Uncategorised

 

Advice to readers: The following opinions and generalisations are not rigorously researched, and are offered only in the interest of encouraging thought.

WHAT ALLOWS POLITICIANS TO LIE WITH IMPUNITY?

The short answer is simplistic, but sadly accurate.

Pollies can lie because they feel entitled to, and because we allow them to.

If every voter in Australia chose to vote only for pollies who supported a very strong federal ICAC, and who were prepared to legislate to punish those who lie, both inside and outside the parliament, the problem would be reduced as soon as the next election, and eradicated shortly afterwards.

I’d like to see two federal agencies set up to combat dishonesty. One, the ICAC style body, would be purpose-built to dig out and ensure prosecution for corruption, such as the NSW ICAC achieved with the Obeid-McDonald case.

The second would probably be even more busy, since its role would be to examine the overall ethics of politicians’ behaviour, concentrating upon those matters which, while technically legal, range from dodgy to borderline corrupt.

As I understand it, currently, pollies can tell lies in parliament, under parliamentary privilege, apparently without consequence, unless other politicians call for and establish a Parliamentary Committee, to investigate their behaviour. This means that, unless the pollies investigate themselves, nothing may happen to the liars.

I’d like to see an independent body created, made up of similarly qualified people as those who staff the ICAC. They could be called something like the Political Ethics Commission and their charter might require them to investigate complaints, made by any person, against politicians and their employees. Once proven to be true, an instance of unethical behaviour could be classified, and publicised, as belonging to one of three “classes” of behaviour – moderately unethical, significantly unethical or extremely unethical (or something similar).

As long as the presumption of innocence for anyone accused of improper or unethical behaviour is protected, both organisations would be expected to reveal information about the progress and results of inquiries, as it was appropriate to do so. This would mean that the electorate would be kept in formed, on an on-going basis, of the behaviours of their elected representatives.

So, why do we not already have entities such as these, to reveal inappropriate behaviour, and thereby ensure the use of appropriate behaviour in our politicians?

I have some suggested answers, which need some historical guesswork on my part to explain. I’m not a political scientist, nor am I an historian, but I’ve had quite a long time on the planet, during which I’ve made some observations about the function, and dysfunction, of Australian society.

Briefly, in the years before and shortly after Federation, our society was even more dominated by a repulsive class system, than it is today. “The First-Class People” did what their governments told them to do, because they were of the same class. “The Rest” did what their governments told them to do because that was their role, as “Second and Third Class People”. Very few saw a problem with this. It was “normal”.

People tended to vote as their fathers had voted. The upper class voted Liberal, a party which needed to be allied with the Country Party, who represented wealthy landowners, in order to achieve a majority over Labor, the party of the lower classes. This imbalance still exists today, when Liberals can’t achieve government without the support of the National (formerly Country) Party.

 

“Of the House of Representatives elections, non-Labor parties or coalitions have won 30 and the Australian Labor Party (ALP) has won 14. Australian politics has been characterised by relatively long periods in government. Since 1930 there have been only nine changes of government: 1932, 1941, 1949, 1972, 1975, 1983, 1996, 2007 and 2013.”

Parliament Of Australia

Federal election results 1901–2014

17 July 2014

PDF version [2.82MB]

Stephen Barber and Sue Johnson
Statistics and Mapping Section

 

Post-Federation, several major wars were fought, in which Australians died largely in defence of the culture of a country 20 000 km away, and attitudes slowly began to change.

Questions were asked about the right of “First Class People” to make decisions which affected the lives, and deaths, of “The Rest”.

In the middle of last century, my birth coincided with a growing awareness of the fact that education was a way to at least blur the boundaries between the classes. Upward mobility had begun.

It has taken at least seven decades for our society to reach a stage at which the “right” of the ruling class to rule, is being seriously, publicly and loudly questioned. It was primarily the ruling class’ sense of entitlement which created an environment in which lies are acceptable, and even encouraged and condoned.

This sense of entitlement due to birth, wealth and power, is worthy of investigation, because it is one of the most destructive forces which exists in our society. It plays out every day in Australian politics, and is the driving force behind political corruption.

As an example, let’s take this scenario, loosely based on fact, but heavily embellished with supposition and speculation:

A senior high school student (we’ll call him Jacob) has sex with a fellow student (we’ll call her Ann), against her will. This is rape, but the boy does not believe it to be rape. His mindset is such that he feels entitled to take what he wants, without due regard to consequences. Anything which he wants to do is OK, simply because it is what he wants to do.

How has this warped mindset been created?

Jacob’s parents are wealthy, socially prominent people, who hold a prestigious position within their community. His is a strongly patriarchal family, in which his mother is almost subservient to the wishes of her husband and son. Jacob has been indulged throughout his life. He has attended an extremely wealthy and prestigious all boys’ school, since Kindergarten. It is unlikely that Jacob has ever met, let alone associated with people from a different social class, during his 17 years on the planet.

The lessons taught to him by his parents, teachers and schoolmates, confirm in Jacob that feeling that he is special, and therefore entitled to exercise his will, regardless of possible consequences. He sees a career in “The Law” as a way to establish his own position of power in society, and as a springboard into politics, which, in his view, is where the real power lies. He sees himself as a future Prime Minister.

Jacob has learned that the law can be subverted in order to gain and exercise power, and increase personal wealth. He has learned that “Jacob’s Truth” is the “Real Truth”, regardless of the opinions of others. He has become a dedicated narcissist.

In his own mind Jacob did not rape Ann. He merely asserted his right, as a privileged alpha male, to have sex with her.

Fast forward to the modern day and accusations of a historical rape have been made against Jacob, who has become a senior minister in the government of the day.

He fiercely denies the allegations and cites Ann’s history of mental ill-health, created by the unresolved issues surrounding her rape, as the reason for her delusional accusations.

Jacob is suffering terribly. His political career is all but destroyed, but even worse, he has been accused of a crime which he did not commit. It is true that he had sex with Ann. It is true that she did not consent. However, he believed that he was entitled to have sex with Ann, regardless of her wishes. He had been taught, throughout his life that his wishes were to prevail in all circumstances.

Jacob steadfastly believes in his innocence.

I cite the tale of Jacob as an example of a mindset demonstrated in too many contemporary politicians. In recent years, and probably as a response to growing public awareness and criticism of pollies’ unacceptable behaviour, the strategy of lie and deny, deny, and deny again, one utilised brilliantly in America by one Donald J. Trump, has been imported into Australia.

In Australia today, we have incontrovertible proof of the public behaviour of one politician who lies about telling lies.

How do they continue to get away with it?

History suggests that, for two centuries, we were subject to rule by a privileged class. It has taken an incredibly long time for social change to occur, to the extent that now the ruling class, and the government that it supports, is gradually being called to account for its behaviour.

Fifty years ago, the imaginary story of Jacob and his rape of Ann, would never have been told in public.

However, not enough is being done to bring genuine accountability to our Federal Government. In my opinion, the present government has arguably the worst record of proven lies, unethical conduct and potentially corrupt behaviours, of any government in living memory. The only comparable case might be the Queensland State Government, under corrupt Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

The Feds’ attempt to persuade voter that their phony anti-corruption watchdog will be adequate to solve the problem, is laughable. This quote from SMH, November 2, 2020 is worthy of consideration:

“Attorney-General Christian Porter launched six months of public consultation on Monday by issuing draft legislation that would give the new body the power to compel witnesses and search property as well as almost $150 million in funding.

But he rejected demands to allow the new Commonwealth Integrity Commission to initiate its own inquiries, hold public hearings and release public reports on political corruption.

Former judges and barristers with experience in corruption inquiries dismissed the plan as inadequate, . . .”

It’s a joke – and not a funny one.

True accountability cannot be achieved until politicians themselves, say that enough is enough. Sadly, human nature comes into play here.

If I am an unethical or corrupt politician, I am hardly likely to support the creation of entities which will reveal and punish my behaviours, therefore it will take the combined will of a large number of ethical politicians, to bring about the establishment of such an entity.

