimidation from law enforcement with
support by mafia-style governments are the norm.
The claimed excuse for the heavy response of the feds is like always,
they were acting on "national security" grounds.
I'm sorry, I'm not falling for this rubbish any longer.
The two media raids I refer to are a response to the publication of
documents and information which outlined the Government's plan to expand
mass-surveillance to spy on Australian citizens, domestically.
And, a separate publication which detailed possible war crimes against
unarmed civilians in Afghanistan.
Since the raids and the public outcry that followed, the Government
through the droning national security mouthpiece of Peter Dutton went to
great lengths running around to media outlets claiming there was no plans
to expand powers to allow for domestic spying on Australian citizens.
Then, late last week, the tone changed and Dutton back flipped, calling
for a "serious" and "considered" discussion on the matter and essentially
reiterating that the Government's plans for domestic spying were not dead
after all.
This Coalition Government has become a national security joke, built upon
foundations of secrecy and denial which continue to be expanded and
broadened.
The national security threat to Australia is not from outside forces,
rather from inside our own Government.
They are the threat.
Much of the West's national security apparatus goes back to September 11,
2001.
The downing of the World Trade Center towers in New York, along with the
many other unexplained surrounding incidents on the day, were used as a
conveniently united excuse to justify the continued expansion of national
security legislation that has been rolled out.
Particularly among the 'Five Eyes' nations.
Which yes, includes Australia.
In fact, we now understand that among the five nations of the security
intelligence cooperative, since 2001, Australia has introduced more
national security legislation than all the other four member nations.
This has included expansion of mass-surveillance, increased spying powers
and meta-data retention laws.
There is just so much that has been introduced that it has made it
extremely difficult to keep track of all individual pieces of legislation
along with its intended purpose.
This has also had a really nasty side-effect - intentional or not - of
accelerating the erosion of civil liberties and press freedom.
Thankfully, some of us have been paying attention.
It's certainly not limited to Australia.
This has been a growing problem in all Western democracies and the
problem has gone from being serious, surpassed very serious to extremely
concerning.
So concerning, in fact, that it places valid questions over the
durability and strength of Australia's democracy and our Constitution.
All of this has been allowed to happen, is legal and there is no
Constitutional protections that appear to be able to stop Australia from
going down the dark path we're heading.
I have warned about the dangers I speak of in this column, and my many
other editorials and opinion pieces I've composed.
It's time we stop warning, stop just talking about dangers of X, Y and Z
and start thinking about real solutions.
We need to be better.
We need to reform our media laws and place a big priority on protection
provisions.
Many have called for Constitutional protections.
It sounds like an appealing proposition and in a perfect world is exactly
what is needed, considering Australia has no constitutional protections
for the free press.
The so-called protections the Government touts as part of existing
national security legislation is a legislative joke and has proven to be
absolutely ineffective.
The US has its constitutional protections.
Some argue of their benefits, but I'll argue against them.
In principle, they're crucial.
But in a growing number of cases against freedom of the press, the US war
on journalism and Julian Assange to hand pick just one particular case,
is the best illustration that despite constitutional protections for the
free press in the US, those protection are worth absolutely nothing when
government outright ignore them.
What is the answer? Where do we go from here? That will be one of our
greatest challenges Australia has faced since Federation.
*****
The Sunday Roast #16 - June 16, 2019
The world is a busy place at the moment.
Tense too.
If there is any specific international event to talk about that is
deserved of the attention of the international community, it would have
to be the intense and fast evolving situation of the protests in Hong
Kong opposing the controversial extradition legislation.
We could go on for the next week breaking down the bill and examine it in
fine detail.
But let's stop right there and call this bill out for exactly what it is.
It is satisfying the appetite of mainland China to strengthen its grip on
Hong Kong and the rights of its citizens.
It will strip Hong Kong citizens of the legal protections they deserve,
on so many levels.
Let's not be ignorant to the fact that citizens of Hong Kong, including
those born in the province and those who have fled across the border for
often very legitimate and innocent reasons, have been disappeared for
many years - academics, professionals, business leaders - it's a long
list.
I've been leading the call through Freedom Publishers Union to have China
release Australian writer, Yang Hengjun, who has been held in detention
in China at a secret location.
The problem China faces is despite successfully jumping into Hong Kong
and kidnapping and detaining citizens, it is still not legal.
Not that they'd hesitate either way.
This is a totalitarian regime by all standards and the usual diplomatic
process and respect does not exist as it should.
This bill makes extradition of Hong Kong citizens to mainland China
legal.
It's the start of a much bigger problem to come, because along with
China's aggressive clamping down on any remaining freedoms of its people,
including those in Hong Kong, there could soon be an easier path to allow
for the legal extraditing of citizens to the mainland, where they face
prosecution for whatever unjust and unfair law they have supposedly
broken.
I'm no longer going to sugar coat it - China has been on the path to
becoming an extremely repressive, soul destroying, freedom hating,
totalitarian regime for a very long time, operated at the hands of the
Chinese President, Xi Jinping.
Just how powerful the grip mainland China has on the supposedly
independent diplomatic leadership team in Hong Kong is anyone's guess.
But I'd say there would be a heavy unspoken amount of background
influences at play, despite any pledge of independence the Hong Kong
leaders may shout.
The press conference held by the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Carrie Lam,
was a genuine cause for concern as despite her attempts to appear
respectful towards the concerns of the protesters, which managed to place
enough pressure on Lam to call a halt to the proceeding of the
extradition legislation, for an unspecified amount of time, she also
spoke like someone who was under immense pressure from China.
It's still much too early to predict how this will all be resolved.
I assume that the protests will continue to be held and dealt with by
force by the Hong Kong law enforcement, as China would expect them to be
dealt with.
Many had feared the protests would be broken up with a moderate repeat of
the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 which saw the Chinese military move
in and start killing their own nation's citizens.
Disgraceful.
I'd like to hope we're past that point and a more rational response would
ensue.
As the Chinese regime constantly becomes more aggressive and asserts
their global influence, they expand the grip on its citizens by exposing
them to constant mass-surveillance, social harassment, adopting a social
credit system and forcing the brainwashing for those that dare have any
notion to free thinking on religion, philosophy or politics.
China is becoming a great worry not just for the limited freedoms Hong
Kong has left, but for the world.
While I'm sure that in the end China will get what they want - full
control and the integrating of Hong Kong - I'm also sure they will then
set their sights firmly on Taiwan.
If that is to occur, how the international community responds will prove
to be crucial for the future security of the region.
Australia's military is certainly no match for that of China.
Besides, we should be advocating peaceful resolve and not military
conflict.
However, our allegiance with the USA will be the factor which decides how
Australia reacts to any future threat from China in the Asia/Pacific
zone.
While I was away for a couple of weeks, I observed the Hong Kong protests
unfolding in real-time and thought deep and hard about what I could do at
Democratic Political Front to support them.
Sadly, the powers of support we can offer is limited.
The protesters have shown strong resistance to losing any further freedom
their province enjoys.
They have put themselves literally on the front line and in direct harms
way.
Many will probably face arrest and possible detainment some time in the
future as the protests have been declared a riot and you can place all
bets on the table that Hong Kong, pushed by China, will go all out in
seeking out those who organized and participated in the protests which
gathered international support.
From outside Hong Kong, there's very little we can do other than call out
the aggressive nature of China's actions and its power assertion on the
Hong Kong province.
Hong Kong could push back with more restraint against China than what
they currently are, but that poses further problems which we cannot
possibly begin to examine in this column.
At the crux of it, this is about China intimidating Hong Kong into action
to get what it wants.
Like I said, I don't know how this will end.
But I worry the ending will not be the ending we're hoping for.
*****
Outside Perspective #15 - May 7, 2019
Preferences are always a topic of voter confusion and shoulder-shrugging
which results in pointless debate.
Let's face it, unless it's election season, nobody really gives a damn
about preferences.
Some voters become deeply concerned about preferences.
Some don't care.
And others believe that preferences should not exist and the entire
voting process which underpins our democracy should be reformed and
simplified.
Preferences are confusing in the way they operate and influence election
outcomes.
And they do have a significant amount of influence - in certain cases -
to throw election results in all kinds of whacky and unpredictable
directions that are often unforeseen by political analysts.
Unless you posses the god-like predictability skill of Antony Green.
The past two weeks have been particularly interesting yet somewhat
draining, as political party opponents throw rocks at each other about
who has preferenced who.
The Liberals preferencing Clive Palmer's bullying mobsters over Pauline
Hanson's bunch of incompetent clowns seemed to upset Labor.
Then the Liberals got upset over Labor preferencing The Greens.
That was a no-brainer, really.
And the Liberals would have known that would happen.
Labor has always preferenced The Greens first and this election was never
going to change tradition.
The only difference this election is the obvious increased tension
between Labor and The Greens.
The Liberals probably do feel a bit intimidated against the forces they
seem powerless to stop - Labor and The Greens, which both enjoy the
powerful backing of GetUp.
Ignoring my personal views of the GetUp lynch-mob of political wannabes,
the lobby organization does pose significant influence to the left.
Don't believe the Labor denials, GetUp is absolutely in bed with the
Labor Party.
To the voter, the rock throwing antics is just theatrics.
Much like the verbal weaponry we witness during Question Time.
While it does reign true that preferences matter, in a crazy kind of way,
the interest in preferences specifically, in the public sphere is almost
non-exist and renders the rock throwing rather pointless and primarily
serves the personal attack satisfaction rating of the individuals.
Whether you lean towards the left, the right, prefer to support a smaller
party or perhaps an independent candidate, that's fine.
The point doesn't change that all the candidates have to preference
someone or some party.
It's just one element of our delicate democracy and the election process.
If you were going to vote for candidate A but have chosen to vote for
candidate B instead because candidate A has chosen to preference party X
instead or your own preference of party Y, then that's fine too.
But understand that's just a silly reason to change your vote from your
original inclination.
Using the lame duck parties of United Australia Party and One Nation as
two examples, in just about every case they will be preferenced at the
bottom.
In what order doesn't really matter that much.
Media has shone the light on this small part of the election a little too
much.
The fact remains that both of these parties will be towards the bottom,
where they belong.
Clive Palmer has bought his way into the game, again.
And Pauline Hansen, well, I'm not too sure why she's still playing the
game to be honest as One Nation appears to be imploding more each day the
election campaign drags on.
*****
The Sunday Roast #15 - May 5, 2019
It's great to be back after a bit of a break over Easter.
I trust everyone had a safe and happy Easter.
Admittedly it is a religious holiday.
But whether you are religious or not, I guess any break from the usual
routine can only be a good thing.
But like all good things, it must end and we must all get back to what we
do best.
Since my last columns, the world witnessed the absolutely shocking scenes
of Australia's own Julian Assange getting dragged out of the Ecuadorian
Embassy by Scotland Yard and its organized goons.
I was as horrified as everyone else to witness such scenes.
What made the video vision worse was the appearance of Julian which can
only be described as unkept.
Let's face it, he's looked better.
But I challenge anyone else to spend 6 to 7 years detained to an embassy
building - indoors - to keep themselves looking any better.
Those familiar with Julian will all agree and tell you that he has an
extremely strong mind and is capable of adapting to situations that most
regular people would break.
But it doesn't matter how strong your mind is and how adaptable one can
be, I have no doubts that the extremely complex and difficult
circumstances of the past 7 years have had 'some' effect on Julian
Assange and his mind.
So if the guy looks a bit ragged and unkept, give him a break.
Let's please focus on the core problem, or series of problems, of his
case for just a second.
The Australian Government does not have a very good historical record of
supporting Australia's own when we encounter problems - legal and
diplomatic - in overseas territory.
I have worked with Freedom Publishers Union to make it a priority they
continue to publicly call on the Australian Government to demand that
China free Australian, Yang Hengjun, who is currently being held in
detention in China at a secret location.
As enthusiastic as I am about seeing Yang Hengjun released, I'm also
realistic and accept that dealing with China can be a significantly
complicated and frustrating task where very little progress on
international matters has unfortunately become the norm.
This is largely the result of the unforgiving and punishing Chinese
communist regime of which no excuses should be made for its legitimacy.
However, Australia has much more leverage with the UK and should be
taking a much firmer position on Julian Assange.
While there's no turning off the clock with his 50 week sentence which
has now commenced, Australia should be opposing any extradition to the US
where Julian will undoubtedly face a legal thrashing which you could make
a sure bet is going to be unfair, one-sided and where he will most likely
suffer from a predetermined result.
The Australian Government has become the lapdog of the US and the UK.
They say, we do.
The US wanted its international allies to ban Huawei from contributing to
networking infrastructure, and especially those of the nations that are
part of the 'Five Eyes' intelligence arrangement.
Australia is the lapdog of the US, we jumped at the demand and banned
Huawei.
A big mistake in my view.
Not only will Australians suffer from what will probably be more
expensive access to the 5G networks when they are completed, but it's
also bad for business.
TPG has already stopped upgrades to their own network.
