Australia General Discussion 4.0: It ain’t easy under Albanese

[Pulaski]

Through being stuck at home with COVID I've managed to catch nearly every question time since the reopening of parliament. If this early period is anything to go by (and it probably isn't), we can forget about Dutton attempting to soften his image. Nearly every Oppo question has been around either the CFMEU (yawn), Foot and Mouth (yawn) or trying to nail the government on their election promise to lower energy prices. It may seem like the Opposition are struggling for any other material; probably they just feel like there's little else to work with so early on in this government and their attacks will broaden with time.

The government, meanwhile, have focused a lot of their questions on establishing the Voice to Parliament, which seems to be something they want to pursue early on in their term. I watched a lot of Jacinta Nampijinpa Price's first speech to the Senate, where she derided the proposed Voice to Parliament as paternalistic and symbolic. I don't agree with her at all but I admire her bravery in voicing an opinion that is likely unpopular within a community in which she's now a leader and I'm sure she speaks for some Indigenous Australians' opinions on the matter.

What she totally lost my respect for was her assertion that Pauline Hanson and people like her aren't racist. Pauline Hanson is a racist and I don't need anyone of any racial identity to tell me so. The fact that Hanson is now raising money on her website pledging to stand against racial division in Australia makes me more physically ill than COVID has this past week. She's a stain on the underpants of Australian society and should be back selling fish and chips where she belongs.

Unsurprisingly, questions from the Greens and crossbenchers have been well-constructed and about actual issues; climate change, housing, HECS and COVID, among others. Seems like parliament just got a whole new raft of quality MPs - maybe abolishing political parties is not such a bad idea?

[Pulaski]

Yes, doing away with political parties *is* a bad idea.

(though I do appreciate you likely weren't being entirely serious)

The media is a bigger factor in the decline of our political discourse.

The problem with abolishing parties is that governments will still need to be formed, ministers still ned to be appointed, and people will still have ideological commonalities and divides, meaning coalitions will form that will gradually develop more structure, financial clout and rigidity. Parties are inevitable! As a perfect example, it'll be interesting to see just how long these teal independents last as theoretically separate entities - most of them already have a common donor pool.

Though I'm sure it's obvious to most here that mainstream parties across the western world are in dire straits and badly need major reform.

[Pulaski]

Turns out the Deep State exists but it's just Scomo grinning inanely.

I love how Albo described it as "just weird." A perfect encapsulation.

Surely Morrison will have to bring forward his retirement from Parliament.

[Pulaski]

John Howard says Scott Morrison should remain in parliament to avoid a by-election

Well bugger me with a fishfork, if Howard says so then that’s that. I’m glad he put his two cents in, he’s someone we should all be listening to in 2022.

[Pulaski]

Turns out the Deep State exists but it's just Scomo grinning inanely.

I love how Albo described it as "just weird." A perfect encapsulation.

Surely Morrison will have to bring forward his retirement from Parliament.

Will the GG bring forward his retirement?

I can’t really see what case the GG has to answer here; for my mind he acted entirely appropriately. The GG is basically only meant to act in any manner on the advice of the PM, and it was the PM’s advice to have these ministerial powers delegated to him, so the GG acted accordingly.

(I assume this convention is similar in Canada?)

The broader question it raises is the age-old one; what is the purpose of the position of Governor-General if its actions are basically dictated by the Prime Minister? But that is the subject of a different debate.

[Pulaski]

Publicising the arrangements is more within the purview of the Prime Minister, as Hurley himself has said this afternoon. Twomey and quite a few constitutional experts have confirmed that there were no actual constitutional rules broken, so I doubt criticism of the Governor-General will stick.

I think most people agree Morrison sh*t the bed on this one though.

Perhaps the biggest concern is the blocking of PEP-11, which at the time Morrison claimed was a decision he made "as Prime Minister," but now is saying he needed the Ministerial powers for - effectively admitting to lying to the public. Morrison tried to defend it today by saying it was clear that any decision was up to the minister and by announcing that he'd taken the decision he was effectively announcing he'd assumed ministerial powers. I'm not sure that excuse will wash.

[Pulaski]

I think most people agree Morrison sh*t the bed on this one though.

No one I have spoken to cares about this story. Not one person.

You regularly bemoan in your crime thread that no-one seems to care about the disappearance of Indigenous children. Maybe there's a bit of a disconnect between what people actually care about and what they should?