I’m just not sure that there are enough of these people to enable this to happen.

 

Whenever I ask my wife this question, I already know what she will say. She’ll look at what I’m wearing and, unless I look like a major fashion tragic, and a potential public embarrassment to her, she’ll tell me that I look fine.

She might be telling the truth, or, in the interests of preserving my fragile ego, she might be telling a little fib.

That’s not such a bad thing, and most of us will do the same, once in a while.

However, strictly speaking, it’s probably not the truth. Does that make it a lie?

I looked up the definition of the word “lie”, in my very thick Macquarie Dictionary. That’s right, in a real book. Among other things, the dictionary says that a lie is:

“a false statement made with intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood”

I suppose this means that, technically speaking, my wife’s answer to my question might be a lie. In the grand scheme of things, though, does it really matter if, in answering my question, she tells the absolute truth, or not?

Observers of the Christian religion may suggest that telling any “untruth” is contravening the Ninth Commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness . . .” – this is my abbreviation from the full text.

Religious fundamentalists may tell us that the telling of any lie is bound to be a sin, and that sinners are condemned to purgatory. To me, as a practising atheist, that’s “black and white”, extremist bullshit, but it does serve to establish one perspective to the question, “When is a lie, actually a lie?”

As with most things, in my experience of life, there are few absolutes when it comes to interpreting Truth. Taking an absolutist approach to this discussion, fails to account for the motivation behind a lie.

I have a penchant for seeing the observance of many of life’s basic principles as taking place across a range, as part of a spectrum. With respect to lies, that range starts with the innocuous and harmless “untruths”, traditionally known as “white lies”, and ends with the vile and injurious “black lies”. We tend to lie by degrees.

However, there is a further dimension to be considered – the magnitude of the lie. Consider this simple equation:

Magnitude = motivation x impact.

The magnitude of a lie can actually determine its location upon the spectrum – where it sits between black and white.

Take my wife’s decision to tell me that I look OK, even though, strictly speaking, I could look better. This is a low magnitude lie, because her motivation is benign and its impact is negligible. It’s an innocuous, and very pale, white lie.

Then consider this. A dominant world power wishes to secure its access to oil reserves in the Middle East, so it fabricates a story about one particular nation creating a storehouse of weapons of mass destruction, as an excuse to invade that nation, and thereby control its oil distribution. This results in a lengthy and horribly destructive war, which claims the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The magnitude of that particular lie is enormous. The motivation was evil and the impact horrendous. This places that particular lie in the blackest category.

When I consider the types of lies which we speak, I tend to create three principal groups – “protective” lies, “convenient” lies and “destructive” lies, and membership of each group is largely determine by the magnitude of the lie.

As its categorisation suggests, a protective lie is one of low magnitude, given its benign or even benevolent motivation and its low impact. These are the lies which we tell in order to protect someone’s feelings.

Convenient lies are of higher magnitude, sometimes having more sinister motivation and greater impact upon a person or group. If I’m likely to be in trouble because I have made an error in judgement, and done something which will potentially see me suffer negative consequences, I may compound my already poor behaviour, by lying to avoid its consequences.

For example, whilst parking my car, I accidentally run over a council-owned garbage bin, spreading its contents and destroying its structure. No-one is around, so I drive off. Somehow the council finds out and sends me a letter, advising that I will be required to pay restitution for the value of the bin. Motivated to avoid spending money, and considering my “crime” to be victimless, I want to argue that it wasn’t me. Being stupid, I send the council an angry letter, accusing them of making a mistake.

Within days, I receive another letter from council. This one contains a picture taken from a CCTV camera, clearly showing my car, and me looking at the damaged bin. It also contains an infringement notice, including a bill for the cost of the bin, and labour costs for its installation, and a notice of a fine having been imposed. My convenient lie is no longer quite so convenient.

Destructive lies are what most people might call “real lies”. They’re the ones with the highest magnitude because their motivation is negative and their impact extreme. The lie regarding weapons of mass destruction, is an example of a destructive lie.

So, who tells lies?

The short answer is – we all do. (Unless we are religious fanatics and fear the fires of hell for our sins.)

As children, we use lies as a means to avoid consequences for our actions, until we discover that older people can often tell when we are telling lies. In some cases, we lie in order to gain attention when we feel unrecognised or neglected. Those motivations may remain consistent into adulthood, when we become more sophisticated in our strategic use of the untruth.

In considering the value of lying as a strategy, we must again reflect upon the magnitude of the lies we choose. The efficacy of a lie is entirely dependent upon its capacity to achieve its goals, and the potential for the unintended, and unwanted, consequences of being found out.

I suggest that the nebulous group known as Most People will tend to use protective lies as a matter of course, with little thought, and on a regular basis. Protective lies might be seen as an essential component of compromise, and, in some cases, an integral part of a happy family life. Applications outside the “family and friends” situation must surely exist, but I can’t think of any offhand.

Convenient lies, due to their greater potential magnitude, are, in my assessment, less prevalent. They will tend to be used in response to more critical situations, in order to promote the more important positive, and avoid the more damaging negative, consequences. Being caught out in a convenient lie may result in embarrassment, but seldom in incarceration.

It’s with the destructive lies, the real lies, that the problem with lying really lies. (Crappy pun intended). It’s also here where we need to consider, not just the concept of the lie, but the concept of truth.

I believe that it’s best summed up in the legal oath taken in court, to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thinking that truth and lies are simply diametrically opposed concepts, and subject to clinical, black and white interpretation, is demonstrably wrong. As is true with lies, there are degrees of truth.

There are absolute, scientifically proven and undeniable truths – the sun rises in the east, or thereabouts, rain is wet, human beings have affected the nature of the planet. Then there are partial truths, incomplete because inconvenient pieces of data have been excluded from the telling. Finally, there are false truths – lies which are given credibility because they are spoken as if they were truth.

What about the suggestion that, if an idea exists in the mind of the teller, as a truth, then for that person, it is true? Conversely, is a lie only a lie if the speaker believes it to be a lie?

In my work with children and young people, I was often required to interview individuals as part of a conflict resolution process, or as a means to apportion responsibility for an action. I encountered some of the most skilful liars imaginable.

I learned that the depth of conviction in the telling of a lie, its capacity to be convincing, was directly proportionate to the level of fear of consequences, held by the liar. Those who were most afraid of consequences, or who were afraid of very serious consequences, told the most convincing lies. The prevalence of “tells”, revealing aspects of body language or speech patterns, was significantly reduced in an expert liar, in proportion to the fear engendered by the thought of negative consequences for discovery.

It was possible for a particularly skilful liar, whose inappropriate behaviour I had witnessed at first hand, to almost convince me that I hadn’t seen what I had seen.

Former Queensland Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, one of the most successful politicians Australia has ever produced, (not a compliment) was a master of the political gerrymander, promoter of political corruption, and a consummate liar.

I believe that Bjelke-Petersen used a particular technique when deciding how much truth to employ, one perfected over many years. As a person devoid of appropriate principles or social conscience, he found it easy to divorce himself from reality, and to choose any path which would best serve his personal interests.

Bjelke-Petersen’s prime motivation was to stay elected, in order to keep his dominant position of power. It’s my opinion that to him, power was even more important than the wealth which he gained through his abuse of that power.

Having decided upon the path to power, or to its retention, Joh would then decide the truths which most suited his purpose. Having decided that something was “true”, even though it was demonstrably false, he could not be moved from that position. With scant regard for reality, Joh would promote those “facts” and “policies”, regardless of their veracity, which he felt would be most likely to get him elected. If caught in a lie, he would deny. There are politicians operating in today’s Federal Government who have clearly read Joh’s training manual. One in particular has reached lofty heights using his own version of the “lie and deny” strategy.

Although, in my opinion, Most People will use lies of a very small magnitude, Some People have elevated the skill of lying to an art form. With regard to these specialist liars, we need to consider the use of both lies and truth, as a means to an end.