They say it's a direct result of the Huawei ban which has left them with
no choice but to cancel their planned network upgrades which would have
taken advantage of the cost-effective hardware offered by Huawei.
TPG won't be the last either.
It's all a big mess.
Australia might be a child nation of the UK as a result of the monarchy,
but we have a voice of our own.
Use it.
We need to oppose any extradition of Julian Assange to the US and do
everything possible to guarantee he has a safe passage back to Australia
once he completes his sentence of 50 weeks inside a UK jail.
Australia has become weak internationally.
We are afraid to speak up on matters that are in our national interest.
And we are afraid to speak up to protect an Australian embroiled in an
unfair legal pursuit of a man that simply doesn't deserve the treatment
he is being subjected to.
Stop being a lapdog to international demands and start being our own.
*****
Outside Perspective #14 - April 9, 2019
When Prime Minister Scott Morrison held that press conference on national
TV and announced the establishment of the Royal Commission into abuse of
the disabled, I cringed.
His performance was pretty convincing.
I mean, he did actually appear to hold back tears and he did actually
give kudos to his brother-in-law who is disabled and lives with multiple
sclerosis.
Tough.
He done pretty well for himself, actually.
He managed to get all the national mastheads publishing write-ups about
his performance in the days that followed.
Many were quickly convinced that despite his sometimes hard-line approach
on certain issues, he does actually have a heart.
The Prime Minister may have fooled many Australians with his performance
that day, but not me.
If the man had any kind of compassion or heart he would never have kept
sending asylum seekers to the hell-holes of Nauru and Manus Island when
he was in charge of the immigration portfolio.
He showed no compassion for the sick and dying then.
None whatsoever.
That kind of raw absence of compassion is deeply ingrained in Scott
Morrison as much as it is Peter Dutton.
I guess it takes that cold absence of compassion to hold down the
immigration portfolio while still being able to sleep comfortably at
night, knowing that you're sending people to and keeping them locked up
on an island, living in inhumane conditions, stripping them of their
human rights and breaking international law.
Many seem to have forgotten just how much opposition that Scott Morrison
and the Liberal Party put up against the establishment of the Royal
Commission.
The Greens worked pretty hard advocating for it.
As did the Labor Party.
They both worked tirelessly trying to get it established.
I believe the intentions of The Greens and Labor were genuine.
As genuine as the public demonstration of opposition to establishing the
Royal Commission was by the Liberals.
Irrespective of who pushed who to get the Royal Commission off the
ground, the point is it has been established, the money is there and no
party is going to stand in the way and stop it now.
Nor should they.
It's just a shame that the Liberal Party will always be the ones -
whether in government or in opposition - who will stand up in Parliament
and claim credit for the Royal Commission into abuse of the disabled.
It's a bit like the same-sex marriage laws.
The Liberal Party will always take credit for it.
But everyone knows that very few in the Liberal camp actually wanted it.
Especially the Party's senior conservatives.
They just wanted to see it implemented under their watch so they could
forever take political credit for it, rather than see the credit go to
The Greens or the Labor Party.
You might think I'm always pretty harsh towards Scott Morrison.
Sometimes, yeah, I am.
I don't hate the guy, I really don't.
And I do hold respect for him, absolutely.
But I'm not afraid to hold ANY minister in the Parliament accountable for
their actions of the past, present and future.
Every member of the Parliament must be held accountable.
In this instance, we need to try and forget the tragic path of how this
particular Royal Commission has come to fruition and focus on the
positives.
With $500 million plus made available, a 3 year time frame and a panel of
commissioners with respectable credentials, I would certainly hope that
once the inquiry does wrap up and we get the full report and
recommendations, that we see all of the recommendations implemented to
see some real results.
There has been countless reports and inquiries into various problem areas
related to aged care and the disabled.
So far, it appears none of the previous reports have ever resulted in any
significant prompting of action that actually implements improvements to
the care of the aged and disabled.
God knows we need big improvements in both sectors.
I hope they get it.
*****
The Sunday Roast #14 - April 7, 2019
What a sham this week was.
There was nothing about the entire week that could justify one sitting
down and claiming that it was a good week for Australian politics.
There was a modest budget delivered.
But many forget that much of it may never occur anyway.
Especially if we see a change in government after the election.
An election which has not yet been called, mind you.
But I will get to that in just a minute.
Before I do, I want to point out the ridiculous scenario we witnessed
that permitted the passage of some of the most rushed and effectively
useless legislation we have ever seen rammed through the chambers of
Canberra.
The new social media legislation that passed through the chambers is,
let's face it, squarely aimed at Facebook.
If the laws of the text contained inside the legislation are ever able to
be enforced - which I have my doubts it would be by any sensible judge -
it will attempt to hold executives of Facebook (and other social media
companies) directly accountable if their employers fail to take down
violent or hateful content from their platform in a "reasonable" time
frame.
It also covers a bunch of other potential video content deemed harmful
such as suicide, rape, sexual violence etc.
All the usual stuff the average person finds sickening.
That's an important point to remember too.
Most people believe that none of this kind of material - whether it be
videos, images or whatever - belongs on the internet.
The sooner platforms remove it, the better the platforms will be for it.
I have never disputed this.
What I do dispute is holding company executives accountable for the
failures of their employers' processes, and the rush to develop the
legislation that passed this week.
It was developed in a hurry, formed from rash and uninformed decision
making, rammed through without consultation with stakeholders or the
technology community, and without any consultation with other parties.
At least that's what The Greens are claiming.
Shortly after the legislation passed the Upper House, Western Australian
Senator for The Greens, Jordon Steele-John, was claiming that he'd never
even seen the text of the legislation despite it passing through the
Upper House.
That is a huge problem, albeit not unusual.
But the fact legislation regularly passes through the Upper House (and
the Lower House too) without members even briefly scanning the text, is
of great concern.
As you read this column, you might be sitting there wondering just how
did the Liberals manage to get it through the Parliament when they are an
effective minority? Well, fair question.
The simple answer is the let down of the Bill Shorten led Labor Party -
the opposition.
Again, Labor stand up in the chambers of Canberra, claim all that is
wrong with X, Y and Z legislation, then happily wave it through with a
smile on their face.
Please, Bill Shorten you are an embarrassment to the Labor movement and
one of the weakest opposition leaders I have even laid my eyes on.
If you are to become Prime Minister following the election, then...
well...
what more can I say other than God help the nation.
My Greens friends in that place might be willing to jump in bed with you.
But I'm sorry, I'm not willing to go that low.
Specifically on the social media legislation, it's just plain stupid.
It has been rushed, rammed through and reeks of the perception that Prime
Minister Scott Morrison was counting on its passage to earn some quick
political points.
In private conversations I have had about the legislation, let me just
say this, there are some who question its actual purpose and any real
world effect it will have.
Let's be realistic for just a second.
Despite the media hype surrounding the "world first" legislation,
Facebook executives are not going to go to jail for any delay in taking
down violent videos on their platform.
A small fine could be a possibility, but it certainly won't be the
massive multi-millions that Australia claims they will take.
All the legislation does is put on public display, again, that
politicians do not understand the technology sector, at all.
I've said this many times before, so here goes again - THEY JUST DON'T
GET IT! Therefore, policy makers have become incapable of developing
legislation that actually will have a positive result for the Australian
technology sector.
The world's biggest technology companies have already expressed concern
over Australia's stupid encryption access laws.
If Australia wants to encourage new entry of - or keep existing -
technology giants' operations in Australia, then they are certainly not
showing it.
They're doing everything correct to simply drive them out of Australia.
Personally, I wouldn't blame them if they choose to leave.
We have become an unfriendly nation towards all things technology.
So, how can we solve the Parliamentary stupidness that Australians are
being subjected to? Well, with our votes of course.
Oh wait, when is the election? We still don't know.
Media are having a field day trying to play the guessing game of just
when the Prime Minister will call the election date.
All parties are already heavily in campaign mode and engaging with their
respective communities trying to build support.
If Scott Morrison is trying to bait the media by playing silly games by
delaying the announcement, then the media has certainly taken the bait.
I'm not really excited about the precise date because nothing changes the
fact that there must be an election.
I'm more interested in the numbers and possibilities that come from the
results.
I said in my last Outside Perspective column that I thought the result
will be much closer than was being predicted.
It's still what I believe.
One particular seat that is turning out to be very interesting is the
seat of Warringah, currently held by the much loathed former Prime
Minister, Tony Abbott.
Loathed is not my opinion, by the way.
He's actually not a bad guy.
He just made a few silly decisions.
Who in Canberra hasn't! It is claimed that he holds the seat by a 12-13%
margin.
Internal Liberal Party polling published in The Australian newspaper over
the weekend suggests he may lose about 12% support, equal to that of the
margin he enjoys.
Warringah will literally come down to the wire.
But to Scott Morrison, mate, just call the damn election.
*****
Outside Perspective #13 - March 26, 2019
Scott Morrison and the rest of the Liberals appear to be energized by the
weekend NSW State Election result, which saw the Coalition reelection of
Gladys Berejiklian as Premier of NSW.
So excited was Scott Morrison that he was already acting like he'd won
the upcoming Federal Election.
Oh yeah, he was pumped.
But settle down Scott, there's a long way to go yet.
Although the result was a good result for the NSW Liberals, I'm not so
sure that the same positive result will be granted to the Federal
Liberals.
The NSW result was positive for the Liberals, depressing for Labor and
pretty satisfying for The Greens.
We were able to retain our three seats.
However, the State results could very well be in stark contrast to the
upcoming Federal Election result, which polls suggest will still see the
Coalition destroyed by many seats falling to Labor and possibly some
smaller niche parties, which may also play a crucial part if there is any
change in government.
It's impossible to predict, but I'm starting to think the result will be
a little closer than what most the polls and political analysts are
predicting.
However, I still can't see the Coalition getting across the line without
limping in deep pain of some type.
Over in the US, Robert Mueller wrapped up his investigation into the
possibility of President Trump colluding with Russia in the 2016
Presidential Election.
While I continue to dissect the news in some kind of attempt to get to
the core facts and ignore all the expected US media spin, I appreciate
the calls for the full Mueller Report to be released to the public.
According to the 4-page summary released by US Attorney General William
P.
Barr, which outlines the key findings of Mueller's Report, Trump did not
collude with Russia.
But it failed to exonerate Trump for obstruction of justice.
There's no suggestion that any further action will proceed on the latter
issue, but it should.
The obvious starting point on obstruction of justice was with the firing
of FBI Director, James Comey.
While I don't have room to elaborate further on it or the Report in
detail in this column, this will be something I will have much more to
say on in the coming weeks in my other independent media responsibilities
and after further consultation with my colleagues.
But I will say this - I have no reason to doubt any of the points
outlined in Barr's summary, therefore I see no reason why the complete
release of the Mueller Report should not take place without any
unnecessary delay.
I think many are getting the feeling this is just the beginning of this
entire story, not the conclusion.
The feeling is probably accurate.
I can't see the Democrats leaving this carcass alone for too long.
Then we head to our Mother country - Britain - which sadly has become of
the biggest international political embarrassments of recent times.
Brexit looks to continue its trend of ridiculousness.
Personally, I've largely lost interest in all things Brexit and I think
many others have too.
It really can only be summarized as "ridiculous".
I mean, how else can anyone put it.
It all started when Prime Minister May developed a closed plan without
consultation with the opposition.
It's become very clear that Jeremy Corbyn and the opposition who seem
insistent on roadblocking anything that May presents, remain quite peeved
off about the fact.
Whether the blocking is justified on the basis that May continues to
present bad deals or whether he's blocking it out of principle, is up for
argument I guess.
One thing is certain though, it has resulted in a localized British
political stalemate with no obvious resolve.
We have a deal unable to pass the British Parliament, which should prompt
the immediate resignation or internal toppling of May as Prime Minister.
Yet, she continued to dig in her heels for reasons that nobody seems to
be able to explain.
I'm not sure she even knows what her purpose is anymore, to be frank.
Some argue it's too late for that and say she should have resigned long
ago when it became clear that she simply couldn't get the job done.
But May can't take all the blame.
The EU is guilty of changing the goalposts.
They need to stop dickying around with their own decisions.
One week they're hostile towards Britain and threats of throwing them out
with no deal seem like high-priority.
Then they back flip 180 degrees and appear over-accommodating by offering
extensions to the Brexit deadline.
A decisive path must come at the direction of a formal and final EU
decision.
Otherwise, the Brexit stink continues to linger and I for one am getting
pretty sick of its stench.
*****
The Sunday Roast #13 - March 24, 2019
Ok wait, what just happened? A white supremacist nut job live streamed
the massacre of 50 Muslims inside a couple of mosques in New Zealand and
we get angry commentary directed at Australia from the Turkish President,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan? I mean, who does this guy think he is? The killer
who I choose to refuse to refer to by name or acknowledge his known
identity (because he doesn't deserve it, frankly) was born in Australia.
But this psychopathic killer resembles nothing of what Australia stands
for and shares absolutely zero of our country's values.
Our own Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, had every right to be angry and
stern in his public response to the irresponsible comments from President
Erdogan.
