With less than an abysmal one-third of the vote, in a seriously defective electoral system designed principally to protect the atrophying two-party system and one more open to blatant fraud than in any comparable country, a clearly inadequate, inexperienced, and far-left politician has become Australia’s 31st prime minister.
How long will the people tolerate this unworthy electoral system?
In the meantime, as mentioned last week, it became apparent two decades ago that the elites are being increasingly infected by a variant of what Churchill once declared as a ‘plague bacillus’; namely, Marxism, obviously no friend of democracy.
Almost all the electorates targetted by the ‘teal Greens’ were among the small minority of blue-ribbon Liberal electorates voting for that constitutional abomination, the Turnbull-Keating republic. Their elite majority increasingly lack common sense, fail to see the hypocrisy of their virtue-signalling and should surely know that whatever terrible burden they subject the poor to, this will do absolutely nothing to improve the climate.
These elites are living examples of the observation attributed long ago to Chesterton, that when man stops believing in God, it is not that he believes in nothing, it’s that he will believe in anything.
So whatever impossible dogma comes in from the American Marxists, the elites believe it. The latest is gender fluidity, even where it notoriously involves significant child abuse. These dogmas all have one thing in common. They are all designed to create victims to replace the downtrodden proletariat in classical Marxist theory, as well as destroy significant institutions and values, especially the family. The political strategist who first noticed the emergence of elite-dominated electorates in the referendum, Rick Brown, also had the prescience to warn, in a 2009 report The China Advantage: What Price a Free Trade Agreement with China? against the frequent politicians’ formula that we did not need to choose between Beijing and Washington. But politicians ignored him, transferring manufacturing to China and ceding to the communists’ control of many of our best and most strategic assets including the Port of Darwin.
It was always obvious that Scott Morrison tended to be opportunistic. He demonstrated this when, as a minister, he worked with Malcolm Turnbull to overthrow his prime minister, Tony Abbott. As Paul Keating had demonstrated, if a minister is dissatisfied with the leader, the correct ethical protocol is to resign and campaign openly from the backbench. Opportunism too often tainted Morrisson’s leadership as it had Turnbull’s. Instead of exercising leadership over the Wuhan virus, he abdicated his federal responsibility to do what Tony Abbott no doubt counselled in his internationally acclaimed pandemic plan when health minister. This was to protect the vulnerable, and counsel care and hygiene to the rest, allowing them to get on with their lives. But when the Labor states decided to follow Beijing with the communist fantasy that lockdowns can destroy the virus, instead of using federal powers to stop them, Prime Minister Morrison, supported by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, foolishly underwrote their fantasy creating a vast debt for the next generation, ratcheting up inflation and supporting the states trampling on human rights.
Similarly, at the Glasgow Cop 26 climate change conference, Morrison completely abandoned the Liberal party’s objection to net zero emissions by 2050.
It is hard then to understand the eulogising of Treasurer Frydenberg. Our perilous economic situation was well explained by Bob Katter on the Alan Jones program on ADH.tv. (The Katter interview can be seen on the Alan Jones YouTube channel, as well as one with me warning about an Albanase government’s commitment to undermining the Constitution with a Minister for the Republic).
Katter argued that our economic situation is not the result of the government’s superior financial administration. In a country where the Chinese communists control about 40 per cent of our electricity, and where we are now net importers of even fruit and vegetables, our economic strength lies essentially in the fact that there are buyers in the world for our fossil fuels, some of which we almost give away compared with other countries – coal, gas and iron ore.
I first met Bob Katter when I chaired the Broadcasting Authority. The television networks had decided to concentrate everything in Sydney and close down a lot of local journalism in country Australia. Bob came to remonstrate with me for doing nothing about this. After listening to him, I produced the draft policy which I persuaded the board to accept ordering the networks to broadcast a certain amount of local news. He was delighted and thanked me. He is a down-to-earth politician who acts on principle.
The decision by Craig McLachlan to abandon his defamation case made me think back to the time when I worked as a lawyer and a prospective client would instruct me to take out a writ for some defamatory statement.
The lessons from the disastrous case Oscar Wilde brought against the Marquess of Queensbury would always come back to me. I was of course bound to warn the client about the potential expense of such an action and the need to have funds in trust to brief counsel. But I would add that there was a danger that the defamation case could dominate their lives. Experience shows that such a case can sometimes destroy the plaintiff’s health and happiness even where they prevail. In what legal commentator, Richard Ackland, described as one of the biggest defamation cases in the common law world, leading Sydney solicitor John Marsden secured a very large out-of-court settlement from Channel 7 on stories that he had engaged in under-age sex. When Marsden died not long after this, I always wondered whether it was expedited by the litigation. I have always followed my own advice, although I suspect that there could be times when honour would demand action. A republican site used to describe me as a ‘perma-tanned Indonesian-born blow-in’.
Rather than complaining and certainly not suing, I have found this to be a superb prop for the odd after-dinner speech. People who first hear it are nervous, but when they see that I am anything but offended, they truly enjoy it.
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.
You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10