Certainly Matt Canavan (someone I don't find myself referring to that often) and other Nationals MPs seem to care that Morrison overrode his own minister to block PEP-11.

I think Albanese put it best upon hearing that Morrison said he now doesn't follow day-to-day politics - that voters in Cronulla and Caringbah (and I used to be a voter in Caringbah) would probably expect a bit more from their MP than that.

[Pulaski]

What is the purpose of the Governor-General? I am beyond stumped.

No purpose at all. The reason the position has lasted this long is

1. Australia’s “small-c” conservative political culture.

2. The absence of any clearly better alternative.

It all comes back to what you do with those reserve powers if you abolish the position (along with the monarchy, presumably). Do you just hand them over to the PM, effectively making them President? Plenty would argue that’s in effect the system we have now anyway, especially in light of recent events, but I for one am not eager to see a presidential system codified here.

Or do you invest the head of state with those executive powers and make them de facto rather than just de jure? And then what, elect that position? If you do, you’ve essentially created a President again. If not, you have an unelected head of state wielding actual power - hardly an ideal situation either. Again, I’m not eager to see another Kerr-Whitlam situation.

[Pulaski]

You regularly bemoan in your crime thread that no-one seems to care about the disappearance of Indigenous children.

Not true. There is one politician that holds a light to the plight of Aboriginal children who, om a quarterly basis, are eaten live in the teethy jaws of a crocodile whilst the rest of the country lives in ignorance.

Bob Katter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ih1EuMLspY

God bless' him.

Unpopular opinion but for me the funniest part of that legendary moment is the bloke behind him who is so confused he's not sure whether he should be nodding or shaking his head...

[Pulaski]

In one of the most bizarre moments in recent political history, Albanese had a press conference today on progress on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament and was joined by…Shaquille O’Neal.

Albo looked like a midget standing next to him.

[Pulaski]

Albanese has apparently been filmed chugging down a few beers - so far at least, this doesn't seem to have caused the fuss that Sanna Marin enjoying herself has.

Our politicians have history on this and I think we’re likely to be a bit less uptight than the Finns. Leaving aside that Marin is an attractive young woman which doesn’t do her any favours for this kind of stuff either.

He did it at the Gang of Youths gig I was at the other night. Everyone went wild but overlooked that it was a third of a plastic cup at best. Weak IMO.

[Pulaski]

Albanese has apparently been filmed chugging down a few beers - so far at least, this doesn't seem to have caused the fuss that Sanna Marin enjoying herself has.

Our politicians have history on this and I think we’re likely to be a bit less uptight than the Finns. Leaving aside that Marin is an attractive young woman which doesn’t do her any favours for this kind of stuff either.

He did it at the Gang of Youths gig I was at the other night. Everyone went wild but overlooked that it was a third of a plastic cup at best. Weak IMO.

It's also a tradition here. Remember, Bob Hawke once sculled a yard of ale at Oxford in 11 seconds.

Yes, that's why I said our politicians have history on this.

[Pulaski]

Obligatory post saying polling at this point in time is less than useless, new governments pretty much always get a bounce, Rudd recorded the best approval ratings in history before dragging Labor to an election-losing position in the polls etc. etc.

Governments in Aus nearly always get a second term, even Labor ones, and Dutton’s personal approvals will likely always be negative, so as long as Albo doesn’t screw up too badly I’m expecting a win in 2025, but let’s hang on.

[Pulaski]

Turnbull is an intelligent man which makes him describing that student protest as "fascism" all the more ridiculous.

I know what fascism looks like, and 4-5 Trots with a megaphone shouting down Turnbull at a uni event isn't it.

[Pulaski]

The Greens's support for re-nationalisation and the return to substantial public ownership and their wanting to undo Labor's 1980s and 1990s reforms and their continual rants about "big corporations" and "wealth inequality" is hardly part of the broad political centre where most Australian voters are.

Most voters actually back renationalisation, even conservative ones.

[Pulaski]

Turnbull is an intelligent man which makes him describing that student protest as "fascism" all the more ridiculous.

I know what fascism looks like, and 4-5 Trots with a megaphone shouting down Turnbull at a uni event isn't it.

It's still verbal intimidation which is a form of violence.

By that definition nearly every protest would constitute a form of violence.

Can you honestly point to an example of any of these sorts of student protests in Australia actually turning violent?