Professional liars, or “truth twisters” can be found in many walks of life. I have seen charts which list the least trustworthy (read, “most likely to be liars”) as people who work in advertising, the law and politics.

I’ll ignore advertising execs, because anybody who expects truth in advertising is insane.

I’ll ignore lawyers, because I don’t want to risk a law suit.

However, I can’t ignore politicians, seemingly the most universally criticised group of liars, because there is an abundance of factual material which can be used to support my personal, and therefore biased view, that too many politicians will lie whenever there is something to be gained, in terms of power, prestige or personal benefit, from doing so.

We are blessed with some outstanding people operating in all three tiers of Australian government. These people possess integrity, and are motivated to achieve the best possible outcomes for their constituents. I prefer not to refer to them as politicians, simply because the title is so tainted. However, few of this group become respected and acknowledged outside their own electorates, because media spotlights tend to fall mainly upon the wrong-doers, the charlatans, the most corrupt.

I see political lies as falling into three major categories – opportunist lies, cynical lies and calculated lies, and see lying politicians choosing from any of these categories, as needs require. In some cases, a single lie can fall comfortably into multiple categories.

Here are three examples, one taken from each tier of government, which may support my view. In an attempt to avoid accusations of partisan comment, I will not use names, however, the situations will be familiar to many:

In a local government area, a plan is conceived to build a community cultural centre. The plan is quickly developed to include new council chambers, a step to which the community responds with many loud objections. The Mayor, however, has already conceived of this building as a resplendent monument to the Mayor’s time in office, and chooses to fabricate data (tell lies) which support the plan.

There are claims, allegedly supported by researched “facts”, that the town’s CBD will begin to thrive anew, with this building as its centre point. Visitation figures in excess of 400 000 people per year, are claimed – not bad for a regional town with a population of less than 80 000, and a new by-pass under construction.

Many of the political lies surrounding this issue are opportunist, suiting the needs of a moment, most are calculated, designed to achieve a predetermined outcome, whilst all are cynical – “We have the power to do and say whatever we like”.

The Premier of an Australian state, an important role in which the trust of the electorate is fundamental to success, has an on-going intimate relationship with a fellow politician, who is subsequently proven to be corrupt. The Premier, who is obliged to disclose this relationship to the State Parliament, chooses to keep it secret. This is a lie of omission, perhaps a calculated lie.

When criticised, the Premier falls back on the defence that, in the Premier’s mind, there was no conflict of interest. To educated political observers, the conflict of interest is apparent. This is an opportunist lie. It should be noted that the Premier believes the statement that no conflict of interest existed, is true, so has the Premier actually been lying, or simple deluded?

Finally, a senior member of the Australian Government, is attracting notoriety as a serial liar, whose lies are of immense proportions. He has been publicly accused of lying, by the elected leader of a major world power. To list examples of opportunist lies, cynical lies and calculated lies, spoken by this person, would expand the scale of this article beyond manageable proportions, but here are two examples:

Prior to the last federal election, this person stated that the Opposition’s policy on electric vehicles, would destroy Australians’ recreational opportunities. In the growing campaign for the next election, this person is lauding the virtues of electric vehicles. The answer to questions regarding the initial lies condemning electric vehicles, is that technology has advanced so far in the last few years, that these vehicles are now not only viable, but preferable. This is a lie. Experts testify that no such technological development has occurred. The initial lie is compounded by the latest lie, which comfortably fits all three categories, opportunist, cynical and calculated.

On the current campaign trail, this person has stated that the Opposition’s policies will see dramatic increases in interest rates and inflation, both of which he hopes will be perceived as negative events. Not only do acknowledged experts expect minimal increases in interest rates and inflation, but they actually state that such increases will be conducive to economic growth and the welfare of voters.

When asked if lies were told, in a public context, by this senior member of the Australian government, the response was in the negative, despite the fact that there are countless examples of these lies in the public record.

This Australian government member, seeking re-election, lies about telling lies.

So, how do these people escape immediate consequences for lying? It’s easier at the federal level in Australia, because of the absence of an effective anti-corruption watchdog, but perhaps the real answer lies in public apathy. However, that’s a subject for another time.

 

 

Irrespective of where we stand on the issue of the Gordon St. building, we inevitably share one thing, the experience of the process which has led us to our present positions.

It has been an essentially human process, and a human experience, and, as such will be understood in a multitude of diverse ways. The actions of those involved can be examined, and perhaps some lessons learned.

Before proceeding, let’s consider some pretty rubbery figures. For the sake of argument, I’ll propose a figure of 75 000 people for the Coffs community. If we surveyed adult members of the community regarding the project, I’d suggest that we would find a number extremely opposed, a number extremely favourable, and a very large group of people who fall somewhere between these extremes.

It is irrefutable fact that at least 15 000 people are extremely opposed to the project. It is also fact that as many as 200 people may be extremely keen to have the project completed in its planned form. We do not need to further interpret this data, since the numbers speak for themselves.

In any human endeavour such as the Gordon St. project, human nature will be the governing factor which determines choice and consequence, actions and outcomes. In examining the behaviours of those affected by the process which we have experienced, I’ll look at each of the three groups identified above, separately. First, though, I need to state my bias.

I am extremely opposed to the project. My opposition is founded upon three principal beliefs. In the first instance I objected to the inclusion of council offices in a cultural precinct, particularly in light of the fact that this would preclude access to government funding. Secondly, I rejected the location as unsuitable, on practical and aesthetic grounds, for a cultural precinct. Finally, I was angered by the actions of the mayor, in using the casting vote to prevent the community from accessing the democratic process, which she had already undermined by refusing to acknowledge the petition of 15 000 or to conduct a community poll.

My bias will undoubtedly affect my assessment of the process which we have jointly experienced.

I’ll begin by recording my observations of the Centre Group, by far the largest of the three affected by the progression of the Gordon St. project. The absence of scientific data inevitably leads me to speculate.

The population of the Centre Group will be extremely diverse in attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. With respect to the project, some are opposed, some are in favour and some simply don’t care. I believe that the intrinsically fluid nature of human groups has seen attitudes change during the course of the project. Some who were initially opposed or in favour, may no longer care. Some who were in favour may now be opposed. Some who were opposed may now be in favour. Some who didn’t care may now be in favour or opposed.

My observations of media interactions lead me to believe that views within the Centre Group have become more polarised. I suspect that there has been a significant shift within the Centre Group, towards opposition, and another towards favouring the project.

Of these two movements, I believe that the bulk of the Centre Group movement has been towards opposition, with a far smaller number moving towards approval, thereby leaving a lesser number within the “don’t care” category. I make this assessment based upon the number of new commentators who have joined the social media debate, and upon the strength of expression used by commentators.

Further speculation leads me to suggest motivations for the Centre Group shifts.

Movement towards approval for the project is possibly a compensatory reaction to the increased opposition, now expressed more often and more strongly. Since nothing significant has changed that would make the project more attractive, I can imagine only one motivation for the movement towards approval, that being the belief that Denise Knight and her supporters have been unfairly treated by their opponents.

Movement towards rejection of the project is possibly a reaction to the behaviours of Denise Knight and her supporters, which have tended to alienate more and more people. I firmly believe that the rejection of the project has been replaced by rejection of the behaviour of Knight and her supporters, as the principal reason for opposition.

I’ll next attempt to identify and suggest reasons for some of the behaviours exhibited by the members of the Opponents Group.

I consider myself to be a very strong opponent of the project, for the reasons which I have stated above. It’s my intention to use myself as a yardstick by which other levels of opposition may be judged.

Since our attitudes and behaviours are created by our personal experiences, it is perhaps reasonable to examine some of my attitudes as the basis for assessing my behaviours, with respect to the drama which the Gordon St. project has become.