This is beyond domestic politics, beyond political association and
Australian politicians from all parties must remain united against any
international political rhetoric directed towards Australia and New
Zealand.
More specifically, rhetoric that comes from a country which has a record
of producing its own terrorists.
I'm certainly not taking a swipe at Turkey for that, but it must be
acknowledged that their own record is not completely clean.
And Australia sure doesn't go throwing grenades of political rhetoric in
the direction of Turkey for the fact.
Nor do we publicly shame Turkey as a country for it, or its people.
The comments from President Erdogan were offensive, out of order and his
pathetic excuses can in no way go to justify them.
The offensive comments have thrown into question the Australia-Turkey
diplomatic understanding of respect with Gallipoli and the ANZAC
tradition.
With just a few short and directly offensive comments, President Erdogan
has unquestionably damaged diplomatic relations between Australia and
Turkey, literally overnight.
New Zealand has not been as vocal as Australia in calling out President
Erdogan's comments, but they should be.
Unlike the President of Turkey, Australia and New Zealand preach
international unity, friendship and peace.
Through disection of the comments, it has become absolutely clear that
President Erdogan has a lot to learn on all of the above.
*****
Outside Perspective #12 - March 12, 2019
Chelsea Manning is back behind bars.
If you still have no idea who she is, Manning is an ex-military
intelligence analyst best known for her role in leaking classified
military data, information and diplomatic documents to the Wikileaks
publishing platform.
Anyone familiar with my own independent media background will be well
informed already of the support I have publicly declared for Manning -
the same support which extends to Wikileaks and its publisher Julian
Assange.
I have been actively involved in many different campaigns and initiatives
with a several different organizations, all in support of the
aforementioned.
My active support will continue, no question about it.
Why exactly has Manning been placed behind bars again? By choice,
actually.
But it wasn't a choice considered lightly, I'm sure.
She done it to prove a point, which I think should not go unnoticed.
She has deliberately failed to provide testimony for the
Wikileaks/Assange secret Grand Jury.
Manning claims that she has no further information to add, instead
referring back to all the information that she has already provided in
previous court hearings related to her previous conviction.
Her previous conviction resulted in her imprisonment where she also
unfortunately suffered many violations of her human rights, I might add.
Manning had recently made public her displeasure at the lack of
transparency (and denials of its existence) of the Wikileaks/Assange
secret Grand Jury.
Manning is a strong and motivated person.
More than what she is offered credit for.
What actually needs greater attention is the stupidity of the American
legal system, which joins a growing list of items of American stupidity
which have all become more noticeable since Trump became President - the
Constitution, abuse of executive privilege, lack of powers of Congress to
act, state of the media...
the list is long.
But the dysfunction of the legal system makes it a worthy contender to be
added to the list.
In Manning's case, it must be asked what information exactly the Grand
Jury wants to get from her that they do not already know? All of the
information is available in the public domain in one place or another, if
you look hard enough.
The motive is there - the evidence is there - heck, even the admission is
there! What more could they possibly want? Manning cannot offer anything
more than what she already has.
There's little doubt that this is all a witch-hunt against Wikileaks and
Assange.
A witch-hunt in its finest form and it appears they are using Manning as
just another pawn, for sure.
She has served time for her actions, albeit was commuted for the majority
of her sentence, thank God.
Because 35 years for leaking classified information was ridiculous.
The leaks initiated by Manning changed the views of millions around the
world, proving the US Military was withholding crucial information and in
many cases lying about the truth of details related to battleground
operations, civilian casualties and treatment of Afghan and Iraqi
civilians caught up in the unjust US invasion in the Middle-East.
Arming the world's media with the knowledge of the truth, or covering up
the deliberate killing of civilians - what's the bigger crime?
*****
The Sunday Roast #12 - March 10, 2019
Like everyone, I watched the HBO documentary film "Leaving Neverland".
It left a mark on me so bitter that I feel I have to share my views.
As you read this column, Channel 10 will have finished its broadcast of
the film.
I never waited for the Freeview broadcast.
Instead, I took the opportunity of a private advanced screening earlier
in the week.
I must disclose that I am a Michael Jackson fan.
A big fan, actually.
But none of that has nothing to do with my response to the allegations in
the film made against Michael, by Wade Robson and James Safechuck.
I don't believe the allegations.
Yes, I can already hear those background voices yelling out things like
"typical Michael Jackson fan" and "Michael is a pedophile".
Clap...
clap...
clap.
To be honest, those are all expected responses from people who believe
anything they see or listen to in the media, without even the most basic
level of scrutiny and assessment of the finer details.
But please, allow me to explain my position.
When describing the precise details of the alleged sexual abuse, both
Wade and James were too well composed.
If sexual abuse of such horrific nature had actually occurred, there is
no way that anyone could recall it and share it with the world in front
of the camera and stay so calm and composed.
Any regular human being would be damaged, scarred and mentally destroyed.
As would any Mother and family members of anyone making such allegations.
Instead, what I saw in the film, was allegations made against Michael
that reflected something that had been well rehearsed, choreographed and
possibly scripted.
There was no sign of emotional scars from Wade and James, and next to no
actual visible tears in many of the scenes that involved crying.
A little odd don't you think, considering the severity of the claimed
sexual abuse at such a young age? If this horrific sexual abuse
supposedly occurred at the ages somewhere between 7-14, as claimed, then
I don't believe that any human being could recall the events in such
great detail from such a young age.
I can only imagine if that happened to myself as a 7 year old, panic
would takeover my body and my brain.
The memory would be shot and the entire sexual abuse would become a big
blur, becoming even more blurry over the years.
It's similar to when women who have been raped often claim that they
tried to blur it out in an effort to better cope with what was happening
to them.
Yet as portrayed in the film, it's reflected upon in such unforgiving
detail that it can only be described as both alleged victims having the
exact same photographic memory.
Coincidence? I'm not convinced.
The entire film was actually brilliantly produced and a demonstration
that HBO are at the top of their game when it comes to film production.
Despite the credibility of the claims, it was a rather genius blend of
modest journalism and quality cinematography.
At times the visuals were spectacular and made the viewing experience
very engaging.
The horrific sexual abuse allegations described are obviously designed to
shock the audience and harvest a big reaction.
Whatever that reaction may be is ultimately up to the viewer.
But the very fact that the film is getting reactions from both sides is a
sign that the production formula worked.
The final element that convinced me that this film was developed to
harvest audience reaction is the red Thriller jacket scene.
The Thriller jacket is rather iconic to most Michael Jackson fans.
Sacred, I guess.
The jacket is claimed to have been given to the family by Michael.
The film is shot in a way that makes it appear the family is claiming it
is the actual jacket that Michael used during filming of the famous music
video of "Thriller".
I, and apparently many others, don't believe it was that exact jacket.
Actually, some quick research online will tell you there was many
Thriller jackets.
It is very probable that the jacket they were given by Michael is
genuine.
However, it is not certain that it is the jacket.
Please understand I am not disputing all the content of the entire film.
Most of the events and details of everything in the film probably did
happen.
Much of it is public knowledge already and lots of the video footage
shown in the film is already available in the public domain from various
video sources.
These kinds of allegations against Michael are certainly nothing new.
He had his Neverland Ranch raided in a very disrespectful manner.
The raid ultimately proved nothing.
He was then tried in the courts at a later date on charges of child
molestation.
Again, leading to nothing.
Michael was different, yeah.
But it's well known human psychology that we are afraid of things that
are different and unknown to us.
Michael Jackson was a creative genius who lived a very unusual and
unorthodox lifestyle.
That made him an easy target for critique.
But as for the continued sexual abuse allegations places against Michael?
Well, I'm calling bullshit.
We must remember he is dead and is unable to defend himself.
Whatever happened to rest in peace.
*****
Outside Perspective #11 - February 26, 2019
In my latest The Sunday Roast, I departed from the traditional political
rant I usually spew out and touched instead on the cricket.
The Big Bash League to be more specific.
I reminded everyone just how lucky we are to have such a great sporting
tournament.
For Outside Perspective this fortnight, I want to focus on something else
that Australians are lucky to have.
Something we're not just lucky to have, but something that is paid for by
us all as taxpayers - the ABC and SBS.
I speak often about public broadcasting.
Not just through supporting it, but I constantly reiterate its importance
to our democracy.
An attack on public broadcasting should always be met with an aggressive
defense.
I know it does with me.
I know it does with The Greens.
And it should with you too.
To really appreciate our public broadcasters, we need to take a look at
the "ABC iView" and "SBS on Demand" apps.
They are the two digital video streaming services which complement the
ABC and SBS radio apps.
Forget Stan.
Forget Netflix.
We have thousands of hours of streaming content available on ABC iView
and SBS on Demand.
On ABC iView, I am watching Cleverman, Killing Eve and The Cry.
I have also started watching The Magical Land of Oz.
It's a brilliantly filmed documentary which showcases some of the best
secrets of nature right on our country's own doorstep.
The filming is absolutely breathtaking and should not be missed.
Once I'm done with that, it's onto some other stuff I have saved to my
watchlist like Foreign Correspondent and 7.30.
The programs on SBS on Demand stick with the network's traditional focus
on international content, combined with a quality mix of Australian and
Indigenous programming.
It's a 'top of the game' service and I can't praise SBS on Demand enough.
I am currently watching Berlin Station, Greyzone, Das Boot, Bad Banks and
Home Ground.
Then I catch up on some political and world documentaries.
And there's a massive library of international movies too.
Combined, ABC iView and SBS on Demand offer so much content that there is
never a reason to ever feel you must embrace the limited comfort that
commercial content on Freeview offers.
It's free to stream as much content as you want and is completely ad-
free!
Many countries around the world would die to have such a high-quality
public broadcasting sector that Australia enjoys.
I suspect too many Aussies take it for granted.
But to top it all off with free radio and video streaming services loaded
to the brim with top quality entertainment and catch-up content, makes
Australian public broadcasting the absolute gold standard and envy of the
free world.
Embrace it.
*****
The Sunday Roast #11 - February 24, 2019
The Sunday Roast is my bi-weekly column providing me with a platform to
vent my political frustrations from the past fortnight.
Well, if anyone is to look for frustrations associated with the past
fortnight's sitting in Canberra, you won't have to look very hard as
there are plenty of them.
To be perfectly honest, the past fortnight has felt like Groundhog Day.
Question Time was on repeat each day with the same questions being asked
by the same ministers and the same ministers being asked were providing
the same answers back.
It was farcical, really.
In fact, there are so many frustration to talk about.
Instead, I'm going to dump the entire purpose of this column for this
fortnight and focus on something a little more cheerful.
Because there's so much to talk about and so much that is just plain
wrong about the previous fortnight of what Australian's have witnessed in
the Parliament, it's just too depressing to delve.
And as I write this column, I'm feeling I'm in a good mood and don't want
to spoil my cheer.
I want to talk share my thoughts on something that we sometimes take for
granted - sport.
Nobody in their right mind would contemplate questioning the obvious fact
we are a sporting nation which prides ourselves on our many sports event.
We are very privileged to have a cricket tournament as good as the Big
Bash League which provides high-quality games, is very competitive and
completely safe to take your family.
What an excellent series it truly is.
Over the span of the league's existence it has proven to be a real winner
with TV viewers and cricket fans.
Perhaps with the exception of the old gray-headed cricket traditionalists
who prefer to watch the Test Matches.
As much as I enjoy tuning into the odd test match coverage on TV myself,
they are certainly not what anyone could consider exciting.
The only way they make it exciting is the sophistication of the
presentation of the game statistics.
Quite impressive, actually.
But there really is more excitement poking a stick inside an ant nest and
watching the colony enter a state of panic and garrison for war against
the invading stick.
Smart creatures ants.
Back to the cricket, the Big Bash League had some big changes for the
2018-2019 tournament, or BBLVIII.
For starters, the tournament length was extended.
And quite a lot too, making for a longer season, providing more games and
more enjoyment for the fans.
A recipe for success, surely? Apparently not.
The teams were complaining at the extended length and players expressed
resentment too.
Along with the tournament changes, we saw Channel 7 take over the
broadcast rights, which to be honest didn't really differ much from the
broadcast recipe that was produced by Channel Ten when it had the rights.
Sadly, they lost it when their debt problems reached their peak and
before the cashed up CBS network came to Ten's rescue.
The gripe I have with Channel 7's handling of the BBLVIII broadcast is
the amount of games that were not broadcast to Freeview.
I don't have any numbers handy as to how many games were exclusive to
subscription services and not part of the Freeview broadcast agreement,
but there was too many, in my view.
When Channel Ten had the rights to the Big Bash League, all games were
broadcast to Freeview.
Channel 7 should have knuckled down, put out the dollars and carried on
the same tradition employed by Channel Ten.
Whether the missing games are a result of the extended season, I don't
know.
Then we have the crowd numbers.
Before I even started digging into the actual numbers post-season, I had
a very strong feeling that the numbers were down considerably from
previous years.