[Pulaski]

Please just ignore and move on. He has nothing interesting to say and responding is just polluting the thread.

I think it's particularly telling that any time someone comes back at him with hard facts to rebut (the articles I linked to showing that it's hardly just us far-left Marxist nutjobs who support renationalisation, for instance), he disappears into the ether.

[Pulaski]

Please just ignore and move on. He has nothing interesting to say and responding is just polluting the thread.

I think it's particularly telling that any time someone comes back at him with hard facts to rebut (the articles I linked to showing that it's hardly just us far-left Marxist nutjobs who support renationalisation, for instance), he disappears into the ether.

Most Australians also support the death penalty for some crimes. That is also something that governments are wise to ignore.

Your argument wasn't that at all; it was that the Greens were outside the mainstream for supporting renationalisation, when it's very much a mainstream position according to polls.

If your position is now that a good government should have principles rather than simply kowtowing to whatever the majority want, then I've got a list of issues as long as your arm where Labor governments fail that standard.

For what it's worth, the latest poll I could find suggests two-thirds of Australians oppose the death penalty.

[Pulaski]

In the abstract, perhaps. But, I hope you might see that the numbers are "soft" as in the aftermath of a particularly impactful "My name is Cleo" type event, Laura Norder gets really popular again.

So public opinion is changeable then?

In which case what is "mainstream" is maybe not necessarily the priority as it can also change?

[Pulaski]

I honestly don't know where you're getting this from as I've just done a quick scan of the 1947, 1954 and 1961 censuses and can see no mention of "Aboriginal natives" (in fact, at least two of them explicitly say they exclude "full-blood Aboriginals").

They do seem to count "half-castes" in some of them as often "half-castes" (apologies for using this term) were considered "Europeans."

At any rate, this "myth" seems to be so powerful that it's permeated through to the University of Sydney, the Western Australian Museum, the State Library of Victoria and the National Library.

I agree that the "flora and fauna" thing is basically a myth, although it's worth noting that some states did manage "Aboriginal affairs" through things like their Departments of Fisheries at various points.

[Pulaski]

"I honestly don't know where you're getting this from as I've just done a quick scan of the 1947, 1954 and 1961 censuses"

So, *after* the myth has grown up that that the expression "aboriginal natives shall not be counted" is a reference to the census?

Do you mind clarifying what you mean by this post? Not trying to be rude here but I just don't quite get what you mean.

[Pulaski]

Looking at the population data for Northern Territory, I'm inclined to believe Jolly Slugg on this one. If they weren't counted, it would for sure appear in the Northern Territory total, yet it still had almost 45k in 1961. There was a huge increase by 1974, but that's in a context where it clearly was growing quite massively before and after 1967.

Yeah, I do have to admit I was slightly incorrect - the 1961 census does count "full-blooded Aboriginals" separately at the end (seems to be the only one of the three I mentioned that does this). The statistics are still likely wildly incorrect though, considering the estimate of the total population in Australia is 40K and by 1971 that had ballooned to over 100K.

The State Library of Victoria link is probably the most accurate - prior to '67, they weren't always counted, often deliberately excluded, and the statistics were flawed and inaccurate.

[Pulaski]

Like I said, you are using censuses that were taken well after the notion that "aboriginal natives shall not be counted" refers to the census. As i explained, that was not the actual reason for that clause.

So the myth about them not being included in the census became so powerful that even the census themselves decided not to include them. Not even Dominic Cummings could've achieved that PR coup.

[Pulaski]

You (deliberately?) only quoted from latter-day censuses and IGNORED this part of my post:

"Indigenous people were always counted in the census where this was possible. (*In the case of some remote communities it was not possible in the circumstances of the time*)

Why do latter day censuses not count in your mind?

And why does 1961 have counts but not the census before or after it if it's all down to circumstances? What temporary access did census workers have in 61?

[Pulaski]

"Why do latter day censuses not count in your mind?"

Because you are not looking at much earlier censuses. Obvious as late as the 40s, 50s and 60s, very close to the referendum and with much easier modes of travel, things will be different

But 1947 and 1954 censuses exclude Indigenous Australians too.

Maybe you’re right about them being excluded from earlier censuses due to logistics. But if this were true of the entire period pre-1967, you wouldn’t see them included in 1961 and excluded both before and after. Something more than logistics is going on here.