My politics are those of social justice, and my attitudes towards injustice are deeply and strongly ingrained. I am a fervent believer in the democratic process, and a strong critic of that process as it is enacted in Australia. I am a fierce opponent of those who abuse their positions of power for personal gain. I detest those who discriminate against others on the basis of class, gender and race. I despise elitism as a social evil.

No surprise, then, that I find the behaviours of Knight and her supporters to be an anathema.

Having said that, I cannot claim to be pure as the driven snow where my own behaviour is concerned. Having discovered that some commentators were potentially concealing vested interests when promoting the project, I reacted too strongly with my criticisms of their actions. I failed to remain objective.

I believe that, within the Opponents Group, there will be many who share my views as to the suitability of the project, (wrong place, wrong purpose, wrong process) and the behaviours of Knight and of her faction, to a greater or lesser degree. Some will be mildly pissed off by the idea of spending tens of millions of dollars of ratepayers’ money on new council offices. Some will be more annoyed by the fact that Knight has dismissed the petition of 15 000, and considered the raised voices of opponents as a “noisy minority”. Others will be angry or incensed by Knight’s use of the casting vote to ram her plans through council. Like the people in this group, opinions will be diverse in nature and in degree.

It is within the Proponents Group that I find the most fascinating catalogue of human behaviours, and their reflection of the best and worst aspects of human nature.

I imagine that within this group there will be people who are in favour of the concept of a cultural precinct, even if the inclusion of a cultural aspect is simply a smokescreen with which to conceal other purposes. These moderate proponents will look no further than the potential cultural outcomes, and will tend not to judge the inclusion of council offices, or the behaviours of Knight and her supporters.

Then there are those who can accept the “package deal” nature of the project and are prepared to also accept its potentially crippling cost. They may not agree with the manner in which Knight’s group have undertaken the process, but are not sufficiently disturbed by the behaviours used, to allow this factor to affect their support.

It’s the group of strongly committed and/or fanatical proponents which interests me most. The extreme nature of the actions of some these individuals speaks of an inability to think, speak and behave rationally. In seeking to explain the conduct of these individuals, I must again speculate.

In the interests of maintaining transparency, I must advise that I am one of many people who have been personally attacked by the most outrageous of these extremists, an experience which, for me, was more humorous than troubling.

I must also disclose that my opinions are formed solely upon my own observations and in the light of my professional experiences, and that I have no formal qualifications in the fields of psychology or sociology.

By sub-dividing this strongly-committed group into three smaller groups, it may be possible to more easily differentiate their behaviours and suggest their motivations. The first sub-group consists of people who are genuinely concerned at the surfeit of cultural outlets currently available for artistic expression in Coffs Harbour.

These are artistic, creative people, and those who are appreciative of artistic endeavour. They are people who see the arts as enhancing quality of life. They are specifically not people who see an alleged appreciation of the arts as imbuing the individual with some elite personal quality. In short, they are not snobs. They have expressed rational views in moderate terms, arguing principles, not personalities. In my opinion, the views of these proponents are also shared by the bulk of people who have opposed Knight’s project.

The second group contains those proponents who have something to gain which bears no relationship whatsoever to the promotion of the arts in Coffs Harbour. These are the individuals who stand to gain financially, or in terms of ego enhancement. A narcissistic empire-building mentally is evident within the members of this group. It will not be difficult to find numerous names which would fit comfortably within this categorisation.

The third group is the one in which we find the most extreme, outlandish, disturbing and potentially hilarious proponents.

Members of this group are also self-obsessed, but are devoid of the capacity for logical thinking. Here we find the narcissistic elitists, people whose self-image is immensely threatened by criticism or opposing viewpoints. These are frail individuals who will attack any perceived threat with overkill.

My observations lead me to believe that these are quasi-intellectuals, connoisseurs of all things “Art”, or individuals who will jump upon a bandwagon, regardless of the cause, in order to be part of a conflict. They endow themselves with superior intellect, which entitles them to forcefully express views which must not be questioned. This strategy is used as a mechanism for interpreting their place in a world in which they may have struggled to find secure identities. For these people, logic is irrelevant and attack is the best form of defence.

I believe that the members of this group may be regarded with disdain by their more moderate allies, who would never condone the extreme negative behaviours employed by this small group of camp followers. Opponents, particularly some of those who have been on the receiving end of an extremist attack, may see these people as disgusting, twisted, vicious, unwell or pathetic, or combinations of all of these.

However, it’s important to recognise that these extreme individuals have made a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the Opponents group. The wildly irrational behaviour, witnessed by previously uncommitted observers, may well have galvanised opinion amongst those uncommitted, not necessarily against the project, but against proponents of the project.

More moderate proponents may well have chosen to distance themselves from this radical element, and then been reluctant to express publicly their support of the project, for fear of being associated with the ratbag fringe.

The controversy created by the Gordon St. project has ranged from mild to wild, from serious debate on issues of principle and practicality, to fanciful and even farcical commentary. It has simultaneously polarised and united a community, and encouraged even reticent people to speak out.

So, what understandings can we take from this saga?

Whether it be a massively failed vaccine crawl out, a huge pork-barrelling exercise or an unwanted building to house new council offices, the actions of our governments can have huge impacts upon ordinary people.

Trust in our governments and in our politicians is often rewarded with lies, obfuscation and deceit.

“Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Absolute power was conferred upon Denise Knight by her access to the casting vote, and by the failure of a government to legislate to ensure its legitimate use.

Access to the democratic process is a fundamental right of all Australians, but it cannot be guaranteed. This is due to the fact that some politicians will choose to manipulate the democratic process to serve their own ends.

The “human factor” is the single most important determinant of the delivery of justice to our community. Rampant narcissism, bullying, the prioritising of self-interest, and ethical and moral weakness, can contribute to the denial of our basic human rights.

We must be very careful when choosing those who claim to represent our interests, and we must be watchful of them once they are chosen.

The community, acting together, has the power to “keep the bastards honest”, but it’s much easier to do so when your election schedule is not altered by a pandemic.

Social media is often considered to be a potentially evil machine which can destroy lives. It can also be an instrument by which to enhance community participation in the protection of its rights.

Being an activist is very often hard work. It can at times be unrewarding, but activists are an essential part of our society. Without them we would risk being subject to ongoing and unrevealed abuses.

It is a sad fact of life that whenever we take part in the democratic process, by voting in an election, we run the very real risk that we might end up electing a politician.

 

 

At last, I can get to my principal purpose for shackling myself to the keyboard, something which, believe it or not, I don’t always enjoy.

I spent my working life learning about human nature, through the observation of real human behaviours. To an extent, I pursued that interest in my leisure time as well. My techniques were scarcely scientific and my learning was never peer-assessed, but more often than not, I’ve been able to correctly identify an arsehole when I found one.

The AfA phenomenon has intrigued me, more because of the personality types it has revealed, than any learning about the functioning and dynamics of the group itself.

I believe that there are usually several distinct but complementary characters at play in any group of people whose members would choose to involve themselves in an adversarial and destructive group.

As a lay person, I’ll make some scientifically unsupported statements about the characteristics of the mythical members of some equally mythical groups of social commentators. The characters I create are specifically intended to bear no resemblance to any real person.

None of the following is true. The story has been created for consideration as an example only.

 

FACT: There are two disused tunnels on the old Glenreagh-Dorrigo railway line. They are virtually inaccessible to anyone who does not have a 4wd vehicle. Some thoughtful and community-minded individuals have recently improved walking access to the tunnels, by clearing lantana and other, non-native vegetation. The tunnels may fall within the boundaries of Clarence Valley Council.

FICTION: In my scenario, an entirely separate group of people, having visited the tunnels, wants to promote further weed clearing, and the provision of improved access. They form a group which they call “Friends of the Tunnels”, (FOT) and begin to advocate council action to support the further improvement of access to the historic tunnels, with a view to inviting tourist visits. They publicise their actions via a Facebook page.