It was a simple observation that any Big Bash fan would probably have
made.
In previous years, it has been an absolute joy to switch the big game on
TV and see big crowds.
It really creates a much better game atmosphere, not just for viewers at
home, but for the fans at the stadium too, I'm sure.
For the 2018-2019 tournament however, there was a definite absence of
heads in the stadiums.
The absence of heads didn't seem to follow any particular trend, team
match-ups or stadiums.
Not that I could see anyway.
I found it very difficult to determine what exactly was driving people
away from going to the games.
I guess that's not my job to make that determination.
Still, I went digging into some numbers and discovered that crowd
averages for BBLVIII were down significantly.
To be a little more accurate, they were the fourth worst in the history
of the Big Bash League.
Not bad, considering the tournament has only had eight seasons.
There is definitely room for improvement.
To drop so much should raise concern inside Cricket Australia and prompt
a review of just what exactly what wrong with BBLVIII.
*****
Outside Perspective #10 - February 12, 2019
The catastrophic condition of the Murray-Darling Basin has changed
Australia's landscape.
Possibly forever.
The changes are evident from the ground, worsened by the ongoing drought
and mass fish kills.
The catastrophe becomes even more evident and painful when observed from
the air.
I couldn't put any more emphasis on the word "catastrophe" because there
is no level of emphasis that can frame just how severe and sad the
current state of the Murray-Darling Basin river system really is.
Australians are proud of our country's natural harsh landscape.
The sun burned country.
Even in its harshest form, it is a rather unique skill that we possess
that allows us to still see the beauty of our landscape, through even its
rawest of forms.
None see it more beautiful than Indigenous Australians - our First
Australians.
Many of us have stories and memories that relate some way to the Murray-
Darling Basin river system.
I have many of my own fond memories of the Murray River, which I will
touch on in a minute.
But when you read the words of those of Indigenous cultures who share
their stories, memories and their childhood experiences - playing,
fishing, relaxing and washing their newborn babies in the river - you
quickly realize how special the Murray-Darling Basin river system is,
especially for Indigenous Australians.
It's even more special for them because it has been part of their culture
and way of life, for eons.
It's upsetting for Indigenous cultures along the river system, some of
whom claim they may never be able to share the experiences they had as
children, with their own children, because the water just isn't there.
Many argue that the river system may never return to the same health it
once was.
A frightening prospect, and very possible.
My own experiences run deep too.
I grew up in the great State of Victoria.
Still, the home in my heart.
Like many Victorians who reside close to or along the border of Victoria
and New South Wales, the Murray River means a lot to me.
We used to go swimming, fishing and camping along the Murray River.
Myself, my Mother, my Father and all of my brothers.
The memories are special and I share many of them in my book of memoirs
that I am currently writing.
The Murray-Darling Basin river system means many different things to many
different people.
Restoring the river system to its former health will be a combination of
good planning, management and of course, very significant rainfall.
Please, stop playing politics with it and start taking this serious.
Because it doesn't have the potential to become serious, this is serious
right now.
*****
The Sunday Roast #10 - February 10, 2019
After a few weeks break, it's great to be back here in my seat writing
The Sunday Roast.
The Labor Party looks like it's set to live up to its known and expected
persona which continues to talk tough, act tough and then back-down like
a school yard bully who's finally been confronted by someone of equal
stature.
Bill Shorten done it with the encryption laws.
He's looking a sure bet to do it again with the offshore detention
medical transfer bill scheduled to be debated and voted on when
Parliament resumes on Tuesday.
As the encryption laws were coming to a vote and the end of the 2018
sitting calendar was fast approaching, Shorten continued to talk tough on
the controversial encryption laws and indicated that he would not support
them by claiming they were "flawed".
Even Labor's Shadow Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus, said that the laws
are "a significant expansion of the powers of enforcement and security
agencies with far-reaching consequences".
He also said that the laws are incompatible with US laws and, "This is
clearly very serious".
Combined with opposition from The Greens and independents, Labor had the
power to stop the encryption laws.
Instead, just days out from the end of the sitting calendar, Shorten
completely back-flipped and offered the Liberal Party their support.
Shorten tried to put the onus on the Australian people by saying, "The
people of Australia, though, often don't have time for what they perceive
to be games.".
The only one playing games here was Shorten.
Political games with a dangerous piece of legislation which should never
have been allowed to pass.
Shorten continued by saying, "I thought it was important that we reach at
least a sensible conclusion before the summer on the important matter of
national security.
We will seek to improve the legislation in the new year.".
Shorten knows it, the Prime Minister knows it, I know it, the Australian
public know it - we know that once this legislation was passed, getting
any kind of effective and sensible amendments applied would prove nigh
impossible.
If the legislation is that bad, it should not have been passed - period.
What a let down Shorten continues to be.
Kerryn Phelps has gained herself a heroes reputation for the development
of the offshore detention medical transfer bill she has brought to the
floor.
At its core, it will effectively allow medical transfers of asylum
seekers detained on Nauru and Manus Island should two doctors assess a
medical transfer is required for problems that cannot be dealt with by
lackluster medical facilities available by offshore arrangements.
Fair enough.
It's a good bill which has a lot of deserving support.
Phelps and anyone else who has had a hand in the bill's development
deserves the credit.
She has managed to foster the support of The Greens, the majority of the
independents and the Labor Party.
And yes, on Labor's support, I'm worried.
Again, Shorten has been walking around like Mr. Tough Guy congratulating
Phelps on the bill and praising it for all its worth.
All part of the charade, apparently.
Parliament resumes on Tuesday, so it should be no surprise that Shorten,
just days out from returning, has again indicated he is preparing to
back-flip on previous support to the bill.
When Shorten back-flipped on the encryption bill, he attempted to justify
his acts of political weakness by claiming it was in the interest of
"national security".
Ah yes, that old chapter in the book of pathetic political excuses.
I must read the book sometime.
We've seen this many times before.
And then we saw Saturday morning reports in the leading papers that his
reasons for any potential hesitation in maintaining support for Phelps'
bill is, you guessed it, in the interest of "national security".
The ol' national security playbook fools the public each and every time.
Well I have news for you Shorten - you can't fool me.
Shorten has quickly earned the gold trophy for being Australia's weakest
opposition leader in history.
Australians may not be happy with Tony Abbott's record as Prime Minister,
but he was a ruthless opposition leader and certainly had grit.
Shorten? We no longer understand what the hell he stands for.
And what he claims one week may very well change within the next two-
three weeks that follow.
When decisive moments come to a head, he crumbles, along with his Labor
Party minions, his union pals and that annoying tribe that call
themselves GetUp! And this man is set to become Australia's next Prime
Minister! It says a lot about the integrity of Australia's politicians.
The political behavior of the Liberals is no better.
They have already started with the scare campaigns.
The latest scare is that if Phelps' bill passes, then the Government will
be forced to reopen Christmas Island detention center, along with many of
the detention centers on mainland Australia that have previously been
closed, to deal with what the Government is claiming will be a mass of
detainees claiming medical transfers accompanied by boat loads of new
arrivals.
Come on, please.
Figures are being thrown around too, to scare voters that little bit
more.
Figures of $1.4-$1.6billion to start with, to reopen Christmas Island and
other detention centers.
The Australian newspaper published a front-page story which cited
information from an apparent confidential document from Australia's
intelligence agencies.
The confidential document reportedly claims that intelligence agencies
are warning that Phelps' bill will impact Australia's immediate national
security, will signal the end of 'Operation Sovereign Borders' and states
that it must be stopped.
If the document exists, then it is advice that the Liberal Party is
clearly using as justification for its opposition to Phelps' bill.
There was some silly suggestions that the confidential document cited by
The Australian didn't even exist.
Obviously, I haven't seen it.
However, I believe it does exist because the Government has urged the
Australian Federal Police (AFP) to go hunting for the leaker that passed
the confidential document to The Australian.
How ridiculous.
That's simply another clear illustration of Government interference with
law enforcement and is actually a breach of the separation of powers this
country [should] hold so dear.
But it's certainly not the first time the Government has interfered with
law enforcement operations.
Most likely won't be the last either.
If the document does not exist, then they would be sending the AFP on a
wild goose chase.
But hey, nothing would surprise me anymore when you have a bunch of geese
running Canberra.
It really wouldn't.
Calls have been made for the Government to release the document into the
public domain, but obviously the calls went ignored.
If the Liberals are going to make the bold claims that Phelps' bill will
have such nasty consequences for Australia's national security, then it
would be very helpful if they could release the document(s) to back up
the claims.
Otherwise, the claims are simply interpreted as political scare tactics
without merit and without credit.
Again, integrity, anyone?
*****
Outside Perspective #9 - January 15, 2019
The most recent mass fish kill which has been plastered all over
Australian TV screens was both upsetting and disturbing to viewers.
The hard-left environmental evangelicals were too quick in claiming that
climate change was the sole cause of the fish kill.
They are claims without merit and claims without data.
However, we must understand the intentions of those making such false or
inaccurate claims, are good.
It must be put and kept in perspective and be understood this is not
solely an environmental problem, but it's also a political problem.
I have been a vocal supporter of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and
the Plan, and still believe that there is merit in the Authority's
governance of the Plan.
However, they must also take responsibility where due, for Basin
mismanagement that as been allowed to occur under their watch, on an all
too frequent basis.
I have previously worked and consulted closely with Freedom Publishers
Union to ensure they remain strong advocates for the Murray-Darling Basin
Authority.
I will also continue to call on the Authority to ensure the Basin's water
allocation limits remains fair, balanced and environmentally sustainable.
For the Murray-Darling Basin to become so damaged and the latest fish
kill to be declared a "catastrophe", something in relation to the
management of the Plan has failed.
The failures must be identified.
Much of Australia has experienced severe drought over the past 2-3 years.
Some very remote parts of far-west Queensland have not had significant
rainfall for up to 5 years.
The eastern part of the country of Queensland and New South Wales is
particularly affected.
There has been lower than average rainfall, which has posed a major
problem for guaranteeing water continues to flow into catchments and into
the Murray-Darling Basin, naturally.
It has posed problems for the environment and it appears that the Murray-
Darling Basin Authority has not been able to adapt the Plan to cater for
the lack of rainfall as a result of the severe and ongoing drought.
I echo the calls by The Greens which urge the Government to initiate
emergency intervention and place an immediate halt on continued
irrigation by cotton farmers, who have been identified for taking more
water than what has been allocated.
There have also been many allegations of water theft through using
various methods of illegal water storage and meter tampering.
It is already too late to reverse much of the damage that the Basin has
incurred.
Therefore, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority must, without any further
delay, immediately review the Plan, with more effective Government
oversight, to ensure all the necessary steps are taken to see that the
restoration of the Murray-Darling Basin and the surrounding ecosystems
are top priority.
I will continue to support The Greens and continue to consult with
Freedom Publishers Union to advocate for the Murray-Darling Basin and
also consider and engage with extended appropriate political channels.
I think it's a little premature to be arguing the case for a Federal
Royal Commission, as we've already had a South Australian Royal
Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin and its management, which I
might add was completely supported by Freedom Publishers Union.
The Federal Government put up a fight and refused to cooperate with South
Australia on that inquiry, therefore I'm convinced any call for a Federal
Royal Commission would simpy fall on deaf ears, with the Liberals anyway.
The best strategy for now is to wait for the final report to be delivered
from the South Australian Royal Commission, due on February 1, and go
from there.
*****
The Sunday Roast #9 - January 13, 2019
It seems to have taken some time, but I think the Labor Party has awoken
to the realization that there is a Federal Election in just a few months
time, which will most likely see them form Government.
They have announced plans to overhaul the jobseeker sector, reform in my
view, which is way overdue and desperately needed.
While I strongly disagree with Labor's previous efforts at reform which
saw the mass rolling out and repeating incentives for external
'vocational training centers', I would be willing to see the official
adoption of their proposed jobseeker reform.
This is assuming that Labor stick to their word and are not doing a dicky
on Australian voters by hiding something sneaky behind the facade of its
reform.
What we don't need is more vocational training centers throwing out
useless 'courses' marketed as 'skills essential for re-entering the
workforce'.
Vocational training centers are a joke, a waste of time for jobseekers
and the trainers.
The are the cancer among the education sector and nobody, I mean nobody,
with genuine teaching qualities and genuine intent on educating students
with real, useful skills, want to have anything to do with these
vocational schemes that dupe jobseekers.
Does anyone really believe a vocational course in office administration
where they cover nothing more than how to type and save a document in
Microsoft Word and how to send an email in Microsoft Outlook, is useful
and helping anyone find meaningful and suitable employment? Newsflash -
it doesn't help anyone.
We must rid the system of this education cancer instead of further laying
any kind of platform which encourages it and allows the cancer to spread.
Attendance of such courses simply ticks a checkbox on the paper, the
vocational center gets paid their thousands per-student they are entitled
and the jobseeker is sent on their merry way to reflect on how much of a
waste of time it has all been.
This was an all too familiar scenario under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd
Government.
An incoming Labor Government must take the opportunity for reform and do
the job properly and not be tempted to band-aid the sector.
Jobseekers should not have to be forced to falsify their jobseeking
efforts to fulfill the requirements.
Because the way the system is designed at the moment, the search
requirements are excessive, time consuming and if you think jobseekers
aren't using clever tactics to falsify their records to meet the
ridiculous and excessive quotas, then you're living a fantasy.
To truly get meaningful employment and negotiate hours to suit lifestyle
choices - not to mention cater for life and family obligations and
commitments - of the busy lives we all live, jobseekers need to be left
alone to job search in their own time, using their own methods with their
own resources.
It's not a ridiculous concept.
The support and resources of job agencies must still be made available
for those that need help and support.
Because it would be unfair to not have those services available to those
that need it, because there are some.
But there is a majority of jobseekers out there that simply need to be
treated like the capable, experienced adults they are.
Often, the jobseeker is older, more experienced and much wiser than job
agency staff members.
I could go into this even further, but I think it's fair to say that
older people can feel quite offended when they're being dictated to by
somebody often half their age.
But let's stop there.
Government, along with Centerlink and its network of job agencies need to
stop treating those on welfare support like they're incapable of handling
their own lives.
Because it's simply false and unfair to assume jobseekers cannot.
I've been on Newstart Allowance before.
As most of us have been at some point in our lives.
Or a Newstart equivalent level of welfare support.
It's not pretty.
It's difficult and stressful.
It sent me into a depressive state of mental health.
Since Labor announced the reform proposals for the jobseeker sector,
there's been a myriad of media coverage and opinion columns published to
all the major mastheads.
Yet nobody, nobody, has touched on the mental health implications that
the current excessive requirements are having on jobseekers.
My mental health suffered as a result of the excessive requirements which
I previously mentioned and the general dysfunction of the system.
My time of best job search productivity was at home, in my own quiet
environment where I could concentrate properly and work at my own pace,
without a job agency staff member breathing down my neck and monitoring
my every move like I'm a child.
Make no mistake, that's what they do.
They intimidate you into submission, leading you to believe that you must
do as they say, or else they will initiate on their power to have your
welfare payments reduced, or worse, suspended if you don't submit.
I was forced to sit for 4 days a week in a cramped, ill-equipped office
with twenty or so others, apply for jobs I was either unqualified for,
unsuited for or never had an interest in due to over qualification.
But I slaved away, met the requirements and successfully achieved the
numbers the quota set out.
The system deliberately demeans you as a human with intent on reducing
you to just a number.
That's what you become - just another number in the system.
It wastes productivity and is ripe for open and unregulated abuse by job
agencies and their staff.
It all needs serious reform.
And while Labor haven't outlined any immediate intention to scrap the
waste of taxpayers dollars on the ParentsNext scheme, I wish they would.
It needs to be scrapped.
Parents should not be made to feel guilty for being a 'parent' and should
not have to justify their life choice to the government to continue to
receive parenting payment.
Sure, welfare support is a privilege.
But it's simply a civil right and it's social justice that government
fulfill its obligation to support the choices of parents and their
children.
And this encroachment on the civil rights of those receiving welfare
support must stop.
*****
Outside Perspective #8 - January 1, 2019
As you read the words of this column on the first day of 2019, it will be
quite late in the evening.
No, it's not because I partied too hard or had too much to drink.
I don't party and I don't drink.
In fact, I was in bed not too long after my one and a half year old son
was asleep.
My head hit the pillow somewhere around 9.00pm.
Whether you stayed up to see in the new year or not, I wish all a happy
2019.
Now, onto my column.
I have become quite sick and tired of seeing attacks on Facebook and Mark
Zuckerberg in the mainstream press.
Sure, 2017 and 2018 were a couple of terrible years for the company.
Its stock price has taken a hammering, but so has the entire stock market
over the last 12 months.
Despite the negative and often uninformed media commentary, Facebook
continues to thrive and increase its user base and generate massive
revenue.
There's no plausible justification for the infinite bashing the company
receives in the media.
Continued calls for Zuckerberg to resign as Chairman and CEO are outright
unfair.
To expect the guy who co-founded the company to drop everything and hand
over the reigns to someone with less understanding than he, is
ridiculous.
I know I wouldn't.
He should be commended for his continued commitment instead of being
constantly criticized for it.
Zuckerberg started Facebook and he knows every element of it.
It's a weak argument to suggest an independent appointment could walk
into the Facebook office, take over the role of Chairman or CEO (or both)
and do a better job than its co-founder.
And I ask those making the ridiculous calls for Zuckerberg's resignation
to consider for a second, just a second, whether you think you could do a
better job if you were put in his position? No, I didn't think so.
The continued irony of the attacks on Facebook is they are usually shots
fired from the mainstream press, which - here comes the irony - rely on
Facebook's platform as a key means to share and push the distribution of
their articles.
Let's be realistic, if Facebook didn't enable the easy sharing and
distribution of articles for media agencies, then they would find it much
more difficult to hold on to the reader base they currently enjoy.
Because whether you agree with its distribution model or not, Facebook
remains an important source of news gathering for many people.
Particularly the younger generation.
This is both encouraging and worrying.
It's great that the younger generation is taking an interest in the news,
even to a small extent.
But the worry creeps in when you learn that the younger generation are
reading news displayed to them by Facebook and only Facebook, rather than
exploring an actual news website by habit each morning to get a full view
and understanding of the world's events and not just news that serves
their personal interests.
Effectively, Facebook's algorithms are controlling their news reading
habits.
What the Facebook attackers should shift their focus to is calling for
data usage legislative reform.
For a good example, we need to take a look at Europe and what they've
done with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
It's not perfect and it could be improved and strengthened even further.
But still, it's a brilliant first effort at true legislative reform for
data usage.
Facebook is not the problem, Zuckerberg is not the problem.
And his right-arm assistant, Sheryl Sandberg, is also not the problem.
It's how Facebook is handling data, or some might argue mishandling, that
is the real problem.
Data is thrown around like a commodity in the digital realm.
There's no escaping that reality.
But companies, especially those in Silicon Valley, should have limits on
what they can legally do with data.
I have continuously called for digital rights reform which includes
better regulation for data usage.
I can't reiterate enough that we need to develop proper respective "Right
to be Forgotten" laws.
This whole area of regulation oversight can no longer go on being
ignored.
Politicians around the world, including Australia, must start paying
greater attention to data usage and the way our data is being handled and
traded.
We must also not single out Facebook as the sole guilty party.
The same criticism must also extend to Twitter, Google, Microsoft, Amazon
and all the other Silicon Valley behemoths.
Because at the moment, data is being handled and traded in a way that is
almost unregulated and has without a doubt, become unacceptable.
They do it because they can.
If we cannot stop or control the amount of data that is being collected,
then we should, at the very least, be able to control what they can do
with the data.
When unacceptable behavior is identified and exposed, the repercussions
appear limited to Zuckerberg of Facebook or Dorsey of Twitter facing up
to the various government committees and representatives, offering a
simple apology.
Then the matter appears to drop off the news radar and becomes less-
important again, until the next data breach exposure.
Zuckerberg himself is quoted for expecting better regulation for data
usage in the future.
Yes, great idea! How about policy makers start listening to the guy
instead of attacking him when someone simply gets pissed off at Facebook
handling data in a way that the system is set up to enable them to.
There's a solution to the problem.
Fix it.
*****
The Sunday Roast #8 - December 30, 2018
It was just two days ago I posted to social media a thought bubble which
I thought applicable for the incoming year.
I'm not quoting verbatim here, but I basically said that for the duration
of 2019, I would hope that the feminism and hashtag MeToo bandwagon slows
down and has some applied credibility where due.
I hold a certain amount of skepticism towards the credibility of many of
the hashtag MeToo claims made by many of these women.
What has any of this got to do with politics? Nothing specific really,
other than the credibility factor of the claims by some of the gender of
the opposite sex.
The same goes for the women in Canberra, mostly Liberals, who are
complaining about the difficulties of being a woman in a male-dominated
field.
But as I suggest with the hashtag MeToo movement, it appears many women
are taking the opportunity of the movement to add their voice to the re-
energized 'feminism' era which gained momentum in 2018.
Because, apparently, feminism is cool again.
But now, I'm moving onto gender quotas.
I don't believe that I have publicly lay claim to any formal position on
political party gender quotas.
The Coalition is constantly facing criticism from those of the opposite
side of the political spectrum for the lack of female ministers in the
Parliament.
While I do not have the solution, I do not believe that implementing
gender quotas is the answer to the problem of the lack of female
ministers in the Coalition.
And it is a problem.
But we must be careful in identifying where the problem is seeded and
keep it within context, as those in the left media often misrepresent it.
It's not a man problem, it's a cultural problem.
The Labor Party supports quotas, while the Liberal Party do not.
I can't personally find anything that outlines The Greens' position on
gender quotas, precisely, but I know that we do support any measure that
will help women enter Parliament, with an ultimate goal of equal
representation within not just The Greens, but the entire Parliament.
As mentioned, although there's nothing explicitly in writing, it would be
safe to say that gender quotas are generally supported by The Greens, in
principle.
Obviously, I am bound to support The Greens view on this issue, in
principle.
But I do have to point out that I also agree with the Coalition's
argument that women should reach ministerial status based on merit and
not because of any quota necessity.
The argument is absolutely justified.
The argument itself, has merit.
Let me be clear - I feel I must clarify my position, again, because as
with the hashtag MeToo bandwagon, the feminists and the left media
sometimes over-blow and misinterpret the issue which often results in
people's positions being taken out of context.
So, again, I support measures which encourage and support women to enter
into political party pre-selection and get elected into Parliament.
As do The Greens.
But I would personally emphasize that I believe that it must be done
through hard work and political advocacy on core issues of public
interest.
The men have to do it.
The women need to as well.
There's no free lunch for anyone.
And ministerial status can only be achieved through hard work,
irrespective of gender identity.
It's just not a gender issue.
Where there is low female representation within party ranks, such as the
Coalition, then there must be cultural problems within the party
identified and dealt with internally by the party.
In the case of the Coalition, the parties of the Liberal Party and The
Nationals.
A quick fix cannot be applied through implementation of stupid, largely
ineffective gender quotas which act as a band-aid and ignore the hard
work and ingenuity of some to see others elected simply based on gender
requirements set out by the quota.
I can't see how anyone can conclude this is good for democracy.
Labor are key advocates of gender quotas and quotas for all kinds of
ridiculous things.
They like to harp on about the benefits of quotas but like to ignore the
underlying problems which result in some to suggest the necessity for
quotas in the first place.
If quotas need to be suggested as a remedy to a problem, then the source
of the problem should be identified and resolved, as a matter of
priority, rather than ignored.
The fact remains that the majority of registered Australian political
parties do not support implementation of gender quotas.
It's also ignored by the Labor Party, conveniently, that in December 2012
the Australian Bureau of Statistics stated, "Although targets and quotas
make a difference to the number of women in senior leadership roles, some
believe quotas are wrong in principle, are tokenistic and
counterproductive to changing the workplace culture ...
Other ways suggested for increasing the number of women in senior
leadership positions include reviewing diversity policies such as
recruitment practices to address barriers, implementation of family
friendly policies and flexible work options, and intervention programs to
foster the career development of women employees.".
There you have it.
Finally, that wraps up 2018.
It's time to look forward to 2019 (already?).
Happy New Year everyone.
Stay safe.
*****
Outside Perspective #7 - December 18, 2018
As the Labor Party's National Conference wraps up in Adelaide and the
Liberal Party is on your TV screens bellowing out its economic success,
it all feels like the political campaigning has shifted into a higher
gear.
What is clear - and has been clear for some time - is the Liberal Party's
campaign focus is undoubtedly going to be the economy.
It is the Liberal's greatest strength after all.
The Labor Party still feels politically weak on the economic front-line.
It is still quite unclear just where they stand on the economy, to be
honest, and what major changes they will adopt.
Sure, there's been some casual talk about negative gearing and franking
credits and taxes, you know, all the usual rhetoric.
But I'm still unsure just what exactly the effective alternative
government has on its economic agenda and is proposing to the Australian
people.
If Labor has a definitive alternative economic agenda, it's either very
weak or it's not selling it to the public very well.
It was once said to me by someone, I can't recall precisely who, that
it's not party x, y or z that wins an election.
It's the economy that wins an election.
Generally speaking - in political terms - it's an accurate theory.
However, politics have changed.
Not just changed, they've entered a realm of unknown where political
traditions and trends are thrown out the window as quick as prime
ministers are ousted from their offices.
So although the premise of the theory as it was presented to me has
merit, how it will apply to the upcoming Federal Election in 2019 is a
guess that I am not convinced anyone is going to be able to accurately
predict - irrespective of the political and polling data you may have
access to.
The economic agenda of the Liberal Party is very enticing.
I have to admit it.
You can bag out the Liberals as much as any political party in Canberra
for their internal shenanigans.
But you can't bag out the data which proves they have the economy under
control and actually have a plan to keep it steaming along.