Another group is formed, this time comprised of people who are scandalised by the thought that the historic nature of the tunnels, and the nature of the physical environment, may both be adversely impacted by what they consider to be development for a commercial purpose. They formalise a group by establishing a Facebook page entitled “Save the Tunnels” (STT).

Clearly there is the propensity for conflict here.

From this point on, I’ll be creating a small number of entirely fictitious characters, adversaries in what will become known as “The Battle for the Tunnels”. Although there will be 800 or so imaginary participants in the drama, I’ll focus only upon a very small number of key players:

Jane is “pro-development” with respect to the tunnels, and establishes the FOT Facebook page, with herself as administrator and her friends, Alan and Joe, as moderators. The page is public and eventually has a membership of about 750.

Jane is a retired nurse who has a great love of the outdoors and has camped in wild places with her family for almost all of her life. She sees the tunnels as an historic monument which should be accessible to all people, including those with disabilities, who have an interest in the area and its history.

Alan is a senior employee of the council. He is the informal and unofficial liaison between FOT and the council. He has publicly disclosed his council position and has stated that all opinions which he expresses on the FOT pages are personal and do not necessarily reflect council policies or opinions.

Joe is a 45-year-old forestry worker with an abiding passion for the disused rail line, which he refers to as the “Dorrigo-Glenreagh line”.

The STT leader is Doug, a self-employed environmental consultant. His at times extreme views have seen him dismissed, some years ago, from a job with a local council in his home state of Queensland.

Steven is a personal friend of Doug, with whom he shares some views regarding environmental issues, and the co-administration of the Facebook page. His interest is also in the preservation of major artefacts such as bridges, in historic areas.

Annie is a retired company executive, who finds herself bored by retirement and in need of somewhere to exercise her intellect, which she perceives as quite superior to the norm. She saw an article in a local newspaper about the burgeoning dispute between FOT and STT, and although she has no particular opinion either way, she thought that jumping aboard the STT train, might provide her with an outlet.

Membership of STT reaches about 125.

Let the battle begin.

• In an FOT post, Jane outlines the case for developing the tunnels. She partially acknowledges the existence of the opposition and comments on their points of view. Her tone is a little adversarial, but not derogatory in any sense.
• In response, Doug almost goes berserk. His extreme comments take most STT members by surprise, with the notable exception of his friend Steve, and a number of STT members start to wonder what they may have let themselves in for. Doug makes personal comments about Jane, but says nothing about the issues which he professes to consider important.
• Annie senses blood, and jumps in with some comments which support Doug’s personal attack upon Jane.
• Steve adds his voice to the discussion, suggesting that FOT, and Jane in particular, are “environmental vandals”.
• In a measured tone, Alan comments that the personal abuse directed towards Jane, is completely unwarranted and unacceptable in any civilised society.

The conflict rages, with FOT admin needing to calm down some of their more ebullient members, and STT admin appearing to deliberately escalate the abuse. In order to understand the motivation of the extremely aggressive STT members, we need to understand the impact which their life experiences have had upon them.

There’s much more that needs to be understood about Doug. When his personal history is known, it becomes apparent that Doug is a prime example of a “failed person”. Ferociously bullied as a child due to his short stature and general physical appearance, Doug developed feelings of anger, frustration and resentment, which coloured his entire word view.

As an adult, Doug became obsessed with environmental issues, and vowed to dedicate his life to fighting what he saw as rampant environmental destruction in the pursuit of commercial development.

Although still lacking in self-confidence, Doug found that social media provided a safe venue through which to attack those who disagreed with his personal policies. He became adept at using insults and abuse as weapons with which to silence opposition, and he wasn’t averse to making threats of violence towards those whom he felt might be weaker than himself.

Steve is a different type of person entirely. A raging narcissist, he has a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Sciences, but despite trying for several years, never completed a Master’s qualification. In Steve’s mind the reason for his failure to advance to a Doctorate lies in the fact, of which Steve is certain, that his lecturers were jealous of his intellect and talent.

Having been deserted by his wife, Steve has developed misogynistic views, which impact upon his treatment of women. Unlike Doug, however, Steve is not given to the use of direct confrontation. He considers himself an intellectual, and such behaviour is beneath his dignity.

Steve’s mode of attack is to use subtle suggestion, in questioning the character of his opponents. Certain of the rectitude of his views, Steve has no real interest in discussing issues, but revels in the excuse that they provide for him to use innuendo, snide remarks and insulting, slanted references, whilst attacking others, especially women, to satisfy his need to compensate for his unacknowledged feelings of personal inadequacy.

Annie is basically a snob. The product of a privileged upbringing, she resides in a substantial home in what she and her friends regard as a prestigious suburb. A patron of The Arts, in spite of knowing nothing about them, she regularly attends winey and whiney gatherings of the truly cultured, at which she is able to agree or disagree with self-styled experts who, in fact, no nothing more than she does, but who possess a gift for pontificating bullshit, in suitably protective group situations.

Jane is “normal’ almost to the point of being “ordinary”. A happy wife, mother and grandmother, she rarely gets overly excited, but is entranced by her vision for the tunnels.

Alan is a person who is comfortable in his own skin. He’s a confident individual, successful in the workplace, and is part of a sound family. He doesn’t need to get involved in “causes” but he has a genuine interest in the proposals of FOT. His most important personal asset lies in the fact that has balance.

Joe is “just another bloke”. Born and bred in Dorrigo, he lives there with his wife and kids. Since he was a child, Joe has had two passions, apart from his family and friends. He loves the bush, and he is fascinated by the now disused railway.

So, let’s reflect upon the situation.

• What could, and should, have been a civilised and productive debate, which might lead to a positive outcome for most parties involved, has been hijacked.
• FOT comprises about 750 like-minded members, many of whom comment usefully and respectfully about the proposal to improve the tunnels site. Some, however, are really put off by the aggression displayed by those few STT members who seem to regard the debate as a personal battleground.
• STT’s more sensible and thoughtful members are alarmed at the way in which Doug, Steve and Annie, have turned the Facebook page into a place in which they can express, not opinions about the issues, but personal frustrations which are created by their personal inadequacies. A number of members remove themselves from the page, whilst others simply become inactive. The dominance of the page by the ratbags is complete.

Are we able to draw any parallels from our own experiences, with the situation described in the “tunnels hypothetical”?

Even if your observations of the CCS saga have only been made during recent months, you may have been able to form impressions of the few members of AfA who have dominated the comments on their leaked Facebook pages.

Ask yourself what judgements you can make about the behavioural characteristics demonstrated in the more strident AfA members.

*                    *                    *

Here’s my final view of the whole saga.

• Many Coffs community members disagreed with the CCS proposal, for a number of legitimate reasons.
• Many of those people expressed their views via social media, in totally appropriate ways, and in productive debate.
• A much smaller number of people supported the CCS proposal, some for genuine and personally positive reasons, others due to vested interests.
• For a while, some of those people engaged in reasonable debate with opponents of the scheme, arguing issues in a respectful manner, in the hope of convincing others that the CCS proposal was a good thing. Eventually they gave up, as they were overwhelmed by the combative group.
• A very small number, a handful, of very loud individuals entered the discussion, on the pretext of promoting the cause of the CCS project. It was really an avenue through which they could express their personal frustrations, by spewing their personal bile. Their aim was to attack, abuse, insult and threaten people, not discuss issues. The issues were never important. It was the chance to fight – anybody, at any time, about anything – that mattered.
• With the approach of council elections, these unfortunate individuals found that they could focus their attention upon one particular target, as well as keeping up their attacks on minor players. The behaviours, bad to begin with, deteriorated further, to the point at which future legal action by some of those abused, is a real possibility.