It's steaming along rather nicely, actually! While the Liberals may have
lost their way with traditional political ethics, they have somehow honed
the unique skill of being able to siphon off the internal bickering
between ministers and the economy, to isolate the two.
You have to give them credit for that, at the very least.
And the nation is on track for its first surplus since the days of the
dynamic duo, John Howard and Peter Costello.
The Liberals have to be doing something right in the Canberra dome.
But this is exactly where political traditions have the potential to get
screwed up and rewritten.
Because despite the economy remaining in a rather healthy position and
the future looking bright and wonderful, Australian voters could still
take their anger out at the polling booths.
It's very likely that despite the Liberal Party managing the economy to
fine standards, and despite Scott Morrison's best efforts of re-uniting
the party - or attempting to - it could still very well come crashing
down on them.
If such decimation were to occur to the Liberals, then I fear the
collateral damage may spread beyond the Liberal Party like a nuclear
mushroom, consuming the economy with drastic effect.
Because if we see a Labor Party elected into office, then you can kiss
goodbye to any sound economy Australia enjoys at the moment.
That said, Christmas is just one week away from today.
So this is my final column before the fat man in the red suit comes
knocking.
I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and urge all to stay safe.
Look after each other and Merry Christmas!
*****
The Sunday Roast #7 - December 16, 2018
This week saw Australians subjected to some of the most effective media
censorship that I have witnessed in my time working with independent
media.
Things got very interesting when The Australian, the Sydney Morning
Herald and The Age all dished out lashings of their inability to report
on a hot story.
It is not like they didn't have the ability, but they were being
prevented on reporting on the story, by law - a gag order.
Instead, the major mastheads published slightly obscure and uninteresting
stories about George Pell being expelled from the Pope's Advisory
Council.
To anyone familiar with what is happening in the world, it was not
difficult to work out the source topic of the forbidden story.
Instantly, the lashing out against the gag order generated buzz and sent
curious readers scrambling to search engines to find just what the hot
story was.
While some of the major overseas publications were reporting on the
story, it remained inaccessible for some here in Australia as it appeared
that a technical process called geoblocking was being applied to the
story to comply with the Australian gag order.
This means that readers in the US and others in the antipodes would see
the story published to the website, but accessing the same website from
inside Australia would see a different story rendered in its place.
Large popular mastheads which have a global brand name to take care of
and seem unwilling to put public interest first for fear of the legal
implications of defying gag orders, are effectively failing the public.
This is where independent media are prepared to step up to the plate and
are able to serve the public.
Independent media entities still have legal repercussions to consider,
but they have more publishing will than the major mastheads.
Practically, in my opinion at least, there is very little point of court
issued gag orders of this kind.
The internet is a vast accessible domain and any attempt to keep
information secret will be met with resistance and lead to the curious
seeking out information from alternative sources.
Gag orders are simply outdated, ineffective and pointless in the age of
the internet.
I'm angry at all this.
Why am I angry? Because this is one of the best public examples of media
censorship, delivered to finest effect.
I don't tolerate it and I don't stand for it.
I have spoken about this publicly on many occasions, but I might need to
again remind some people that are unfamiliar with my firm position on the
issue of censorship, just where I stand.
When I co-founded Freedom Publishers Union it was ingrained into the very
founding core principles that we would always publish stories and
information we deemed vital to public interest.
The text of the Mission Statement published on Freedom Publishers Union
says, "We will always operate within the boundaries of the law.".
Then, it continues and explicitly points out, "as a representative of the
free press, we also have an ethical responsibility to publish content
that is in the public interest, regardless of whether its legally
questionable".
This specific text refers to Donald Trump and his attacks on the free
press.
That's completely irrelevant to the gag order this column is focused on.
But the underlying message of the Mission Statement is obvious.
I have been involved in independent media for many years.
I am not exactly what the industry would tag a veteran, but I have been a
writer, editor, publisher, a transitional CEO and an advisor.
So I am in a pretty good position to understand the industry and how it
operates.
Which brings me to the issue of the justification for gag orders from the
courts.
I am probably bound, by law, to the same gag order that everyone else is
on the story which if I am, would lawfully prevent me from talking about
the story in this column.
It's actually quite unclear who these types of gag orders apply to, what
websites they are applicable to and how far jurisdictional reach applies.
The Guardian published an excellent piece on all this a couple of days
ago and done its best to explain how the gag orders work, who they are
applied to and how they are implemented.
And based on my unraveling of it all, yes, I am prevented about
publishing anything to do with the story too - whether through this
column or a personal blog and whether it's hosted on servers in Australia
or overseas.
Still, unless you have some kind of college law degree, it's difficult to
understand.
I am a lawful citizen of Australia and have never had a single brush with
the law, other than general parking tickets and minor speeding fines.
Like everybody else.
And I do not openly advocate people go out and break the law.
But sometimes, just sometimes, on the rare occasion 'the people' need to
stand up, push back and show their discontent against unjust laws.
Media censorship is one of these rare occasions.
Australian media should have pushed back and published the story.
In a conversation with my colleague, I made clear my position that I
would have strongly advised Freedom Publishers Union go ahead and proceed
to publish an editorial in response to the story.
This would have been illegal, but I would have advised they go ahead with
it anyway.
Yes, I openly admit I would have advocated for breaking the law.
I understand the only reason Freedom Publishers Union didn't proceed, is
because the story itself is not relevant to their audience and does not
fit the current publishing topic criteria.
So, if you haven't worked it out yet, what is this "hot" story that the
Australian courts believe to be so sensitive that it requires a gag
order? It makes me shudder that I found the story on Breitbart, as for
obvious reasons, this masthead makes me cringe.
Still, on this particular story they proved themselves rather reliable.
The story in question is the trial of prominent Catholic, Cardinal George
Pell, and the guilty verdict of all charges of sexual abuse against boys
in the 1990s.
Yes, there you have it.
I just openly broke Australian law, in the public domain of this column.
Why? Because I believe if someone is found guilty of sexual abuse against
children (or anyone for that matter), then it is absolutely in the public
interest and should not be covered up.
The Catholic Church has become notorious for covering up suspected abuse
of children in the church.
How is it right that the Australian courts do the exact same thing and
cover up a guilty verdict of sexual abuse? It's not right.
I for one am willing to take a stand against it.
*****
Outside Perspective #6 - December 4, 2018
Australians are all too well aware of the major political parties being
pre-occupied with saving their own skins.
With a Federal Election due in May 2019, possibly earlier, parties are
already entering into the early mindset of election campaign mode.
For Liberal, it's probably more damage control mode.
To begin campaigning now is certainly acceptable, but the Liberal Party
must remember it is still in Government and is still the party
responsible for running the country.
They are not in caretaker mode just yet.
However, we are definitely seeing a Liberal Party only interested in
being a part-time Government at the moment.
Despite the turmoil engulfing Canberra as I write these words,
Australians go about their business as usual and are actually faring
pretty well.
The same cannot be said for Australians of Indigenous cultures.
They continue to be abandoned and left to feel victimized by shocking
Indigenous policy, with no substantial reforms outstanding, that I am
aware of.
We need to develop and actually deliver stronger policy which ensures the
lives of those in Indigenous communities is improved.
But this policy area is as dry as the dirt on the ground in these remote
communities.
Indigenous Australians continue to be treated like a 'problem' and go
unrecognized by continuing to be thrown into the 'too hard basket', by
both major parties, really.
This must change and Indigenous Australians must be formally recognized
in the Constitution.
I also hold the personal belief that Constitutional recognition should be
accompanied by a Treaty.
We must go further still.
It is an absolute must that we establish an Indigenous advisory body of
some kind, which can consult with the Houses of Parliament on specific
issues that affect Indigenous communities - issues that white men can not
even begin to understand.
I have recently added the text of the "Uluru Statement from the Heart" to
my website.
I done this as a sign of my respect to Indigenous Australians -
respectfully, the first Australians.
I listened, I accepted.
It's time passed that Canberra do the same.
With the upcoming Federal Election, now is the perfect time to be
developing policies to take to the election and campaign on.
Yet, have you seen anyone from Liberal or Labor emphasize on Indigenous
issues? No.
While The Greens can't claim any real credit on their progress either,
they are at least open to discussion on the topic.
More must be done.
It's time that the "Uluru Statement from the Heart" is accepted by all
white Australians, recognition added to the Constitution and accompanied
by a Treaty which promotes peace, harmony and forgiveness for the sins of
the past by white men.
*****
The Sunday Roast #6 - December 2, 2018
The lack of media reporting on Julian Assange by Australian commercial
networks and journalists is pathetic.
None of the commercial networks are willing to cover the case of Assange
in any substantial detail.
When new facts do emerge, which usually come as a result of hard working
international journalists dedicated to their profession, the facts
quickly get stripped down to become simply light recycled reporting with
barely any impact.
This has unfortunately become a trend of modern media and not exactly
limited to our shores.
Too often, Australia's ridiculously overrated breakfast TV programs will
establish a panel of uninformed social commentators which offer no value
of knowledge of the case.
Instead, it's these social commentators who clearly don't understand
anything about the specifics of Assange's case, that are able to somehow
find the fact a fellow Australian publisher is detained, illegally, to a
foreign embassy in a foreign nation, amusing.
Well, it's not amusing.
In fact, it's very disturbing and insulting to Assange, and for those
that are willing to support and fight for his cause.
When news does break on the case of Assange, the public broadcasters -
ABC and SBS - do cover it.
Probably not as in-depth as I would prefer, but at the very least it does
get reported and is always presented for the serious case that it is and
the story is often accompanied by interviews with well informed academics
and lawyers with a greater understanding of Assange's case.
This is why public broadcasting in Australia is still so important.
They present the story according to the facts.
It is treated as news and not entertainment.
Politicians of mainstream party alignment don't like the ABC and SBS.
While Labor might be a little more friendly, (just a little) the Liberal
Party has made it very clear of its hatred by regularly taking shots at
the ABC, even specific journalists.
Recent continued funding and independence of public broadcasting is the
result of the Liberal Party doing the bare minimum to keep the networks
afloat and just enough to satisfy the Australian people.
It has never been a gesture or expression by politicians truly
understanding and respecting the value of public broadcasting and its
importance to our democracy.
When I co-founded Freedom Publishers Union in late 2013, we made a
commitment to supporting the cause of Julian Assange, and Wikileaks for
that matter.
While Freedom Publishers Union is based in Australia, it is independent
and remains unknown by many.
I mean, you only need to walk down the street and ask someone "Have you
heard about Freedom Publishers Union?".
See the kind of response you get.
Most likely you will be faced with blank stares that resemble a fish
dragged out of water and left for dead on the river bank.
But that's OK.
I just want to make this point because although it is a small,
independent and largely unknown media business, it is absolutely
dedicated to covering the case of Assange and Wikileaks in a manner of
respect, knowledge and by only publishing the facts - whether Freedom
Publishers Union agrees with them or not.
It's well documented I no longer have a working relationship with the
business I co-founded.
However, I remain immensely proud that independent media can survive,
regardless of how small and irrelevant they may seem.
Despite their size and potential to produce only minimal impact on the
audience, they have proven that they are still capable of performing the
role that large commercial networks are still unable to achieve.
Fairfax Media, soon to become Nine, has done a reasonable job on its
reporting on Assange.
But I am not too confident that it will continue once the merger of
Fairfax and Nine Entertainment is complete.
I certainly hope I am wrong.
Generally though, it appears that commercial networks, for whatever
reason, are simply unable to bring it upon themselves to support Assange
or even bother pressing Canberra to take action.
Instead, Assange's future is left in peril and appears to be determined
by negotiations involving the Yanks, the Brits and the increasingly
frustrated Ecuadorians.
Assange is Australian.
Yet nobody in Canberra can explain why the hell Australia is not involved
in these negotiations! Commercial media is an absolute joke and is
letting Aussies down.
There appears to be more interest in chasing down convicted drug
smugglers returning from Indonesian prisons and portraying them as war
heroes returning from battle.
Shame on the commercial networks of Australia for abandoning Julian
Assange.
Publication notes
*****
Outside Perspective #5 - November 20, 2018
I usually take a rather casual approach to the space of political freedom
these columns grace me.
For the latest round of Outside Perspective, I want to touch briefly on a
more urgent and serious topic.
I write this after the conclusion of the APEC 2018 Summit which was held
in Papua New Guinea, or PNG as most people refer to it.
While the US President Donald Trump was not present, the Yanks were
represented by its Vice President, Mike Pence.
Despite some media commentary expressing criticism of the decision to
send Pence, I believe it was a perfectly acceptable decision.
There appears to be a global chorus getting louder which expresses fear
of China's increasing expansion of military, political power and global
influence.
The Pacific and its many islands are no exception to the deliberate
expansion of China and its intentions to influence politics of the
somewhat powerless Pacific Island nations - effectively the oceanic
backyard of Australia and New Zealand.
Pre-APEC 2018, if anyone expressed any doubt of China's political
intentions, then it would be safe to assume that any doubt would have
been wiped clean, post-APEC 2018.