I have been involved in this vile mess almost from day one. I needed to ask myself what I have learned from the experience. I have learned these things:

• Most of the people in our community are like me. The same probably applies to the world scene. We just want to live our lives in peace and harmony, but we’ll only put up with a certain amount of negative energy being directed at us.
• In comparison to fire and flood and earthquake, what we have dealt with may have been a relatively small crisis, but it still galvanised people to fight for something which they considered important.
• In any society there will always be people who are destructive, and we need to stand up to them. Societal corruption thrives through the inaction of decent people.
• Although I have, in the past, been characterised as an agitator, I thought that I had matured sufficiently as to put those behaviours behind me. I was wrong. I still find inspiration in the efforts of people like me, ordinary people, to resist dictatorship, and I must confess that I still get personal satisfaction from engaging in the battle.

Disclosure: I can’t say, publicly, much of what I would say privately about a small number of members of the Coffs Harbour Facebook group known as “Advocates for Advancement” (AfA), primarily because to do so would demean me personally, as I sank to levels of behaviour which were no higher than theirs.

I, and others, have consistently and publicly opposed the actions of certain members of this group, for more than two years. To speak freely would almost certainly involve me in having to mount a truth defence against several defamation suits.

Although I have a substantial bank of evidence, enough to ensure success in mounting a truth defence, it would involve me in further extensive research, and the compilation of even more evidence. I believe in being thorough, and have always followed the policy, when threatened, of using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.

It would also require the involvement of numerous other people, committed supporters of the campaign to “out” the offensive members AfA publicly. I’m not prepared to ask favours, which I know would be willingly granted, of so many people who may be entirely fed up with the whole sorry saga.

However, despite the fact that these few members of AfA have caused real distress to some people during the last couple of years, through threats and abuse delivered via Facebook, voicemail, and in person, it’s the actual existence of such an organisation which truly interests me.

My reasons for writing are several.

I thought that it would be a good idea to chronicle the events of the last few years, in order to facilitate reflection by those who have endured them.

I also thought that, by writing a personal perspective on these events, I might be better able to understand my own involvement in them.

However, my principal motivation lies in my belief that, if you put up with people dumping shit on you, you can expect to eventually suffocate beneath the pile.

Whilst much of the following contains provable fact, the assertions are purely statements of opinion.

*                    *                    *

Here is some background, for the benefit of readers who are not familiar with the shit fight which has passed for political leadership in Coffs Harbour during the last few years. If you have been involved from the beginning, you might want to skip some paragraphs.

Very briefly, the Mayor and some councillors, having been elected largely on the promise of providing a new entertainment venue, a new art gallery, library and museum, decided to include, in the new building, some new offices for the mayor and senior council officers, and workspace for administrative employees.

More than 15 000 people, about one third of the voting population, signed a petition protesting the plan to include the council offices, and 800+ submitted formal written objections. The Mayor basically said “Up yours!”, and went ahead with the project. She was supported by three other councillors, at least one of whom possibly had vested interests as a property owner in the CBD.

Due to previous Mayoral incompetence, Coffs Harbour Council was one councillor short, and this resulted in tied votes (4-4) on most matters pertaining to the new council offices. No matter, the Mayor just used her casting vote, in a manner in which it was never intended to be used, to push her plan through.

Community members who had previously been very upset about the fact that their petition and submissions had been ignored, went apeshit when they found out about the Mayor’s totally undemocratic behaviour.

From that point a very bad situation got decidedly worse.

Enter a very small troupe of aggressive players, who declared loudly and repeatedly, to anyone who would listen, and many who wouldn’t, statements insinuating this:

“Anyone who opposes the inclusion of council offices in the construction of the Cultural and Civic Space, is a raving troglodyte, a heathen, and an enemy of fine culture.”

The fact that there was virtually no opposition to the creation of new cultural spaces in the purpose-built structure, seemed to have conveniently escaped the understanding of these individuals. 99.99999% of opponents of the building, objected exclusively to the inclusion of council offices, at great additional expense, in a building originally intended to be a cultural precinct.

You see, across the breadth of society, some people need an excuse, any excuse, to fight. You really need to understand the personality types at play here, something which I’ll try to explain further, a little later on.

With the exception of one individual, who specializes in “low key” innuendo and assertion as preferred weapons for use in character assassination, the aforementioned players got stuck in, via social media usually, but also in public situations such as council meetings, heaping vitriol on anyone who held a view which was different to theirs.

Despite the fact that there was significant and growing support for the building of the new cultural spaces, the barrow which this small group pushed, was that people who opposed the new council offices were all bogans who actually opposed all cultural improvement.

Try as they might, no-one could persuade these characters that it was the inclusion of council offices which was the contentious issue, and not the provision of new cultural spaces.

As a result of their inappropriate conduct, genuine Facebook managers refused to allow certain individuals to abuse and insult other commentators. A Facebook page, “Advocates for Advancement”, a private, closed shop, open only to invited members, including some who were more than willing to heap abuse on opponents of the new council offices, was created.

The ensuing two-year barrage of invective and abuse, albeit initially concealed from those who were being insulted and abused, was, allegedly, all in the defence of “culcha”.

*                   *                    *

The AfA Facebook group is one of many “special interest” social media groups.

Special interest groups generally range in attitude and purpose, from the benign to the to the deadly. Members range in commitment level from mildly interested to fanatical. The apparent personality types represent a cross section of humanity, and include those who are well-balanced, socially positive individuals, as well as some who are emotionally damaged, irrational, and potentially dangerous.

A cursory examination of the social media scene in America reveals much about the makeup and impacts of social media groups upon that society, and in Australia we unfortunately tend to copy the worst aspects of American culture.

In examining the diverse nature of the members of social media groups, let’s consider the varying impacts of purpose, upon the behaviours of members of a range of imaginary groups.

“Poodles As Pets” is a page set up specifically for the engagement of people who are poodle fanciers. Is it likely that we’ll see here, the types of abusive behaviours which we have witnessed elsewhere?

Probably not. The vagaries of human nature, and the range of personality types which span society, ensure that, whilst the vast majority of posts would probably be mild in nature, there may be some occasional strong debate about poodle-related issues. There may even be some members who are fanatical in their views, but I suggest that it is unlikely that we would witness verbal fisticuffs on this page.

“Home Care Nurses” create a page for the dissemination of information and the sharing of ideas which are specifically related to the work which nurses in home care situations carry out.

Let’s consider the possible range of personality types contributing to this type of group. Most nurses are tertiary qualified, intelligent people who have a vocational calling. Even allowing for the extraordinary breadth of human personality types, I can’t see too many “pro-gun lobby, racially-prejudiced extremists” posting on this page.

Comments are likely to centred around patient care, nursing techniques and the welfare of nurses who often operate in stressful situations. Again, is it likely that we would see here, evidence of the behaviours which we have witnessed in other places?

“Ford Versus Holden” – even the title of this Facebook page suggests an oppositional approach to content generation. Some of us might immediately think of this group as “blokey”, perhaps even macho or misogynistic. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Rachel is the founder and admin of this page. A highly qualified, skilled and experienced mechanic, she inherited her love of older Holden cars from her parents, who were both Holden fanatics, and who revelled in the glory days of Holden’s dominance of Mount Panorama. In her spare time, Rachel prepares and races a 1973 Torana LJ XU1.

The page is run according to strict guidelines, with a committee formed to ensure compliance and the adherence to rules relating to the use of appropriate language in posts. Members who make derogatory personal statements are formally warned by the committee chairperson and then, if necessary, ejected from the group for non-compliance.

Although light-hearted banter between Ford and Holden aficionados is permitted, content must be directly related to the sharing of mechanical information relating to both Fords and Holdens, reminiscences around the two makes, and the organisation of regular “drives”, when participants turn up in their chosen chariots for day on the road.

This page has a membership of over 8 000, which includes participants from New Zealand, and in a parallel page, in the US, where it follows an identical charter under the name “Ford Versus GM”.

It appears that the on-going success of this page is due to the administration provided by Rachel, and the group’s total focus upon their chosen subject. Fanaticism is allowed, but only about cars.

AfA administrators, in numerous published statements, decreed that the sole purpose of the AfA page was to support the construction of the “Cultural and Civic Space”, as it was known when first proposed.