China literally bullied its way through the Summit, at times barring
international media from covering its meetings and even attempting to
force meetings with the President of PNG, requiring intervention of
security to remove Chinese bullies.
China is quickly losing any international political credibility and
respect.
You could argue it does not have much left, when taking the sole issue of
its human rights record into account.
Irrespective of what anyone thinks of Trump's personality and his
political style, one cannot deny that his hostilities towards China which
are currently unfolding on the world stage in the form of an ugly trade
war, are justified in an ironic kind of way.
However, the trade war not only has the potential to get much worse in
terms in negative trade effects of the free market, but is also starting
the attack the fringes of legitimate trade around the world and the
global economy is increasingly vulnerable to a sudden downturn at any
moments notice.
Whether it is largely the effects of the US/China trade war is up for
debate.
But it's certainly not helping.
Trump remains confident that China will eventually fold, under the
pressure from the trade war.
Any economist will tell you that the US has much more economic resilience
and resources to withhold a long-term trade stand-off with China.
It will hurt the US, no doubt.
But it will hurt China more.
But that doesn't mean that China will buckle at the knees easy, despite
Trump's confidence and hopes.
While Trump's unorthodox political action against North Korea may have
had some immediate positive effect, the same unorthodox politics may not
work for China.
Xi Jinping may not buckle in the same way that Kim Jong-un did.
But while North Korea's rhetoric may have settled for a short duration,
Kim Jong-un is showing signs of movement and defiance against the
consistent US pressures, again.
How severe and how effective any future rhetoric from North Korea will be
is as unpredictable as Kim Jong-un himself.
Equal to how unpredictable Donald Trump is.
And now we have an extremely firm and unmovable Chinese President, Xi
Jinping, who has ingrained his power for life into the Chinese political
system and is beginning to show increasing signs of the same type of
political unpredictability.
Tensions are high, and leaders of the democratic world know it.
Yet, Australia continues to tip-toe around the obvious immediate problems
and ignore the very real potential of chaotic escalation, appearing to
really underestimate the seriousness of this global situation.
Some say that Australia must make a choice and decide between the US and
China.
Personally, I think this is a great opportunity for Australia to rally
for peace efforts and be a real leader of peaceful and meaningful dialog
between the US and China.
Let's face it - these two powers need a mediator.
As two of the world's most powerful nations lock stare and neither side
flinching, the time for Australia to stand up and advocate for peace is
right now.
Not 5-10 years down the political road.
The tension has already exploded.
Perhaps the relationship is beyond repair.
Europe is engulfed in their own economic and security problems.
Britain is so occupied with its focus on Brexit, it doesn't really appear
obvious where they fit into the current global climate of political
tension.
These are dangerous times.
Australia must stop sleep walking around global politics with a relaxed
attitude and decide where we fit into the global climate of political
tension.
*****
The Sunday Roast #5 - November 18, 2018
As I am in the process of moving house at the moment, I write this column
on a makeshift home office setup on the kitchen bench and connected to a
wireless hotspot running off my cell phone.
But hey, it works.
The story idea for this fortnight's column came about the day after the
latest violent attack in the Melbourne CBD, declared a "terrorist
attack".
The name of the offender was Hassan Khalif Shire Ali.
I was admittedly quick to make the assumption that he was the latest
example of police and intelligence services lapse efforts to monitor a
possible terror suspect, properly.
But it was not long after I had jumped to this conclusion, others in the
media were pressing on the very same issue.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his leading goon Peter Dutton MP,
appear to have dismissed accusations of the failures of monitoring,
through intelligence, of Hassan Khalif Shire Ali.
Instead, the PM gets up and lays the blame on the Islamist community and
basically says they are not doing enough to combat extremism and need to
do more.
This outraged Mohammed Omran, the emir of the Hume Islamic Youth Center,
who referred to the PM as the "bloody Prime Minister" and a few more
added comments.
Mohammed Omran was angry, and quite rightly so.
My own concerns were echoed by Mohammed Omran who also briefly spoke out
about the wasted billions of dollars on surveillance and security in
Australia, which appears to be doing nothing to combat breeding of
extremism.
There has been numerous cases in the past few years, too many to list in
a simple column, which once all the details have been made public, have
been determined that it was good old fashioned police work that was the
leading factor of which brought the alleged to justice.
I cannot remember a single case where an arrest has been the result of
tapping into the extensive mass-surveillance capabilities of Australia's
intelligence agencies.
In fact, during post-arrest interviews of many of the cases, there have
been ministers and other authoritative figures which have even said that
if mass-surveillance data of the individuals (or groups) was carried
accessed, then it most likely wouldn't have helped in the arrest anyway.
This could be read as a kind of casual way of disposing of the fact that
mass-surveillance is not exactly helping in the arrest and conviction of
genuine criminals and terrorists.
Whether it be through my political work pushing The Greens cause,
representing the various initiatives from the Democratic Political Front
or professional consultation I offer to independent media on the subject,
I will always oppose mass-surveillance and will push for reform and
implementation for a common sense approach.
The public must make a clear and defining distinction between
"surveillance" and "mass-surveillance".
Because the uninformed can often misinterpret the two, as they can also
misinterpret the arguments for and against the two.
"Surveillance" is generally targeted and usually justified by a court
order or whatever other lawful document(s) of validation are required.
I don't believe that I have ever made any argument against targeted
surveillance.
In fact, quite the opposite.
It's what I usually argue in place of mass-surveillance.
It should be targeted! Now, "mass-surveillance" is mass collection of
huge amounts of data.
Often, it takes the form of dragnet operations.
While this column is much too short to go into the specifics of dragnet
mass-surveillance (I have written on it many times before), basically
it's unnecessary, much too invasive by violating rights to privacy and
violating civil liberties on so many levels its impossible to cover them
all, again, in a simple column.
It is an absolute waste of taxpayers billions of dollars.
Yet, Australia (and many other countries) continue to expand their
programs, advancing the technology, all while increasing the level of
privacy invasion by getting deeper and deeper into the depths of the
personal lives of innocent civilians trying to go about their lives
without ever developing a cause for harm to anyone.
This mass-surveillance rubbish must stop.
The militarization of our State and Federal police forces must stop and
refocus to get them back the basics of solid old-fashioned police work
and actually serving the community, rather than intimidating the
community.
Publication notes
*****
Outside Perspective #4 - November 6, 2018
The political year is slowly drawing to a close for the sitting of
Parliament.
It's a dud time of the year really, where not much happens with major
legislative reform.
While major reform may not be on the agenda for the final few weeks of
the sitting year, The Greens, the opposition and those on the cross-bench
must also be on full alert as the last couple of weeks is what I like to
dub "The Creeping Season".
It's traditionally a dud time, yes.
But some sneaky ministers, at the direction of their party seniors, use
The Creeping Season to try and introduce and if possible, shove through
legislation, which although may not be considered major reform, can still
initiate very effective and potentially dangerous change.
Usually, this will be done with controversial legislation which the
guilty party knows will cause heated debate if the chamber was full and
had everyone's attention.
But let's be honest, all those in Canberra are thinking about during The
Creeping Season is whether Aunt Betsy or Aunt Fanny cooks the best
Christmas turkey.
The Creeping Season is usually followed by what is known throughout
Canberra as "The Killing Season".
This is the time when traditionally, those with major scores to settle by
acts of political revenge, begin to hatch their plots to take down party
seniors.
Sometimes, the plot may already be developed and ready to launch when the
time is considered right.
Somehow, this year is different.
Previous Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, survived The Killing Season
last year.
But he got the early chop from the country's top job to be replaced
former Treasurer, Scott Morrison, for reasons that the Australian public
still do not know and nobody in the Liberal ranks seems willing to talk
about.
This year, apart from vague rumors of Anthony Albanese weighing up an
eventual knifing of Bill Shorten, I'd say the rumors are as credible as
the existence of an alien colonization on planet Mars.
The Killing Season looks to be a quiet season in all and Canberra will
most likely dive into 2019 with everyone still in the same roles.
That doesn't mean the problems and nagging of Scott Morrison will not
continue.
Sure, he will continue to be questioned and annoyed of the reasons why
Malcolm Turnbull was ousted.
No doubt, he will deal with the issue and any other issue the same way he
has been so far - put on a baseball cap, smile and tell Australians what
a great country we are.
He is not wrong, by the way.
But do keep watch on The Creeping Season.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any outstanding political
legislation that the Liberal Party will attempt to sneak through without
deserved debate.
But if history offers any guide, someone in Canberra is sure to try
something.
But hey, what do I know.
I'm just a Greenie!
*****
The Sunday Roast #4 - November 4, 2018
My apologies for the late posting of The Sunday Roast.
It is the result of a busy schedule which involved travel from the
Southern Downs to the Gold Coast.
While I have been out of the office for the last couple of weeks, I have
certainly remained busy thinking about one specific element of Australian
politics which has tarred our nation's reputation, with no vision for any
positive turnaround - Asylum seekers and children detained on Nauru.
I am sick to death of those in Canberra playing the political ball game
with this issue which can have the potential of fatal consequences for
those on Nauru.
The children are priority and therefore must be the first to be removed,
along with their immediate family members.
Like many Australians, I am also sick of the Liberal Party blaming and
Labor Party and the Labor Party blaming the Liberal Party for the
offshore detention problem.
Let's get this straight - both parties are to blame for the situation on
Nauru which is critical and requires action, now.
Australia's offshore detention program has been described as illegal, by
international standards, through violating many articles of multiple
charters of the United Nations, which Australia conveniently ignores the
fact that we are signatory to.
They choose to ignore it because it tarnishes the pathetic "Sovereign
Borders" program, by exposing its greatest failures on the global stage.
The living conditions at Nauru are described as living hell.
Ignore the government rhetoric which aims to paint a fanciful picture of
Nauru which purports the place as a tropical paradise where detainees
lounge around in the lazy sun drinking from half open coconuts, without a
worry in the world.
It's false advertising of hell and they know it.
Yet they continue to push the false narrative without a care for those
suffering on Nauru.
I don't want to hear anyone from the Liberal Party tell me they are
working as fast they can to get detainees off Nauru.
Because it is pure bullshit and I don't want to hear it.
I, like all Australians, want to see action and not just hear about it.
Oh, but I forgot.
They can't tell us, because it's all a big secret.
The Labor Party will continue to claim that offshore detention was
intended to be a temporary solution.
The fact is, the Labor Party set up offshore detention and the Liberal
Party continued it.
Now, voters are in absolute disarray and no longer know where the two
major parties stand on the issue.
Sometimes we get a message which indicates that once all detainees are
off Nauru, the center will eventually see some form of dissolve.
Don't hold your breath on that one either, as the contractor which runs
the center has just had their contract renewed.
It was clear a long time ago that there is no real intention of shutting
down Australia's offshore detention centers.
If it were serious, it could have been achieved already.
And don't go hoping that any incoming Labor Party will magically come
into power and fix the problem.
They won't.
The Labor Party's policy position on offshore detention appears to change
at will, on a weekly basis.
The solution is simple.
And I cannot fathom to understand what on Earth the Liberal and Labor
parties fail to understand about the solution to this national shame we
must endure.
All detainees must be moved out of offshore detention centers and stop
being treated like criminals charged with a crime.
We must commence immediate construction of facilities on mainland
Australia which can begin to actually "process" the claims of asylum
seekers to truthfully and transparently determine the legitimate cases
from the false.
It really isn't a difficult or complex solution to devise, to a festering
problem.
Still, the two major parties just don't get it.
*****
Outside Perspective #3 - October 9, 2018
In previous columns I have written for Outside Perspective, I have
obviously focused on core politics.
For my latest piece, I want to change gear (no pun intended) just a
little and focus on something not so political.
Aussies often ask ourselves, "What identifies us as Australians?".
Well, it can either be a complicated question or a simple question.
It really depends on how serious you want to delve into it.
It's not about race, skin color or any of that.
That's all just taking the question much too serious.
For me, the answer is quite simple.
It is what we do and what we achieve as a nation that makes us who we
are.
This includes the national events that we hold.
Specifically, I refer to the mega-motorsport event that was held over the
weekend - Bathurst 1000.
As Australian's, we should hold the success of the Bathurst 1000 close to
our hearts.
You don't have to be a lover of fast cars, the smell of burning racing
fuel and screeching of race tires.
They are all traits of motorsport.
But if you look outside of the walls of the race track, you will see the
ultimate Australian mateship on public display.
There are people from all kinds of cultural backgrounds.
There are people that have traveled from many different parts of the
country, to watch and enjoy undoubtedly the greatest motor race of the
year.
I have no doubts there is also a collection of international visitors
that have made their way to Mount Panorama.
It's the diversity of all of these things, captured on a mountain and
united by the common concept of a motor race which puts Australia's
culture on show for the world to see.
The camping, the excessive drinking, the costumes, grown adults behaving
like children and children enjoying the excitement of fast cars flying
past at 260km/h - as annoying, silly or exciting as all these things are,
they are all elements of what makes the event what it is and so enjoyable
for many of the 200,000+ crowd that attend over the course of the
weekend's event.