My research, with input from other concerned people, and with the benefit of the documentation provided by the disenchanted AfA whistle-blowers, whose courage has brought the AfA group to its knees, suggests that the stated charter has been largely ignored.

Comments on this page seem primarily to have been dominated by a small number of individuals, whose mindset created an atmosphere in which confrontation, accusation, insult and abuse of non-members, were tolerated.

“Coffs Coast Independent News” (CCIN) is not an imaginary page. Strictly and scrupulously administrated and moderated, this page follows the following stated charter:

“We aim to bring news and discuss issues relating to the Coffs Coast.

We alert the community to political, environmental, business and social issues affecting the lives of the people of the region and beyond.

We provide the connection between the communities on the Coffs Coast.

We are independent and not connected to any other media organisation, Local Government Council or political party.

We rely on “citizen reporters” for our news and views

We welcome and encourage photos of our beautiful Coffs Coast and Hinterland to be shared on our Page.

All opinions expressed are either those of the Admin, Moderators and contributors.

We accept no responsibility for their content.

If you have a problem with our content, please message Administration in the first instance.

We reserve the right to publish or reject Posts and accept membership.”

 

With almost 6 000 members, at the time of writing, this must surely be considered a successful group, since it represents roughly 8-9% of the entire Coffs Harbour population, and about 13% of the LGA’s voting public.

 

Comments on a range of local issues are posted frequently, by a significant number of contributors. No one is prevented from participating, unless their on-line behaviour is unacceptable. The tone is generally calm and respectful, but occasionally discussion becomes a little fractious. When this occurs, moderators intervene in order to ensure that bullying or aggressively negative behaviour is curtailed.

 

As a platform for Coffs Harbour Council election candidates to provide information about themselves and their policies, and to provide an easy interface for voters to access their candidates, CCIN admin established a second page, the “Elections 2021 Forum”, dedicated to this purpose.

 

I suspect that it has been the administration and moderation of this page which has provided the greatest challenge to CCIN’s page managers, in recent times.

 

Whilst the vast majority of contributions to the Elections Form, from candidates and voters, have been quite appropriate, the policy of allowing all respectfully expressed comment has been tested on occasion.

 

It has become an unwritten, but commonly observed principle for members of both CCIN pages, that disclosure of any potential conflict of interest, or apparent vested interest, is made by genuine contributors who wish to discuss or debate fairly.

 

That practice, when ignored, is most commonly ignored by confrontational and combative contributors, for whom the opportunity to fight with someone, appears to supersede any desire to discuss relevant issues.

 

It is not coincidental that some of these contributors, who are ultimately blocked from participation in discussion due to their habit of attacking the person and not the argument, have been revealed as active members of the AfA. Their previously secret membership of that group, was exposed in the documents leaked by disillusioned AfA members.

 

It came as no surprise to regular users of the CCIN pages, that the most insulting and abusive personal comments, came from the keyboards of those few AfA members.

 

The longevity and on-going success of CCIN, can be attributed to good management. It provides a venue which satisfies a community need, protects its most tentative and vulnerable contributors from confrontational interactions, and maintains a high standard of editorial integrity.

 

I only became involved with the CCIN page because my anger at what I perceived to be corruption in our council, meant that I needed a place to let off steam, politely. It had been my intention to withdraw from the group when the council elections were complete, but it seems that I may remain a committed and active member of its replacement forum when it emerges next year.

 

Once again, the contrast between the CCIN and AfA pages is astounding.

 

On a CCIN page, contributors are allowed to vigorously argue issues, and comments must be confined to issues, not to personalities. There are numerous occasions on which discussions may become a little heated, but a combination of the mutual respect which exists between most commentators, and firm management, ensures that instances of unacceptable conflict are very few, and very far between.

 

Contrast this with the management of the AfA page, and the behaviour of its most active contributors.

 

To the best of my knowledge there have been at least two people serving as administrators or moderators of AfA page content, Karen Lagalla and Brigit Mackenzie. Here is a sample of comments, made in relation to me, by the people allegedly responsible for the maintenance of appropriate behavioural standards among AfA members:

 

From Karen Lagalla – “Craig Budden he is a vicious objector to the CCS among other things.”

From Brigit Mackenzie – “This is my reply to him when he and his mates were having a go at me he didn’t reply cos guess what he is a coward . . . . ”

Karen Lagalla, again – “ . . . julian may is a fake profile. He is always incredibly rude and abusive to council workers and any supporter of the cultural and civic space. In the name of truth we seek to find his true identity. To my mind his are the objectionable actions . . .”

Another from Brigit Mackenzie, in response to AfA member Cath Fogarty, who posted “Brigit Mackenzie I’m still sceptical that’s his real name and his real photo” – “Cath Fogarty we will endeavour to find someone who can say that is him. Someone must know if he is real”

You can imagine my wife’s reaction when she discovered that I am not real. We’ve been together for almost 50 years, and now she has found out that I don’t actually exist.

She’s devastated that the person with whom she has shared a bed for decades, is nothing more than a phantom, perhaps even a figment of her imagination.

I hope that my kids, kids-in-law, and grandchildren, don’t ever find out that, like Santa, Pa isn’t real!

For the sale of clarity, I’d better dignify this shit with some rebuttal. Let’s take it from the top:

• I’d argue the use of the word “vicious”. I’d accept, “insightful”, “intelligent”, “thought-provoking”, and even “aggressive”.
• “ . . he didn’t reply cos guess what he is a coward . . .” – I replied to Ms Mackenzie on a number of occasions, but eventually gave up when I realised that the task of communicating with this individual was beyond my capabilities. Not cowardice, just common sense.
• “julian may is a fake profile. He is always incredibly rude and abusive to council workers . . .”.

I’ve done rather well, given that I don’t exist.

I managed to con my employers for 45 years, and I have fooled Federal and State governments for even longer. In 1969 I even entered the Feds’ lottery for an all-expenses paid trip to the Vietnam War. Fortunately, I didn’t get a spot.

I’ve got more than enough documents to reach the 100-point proof of identify a couple of times over.

I must confess, however, that it’s a bit disconcerting when I look in the mirror and see this grey-bearded and semi-bald old man looking back at me. I often don’t recognise him.

I confess that I’m inclined to treat stupidity with contempt, but I try to avoid rudeness, and, to the best of my recollection, I’ve only spoken ever to one council worker, a very pleasant and helpful lady at the council chambers, when my wife and I paid our rates instalment in person, more than a decade ago.

From her own statements, Ms Lagalla’s charter for her exclusive Facebook page, was to provide an opportunity for like-minded people to comment on, and propose, progressive ideas which would benefit the Coffs Harbour community, and to promote the development of Denise Knight’s project, the CCS.

Examination of the documents leaked by the AfA whistle-blowers, shows that little of this type of comment has been published.

It is interesting to interpret some data, gleaned from the leaked pages of the AfA Facebook forum, as we assess the extent to which the known administrators, actually pursued these goals.

 

*                    *                    *

Before I became an angry old-ish man, I was an angry young man. Instead of standing in the middle of the street and screaming insults at the injustices in the world, I found it therapeutic to write my thoughts down, usually in essay form.

At about that time, my daughter-in-law, Cassandra, was toying with the idea of going into website design, a bit of a spin-off from the very successful I.T. business which she and her husband had created. Cass, believing that the stuff which I was writing needed to be published at least, offered to experiment with the creation of a website for me.

At that time I was allergic to technology, and I was doubtful that I would derive any benefit from publishing my writing. My purpose in writing stuff down was to get it out of my head. I had no intention that it should be read by anybody. However, Cass built a site which I could easily manage, and it hasn’t changed since. I haven’t needed any changes, and Cass has been so busy developing an amazingly successful web design business, that I would never ask her to do more work for me. She just doesn’t have the time.

Over time I found that people from around the world started making comments on the site about stuff which I had written. How they found the site I have no real idea. Perhaps they just googled a topic and found that I had produced content that related to their search. Anyway, it was pleasant being told that some of my opinions struck a chord with others, and I spent some considerable time briefly replying to commentators. Sadly, I had to turn off the comments function when I started receiving unwanted material in the guise of comment.