The Bathurst 1000 is Aussie!
It is one of many things that makes Australians, Aussies.
The Bathurst 1000 is a proud event that has expanded and grown throughout
its lifetime to become something that as Aussies we should all be proud
of.
The upcoming Gold Coast 600 event might not share the same value to some
as the Bathurst 1000, but it is undoubtedly up there as another element
of the Supercars Championship that we should be proud of.
I will be on the Gold Coast for that weekend and hope to see you at the
race.
*****
The Sunday Roast #3 - October 7, 2018
This week, we saw the Sydney Morning Herald reveal alarming details of
expense claims by Liberal MP and Assistant Treasurer, Stuart Robert.
Before I head into quoting a few numbers, courtesy of the good folks in
the media, I will point out the obvious that this is not the first time
that Stuart Robert has been followed by controversy.
If you want to know what previous mischievous activities soured his
reputation, I will let you head to the internet search engines to find
out.
For now, let's focus on his latest bungle.
Let's keep this simple, OK.
Stuart Robert has been claiming expenses of over $2000 for home internet
at data rates of approximately 300GB per month.
Now, to put things into perspective, I know my own ADSL internet
connection is no more than $60 per month and I have unlimited data.
Stuart Robert is paying $2000+ for a few hundred gigabytes.
Smell something off? I smell it too.
Stuart Robert is the Federal Liberal MP for the electorate of Fadden.
It should be noted that many years ago I lived in the electorate of
Fadden.
This was at a time before I took The Greens as any serious kind of
political force.
I voted for Stuart Robert.
Therefore, I partly feel somewhat responsible for voting in this shrewd
member of Parliament who clearly has blatant disregard for his expense
entitlements.
For that, I am sorry.
At the time I was a dedicated Liberal voter.
I no longer reside permanently in the electorate of Fadden.
But if I did, well, as a member of The Greens my vote would obviously
sway in a very different direction.
I urge voters to do the same.
And I urge them to vote for an alternative simply because Stuart Robert,
a repeat offender, clearly has not learned his lesson from previous
misdoings.
Therefore, he no longer deserves to hold the position he holds and no
longer deserves the vote of those within the borders of Fadden.
What is so absurd about the entire saga of his expense claims is not the
amount claimed, rather the reason for the claim - internet access.
Then it gets worse.
Stuart Robert made a last ditch effort to squirm out of taking
responsibility for the claim by stating that at the time his internet was
installed to his home, there was no ADSL, ISDN or NBN access possible.
Therefore, he was forced to opt for wireless.
While effective, it can be expensive.
While I will give him the benefit of the doubt that his claim was correct
at the time he had his connection installed, Stuart Robert knows damn
well that ADSL, at the very least, has been available in almost every
location possible on the Gold Coast for a very long time.
Therefore, when it become available at his premises, is there any reason
he would not have upgraded his connection in a bid to reduce the cost
burden on the taxpayer? He comes from an IT background, he is not stupid
people.
I mean this is the man responsible for holding the role of Assistant
Treasurer.
A pretty big responsibility if you ask me.
Stuart, just pay your bills mate.
It's not up to the Australian taxpayers to fork out their hard earned so
you can sit back and enjoy Netflix on your extremely overpriced 4G
wireless service.
*****
Outside Perspective #2 - September 25, 2018
For today's Outside Perspective I'd like to focus on defense spending.
But more specifically, submarines.
The channel of thought was brought on by a column published in the
Weekend Australian, by Robert Gottliebsen.
In his column, Robert draws attention to the potential problem of
substantial increases in costs for Australia's new submarines.
Australia has ordered 12 of the things from French contractors for
$50billion dollars.
A hefty price tag considering the actual design has not yet been
finalized.
Obviously, I am not privy to the numbers the Government has nor can I
vouch the accuracy of the numbers presented in the column by Robert.
But let's give him benefit of the doubt and assume their relative
accuracy for a moment.
Robert attempts to make the clarification that the original sum of
$50billion is not subject to inflation as was originally thought.
Additionally, Robert also claims the price tag does not include combat
systems for the submarines.
Taking these unaccounted factors into consideration, it is now being
suggested that the final figure could reach as high as $90billion.
Again, we will give others the benefit of accuracy here as I am certainly
no defense or monetary expert.
So assuming these numbers are anywhere near correct, we are seeing an
original $50billion price tag almost double, for the design and purchase
of 12 submarines which if the plan goes ahead, will not be delivered in-
full and become operational until the 2030s.
Then, in the Parliamentary Committee, it was revealed that maintenance
costs would grow the $90billion figure even more, with eventual figures
potentially growing into something around the $225billion mark.
The more you stack up the costs of all of these added extras, the more
ridiculous all the sums gets.
Equally as ridiculous is the total amount that is going to be spent by
the time we get the 12 submarines.
As I said, I am certainly no defense expert.
But it doesn't take an expert to see those kinds of numbers to determine
that this deal stinks.
I am supportive of a majority of the defense spending that the Coalition
Government has engaged in.
However, I was always somewhat touch and go when it came to the
submarines purchase.
The first question which has never really been presented to the
Government, is do we really need 12 submarines in our Navy? Second
question, if the Government does insist on meeting its commitment to
spending such large amounts of money on defense assets, then wouldn't it
be better put towards more frigates and patrol vessel? I mean, we are an
island nation with very large borders.
As tensions rise with China, protecting our island borders will
undoubtedly become be paramount in the future.
And the final question, if submarines are necessary would we not be
better to cut the original order of 12 in half, therefore halving the
costs to take on a more realistic financial approach to submarine
purchase? This issue needs a revisit by the Coalition Government.
But if they are wiped out in the upcoming Federal Election, what a Labor
Government decides to do with defense spending is anyone's guess.
History shows they will probably do nothing at all.
It really is a case of black or white for the future of Australia's Navy
when you have Liberal or Labor at the helm.
*****
The Sunday Roast #2 - September 23, 2018
Am I going to be the first political observer that has noticed the
gradual increase in momentum of Prime Minister Scott Morrison's religion
influencing his political decision making? Aside from reminding
Australians almost on a daily basis of his firm "belief" in his "faith",
the assertion is supported by his latest decision to splash out some cash
in the form of $4billion to the Catholic schools sector.
Coincidence? Of course not.
I have always held the personal belief that politics and religion should
remain separate.
They can certainly live in harmony with each other and the two must
respect each other.
But when politicians begin to act on their belief in their faith, which
then becomes an effective political action which affects more people
other than themselves, then we are treading a fine line between the
separation of politics and religion.
Scott Morrison is currently walking along that fine line.
He might possibly have stepped over it already.
That depends who you ask.
I have no problem with the Catholic faith, or any religion for that
matter.
I follow the philosophy of Buddhism.
But it has absolutely no influence on my political perspective or the
political position I take on any issue.
I have no problem with private schools receiving government funding in
the form of subsidies.
But that funding allocation is still way out of balance.
I am sure that the factor of private funding through fees is taken into
consideration with government subsidized funding to the private schools,
but it is increasingly obvious it is not to the degree it should be.
Not even close.
The imbalance is clear when you have Queensland public schools still
without air-conditioning which leaves students to roast through the hot
Queensland months.
Yet the Catholic school 300 meters down the road in the same street can
have classrooms full of students sitting comfortably in air-conditioning
and who each have a laptop computer open on their desk.
We have too many public schools, right across the nation, without
adequate computer resources to truly meet the education requirements for
our students to reach their full potential.
While some students have the privilege of possessing a laptop computer to
perform their work, others who may come from families that are struggling
financially, are faced with a potentially lower quality education simply
because their parents can not afford to purchase a laptop computer for
their child.
There should be adequate funding available which can resolve this
relatively simple problem, with the advantage of inexpensive technology
now readily available and accessible by schools.
Instead, it is encouraging a two-tier learning system within the same
school, which is effectively dependent on a child's parents financial
situation.
It is unfair and government has a responsibility to fix it.
Looking at the Australian education model as a whole, I believe the
sector needs serious reform.
Probably much more reform than anyone currently in office is brave enough
and willing enough to propose and actually execute to its maximum effect.
We need closer unity between the operations of public and private
schools.
We need better accessibility of computers for those who can not afford
it.
We need to abolish school uniforms, which would financially benefit
public schools and parents.
A more balanced funding model should be a priority, which is the starting
point for greater reform to follow, which can benefit all schools and all
children so that everyone gets an equal education, irrespective of a
religious belief.
*****
Outside Perspective #1 - September 11, 2018
The pre-selection exit of Andrew Bragg for the seat of Wentworth in the
upcoming by-election, which no date has been announced, is the clearest
example of the woman problem within the Liberal Party ranks.
Most media publications will suggest that the Liberal Party fails at
appointing enough women to critical public roles, including within the
Cabinet.
While this may be a fact, the problem is not the lack of women
representatives available in the party, but the attitude towards women in
general.
The exit by Andrew Bragg demonstrates that the Liberal male gender
clearly believe that a woman is unable to win a parliamentary seat
without the assistance of a man, by means of stepping out of the way.
I really don't buy into the whole 'women getting bullied' claims.
I'm sorry, I just don't.
Because there is clear problems with the claims.
When Julie Bishop was Deputy Leader and Foreign Minister, why on Earth
did she not use her senior status to raise the issue of bullying then?
Why wait until she has been outvoted in a leadership contest, then
suggestively decide to quit the Parliament, only to backtrack on that
decision and then decide to remain on the backbench without giving any
further intentions of her future parliamentary plans? We are all too well
aware of the power that comes with sitting on the backbench - a power
which has been constantly exploited, by example, throughout Australia's
political history and effectively causing internal party disunity which
has eventuated to party chaos and bring about leadership challenges.
They don't call it killing season for nothing!
My views should not be taken as an attack on Julie Bishop.
Quite the opposite.
I have the utmost respect for her as a member of the Australian political
community.
Her record as Foreign Minister is impeccable and I can't see any current
member within the ranks of the Liberal Party that could surpass, or even
match, the performance of Julie Bishop.
She must be commended.
But we cannot continue to ignore the issue at hand.
The issue being, if bullying and the treatment of women within the
Liberal Party is so bad that you must resign your position, and in the
case of Julia Banks, leave Parliament altogether, then why did these
women not do something about their concerns when they had the power to?
Through their actions of exiting their roles, their words now have less
effect and influence on changing the Liberal Party's attitude towards
women than what it would have had prior to their exit if only they had
acted.
It's time the women in the Liberal Party took a harder position and stand
up for themselves, otherwise the culture of putting men first and women
second will simply continue to fester.
*****
The Sunday Roast #1 - September 9, 2018
After the week of turmoil that consumed the attention of Australia,
concluding with Malcolm Turnbull being thrown out as Prime Minister and
replaced by ex-Treasurer Scott Morrison, I for one am getting pretty
tired of seeing Scott Morrison on the news attempting to present himself
as a man who has all the answers to all our problems whilst insinuating
that Malcolm Turnbull had none.
He continues to drill into our minds just how much he loves us all and
how we all deserve a fair go, but only if we have a fair go.
Yes Scott, I think we get it.
Then, he continues to tell us he wants to fix our energy price problem
and reform our tax system to benefit small to medium business because
they continue to be a major creator of jobs.
I for one, just don't want to hear any more propaganda about jobs, jobs,
jobs and giving people a fair go, if they have a go.
After that infamous week which will be remembered in the minds of many
Aussies for all the wrong reasons, it was refreshing at first to hear
Scott Morrison's position on policy and where he wanted to take the
future Liberal Party under his leadership.
He was energized, fresh and genuinely gave off an instant feeling of
stability and unity.
But the problem is, we're still hearing about it.
Now I have begun to question whether Scott Morrison is the right man for
the job.
Personally, he would not have been my choice for Prime Minister anyway.
But hey, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, is better than Peter Dutton, right?
But every time I switch on the news or open the morning paper, there he
is.
Talking, again, about the Liberal Party under his leadership - jobs, fair
go, energy prices, keeping the lights on - the list goes on.
I'm getting tired of it already.
He is beginning to sound like a man with a lot of ideas yet no plan.
Therefore, he keeps reminding us of the things he wants to do but has no
idea how to implement them.
With only 6-8 months until the next Federal Election, which the Liberal
Party might very likely face a slaughtering at the hands of an
increasingly keen Labor Party, Scott Morrison has a lot to do in a short
amount of time.
Some would question whether there is enough time to unite the Liberals in
time for the election.
If he fails to unite them, then we may again see the leadership of the
party reviewed.
I'm sure this is a space Julie Bishop is watching very closely.
Scott Morrison's popularity may be building in the media, but he is
already starting to look like he is campaigning for the upcoming election
rather than actually trying to rebuild a stable and united Liberal Party
first, one which has any chance of being re-elected and returned to
government.
I wish I had the robotic, repetitive confidence and optimism of Scott
Morrison.
Actually, no I don't.
But Scott, one step at a time mate.
**************************************************