So that’s about it. If you look to the top left-hand corner of the front page, you’ll see a little letter “f”. Click on that and you’ll find the largely unused Facebook page which Cass linked to the site. I think that it can still be used, if anyone feels the need to make a comment about “The AfA Phenomenon”, or anything else for that matter.

Cheers,

Julian.

I have beliefs.

I have strong beliefs.

I have some very strong beliefs.

However, I don’t have any certainties.

Here’s a random list of some of my more critical beliefs:

My most important “possessions” are my family and friends.

Gods do not exist. The only “life after death” for me will be the length of time I’m still remembered.

We are all born with the power to change our lives. Sometimes that power is stolen from us and sometimes we give it away.

Children are the world’s greatest natural resource.

True education may help to alleviate many of the world’s problems.

In Australia, schooling is only a part of the education process.

Educating children is the world’s most important job.

Parents are a child’s first and most effective teachers.

Some parents do a shit job of educating their children, usually because they weren’t effectively educated themselves.

Birds don’t shit in their own nests. Neither should we.

Most politicians lie when it suits them.

For most politicians it’s about the power, not about the dreams.

The Australian political system if fundamentally screwed by party politics.

In our legal system, justice is a commodity. S/he who has the most money, buys the most justice.

In our school system there should be three key areas of learning – Communication, which includes reading, writing, listening and speaking, Science and Technology, which includes maths, science and computer tech, and Personal Development, which includes history, comparative religious studies, physical health, and social education or “how to be a physically and mentally healthy individual in an increasingly stuffed up world”.

It’s immoral for me to brainwash my children to believe what I believe. They should be encouraged to examine a range of differing beliefs, which may influence their own choice of beliefs.

Bigoted cultures, and organised religions, present the greatest obstacle to peace in our world, and have always done so.

Totalitarianism is a deadly sin. Rampant communism is as damaging as rampant capitalism. The fact that the bulk of the world’s wealth resides in the bank accounts of so few individuals, is an obscenity.

War is a growth industry.

Every choice results in consequences, some of which are unforeseen.

The best advice that I can offer, is that you should be careful about following the advice which you are offered.

*                    *                    *

Many people are benighted by their beliefs. With respect to some of my beliefs, I’m badly affected. I’d like not to be, but it’s a part of my intellectual and emotional makeup that I can’t deny.

My beliefs make me happy, sad, comfortably calm, confused and angry.

I believe in my family – my wife, children, children-in-law and grandchildren. They are excellent people who love and care for each other, and for me. When I’m feeling sad, I remember that I am part of this wonderful group, and I feel better. When we are together, I am king of the world. My friends have been friends for decades. They’re a natural part of my “extended family”.

There are many beliefs which test my anger management skills, however. My beliefs, and the beliefs of others, concerning politics, culture and religion, are those that cause me the greatest angst.

Having experienced poverty, first-hand, my politics and my cultural values are skewed markedly towards the concept of social justice. As a result, I reject insane capitalism – the accruing of wealth for its own sake, or for the power which it can buy. I am angered by the fact that so much of the world’s wealth resides in the hands of so few people, and that so few of those few have done anything to deserve the wealth which they have gained.

I’m pissed off by the fact that, without the labour of poor people, the rich would not be rich. I’m angered that, even though Australians live in a wealthy country, people still live in poverty, that disadvantaged people are powerless to change their lives because the power with which they were born has been stolen by circumstances, and by more powerful people.

I detest the fact that so many of our politicians come from a wealthy, privileged class. These are people who have no understanding of a life which is not created by privilege, and who often have no capacity for empathy.

I am further distressed by my belief that the majority of Australians support, even if only in part, the view that the disadvantaged choose to be that way.

*                    *                     *

Let’s look at some of the impacts upon humanity which beliefs create. We’ll start with religions because it’s easiest to identify both the beliefs and their impacts. Many of my remarks may be categorised as generalisations, but I have no interest in dealing with individual religions, one by one.

Religions occur within a cultural, social, and often political context, but I will try to look at the concept of religion, removed from those contexts.

Basically, in order to have a religion, two components are required. One is a deity, or an object of worship. The other is a set of believers. Beliefs are attached, by the believers, to the deity or centre of worship. Beliefs, inevitably, will influence the believers to act in a certain way, for which the believers will be rewarded for compliance, and punished for non-compliance. Deities tend to be intangible, ethereal entities, which cannot be observed. Beliefs tend to focus upon an unconditional faith in the existence of these entities, and an acceptance of the consequences, spiritual or tangible, which spring from the pursuit of beliefs.

Religions are as old as human kind. Primitive people needed some explanation for the mysteries of their world, and it was convenient to attribute natural phenomena to some unseen and uncontrollable force, which may at times be benevolent and at other times cruel. Having someone or something to blame when things went wrong, gave primitive person a way of shifting responsibility to an unseen entity. It’s no coincidence that different religions developed in different geographical locations, and were used to explain differing natural phenomena.

Once humans became more geographically mobile and willing to explore, a clash of religions was inevitable. The Christians V Muslims conflict during The Crusades is a convenient example.

Attaining a position of prominence within a religious group brought with it power, so defending the religion from external threats, and regulating it from within via strict rules, became very important if the religion were to grow, and the power of the leaders grow along with it. Consider the global power of the Catholic Pope. It is little wonder that Catholics were required to marry Catholics and brainwash their children in the Catholic faith.

In the contemporary world, the teachings of Science have largely exploded the myths of religion, but, because of a fundamental psychological need experienced by many people, adherence to beliefs, even those proven to be scientifically unsupportable, grips people. This need to belong to a group, is the same as that which maintains family structure, and that which, on a larger and more extreme scale, creates insane nationalism, the worship of sporting heroes and the parochial mentality which so heavily influences sports fanatics.

Examine the basis of world conflicts and you’ll find key ingredients – the need to gain and hold power over others, the need to show that one set of beliefs is more valid and more important than another, and the propensity to use violence as a means to prove that point.

Some religious people claim that religion brings us together. In a global context, nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider the patriarchal nature of many organised religions, which can lead to practices that might constitute physical and emotional abuse of women. Consider the rigidity of some organised religions, which can lead to practices that might be interpreted as denying basic human rights to followers.

The usurping of the personal power of the child, by religious adherents, angers me. A parent’s role is to inform, support and advise a child as part of the process of preparing that person to take an independent place in the world. A parent does not have a right to mould a child in the parent’s image, creating a carbon copy of the adult. It’s called brainwashing.

My mother sent me to Sunday School until I was old enough to refuse to go. It gave her some free time away from the responsibilities which she had as a single-parent of three kids, two of whom were legally blind. I never believed the stories we were told by the minister. I have never had religious beliefs.

Our two kids were not christened. We thought that a decision about following a religion, or not, was their right to make after gathering information, at an appropriate stage of emotional and spiritual development. Both were allowed to attend scripture classes at school. Our daughter was a Catholic for a short time, because they had the best colouring pencils.

Neither of our children, both outstanding people and parents, has any religious beliefs, despite both being essentially spiritual people.

So, whilst serving the needs of some people who need to have faith in an alternate power, rather than assuming the ultimate responsibility for their own decisions, the world at large is benighted by religious beliefs when those beliefs lead to discrimination, abuse, hatred and war, and when the rightful autonomy of children is subverted by their religious parents.

My belief in the diabolical negative effects of religious beliefs, makes me angry, frustrated and sad. I am truly benighted by this belief.

*                    *                    *

Political beliefs are incredibly broad in nature, and believers encompass all spectrums of society. These range from non-believers in any political doctrine, through moderate believers in a political philosophy, to rabid extremists who blindly adhere to a political stance, no matter what.

For convenience, I’ll try to categorise some types of political believers, and ally them to beliefs. It’s probably a mistake, but I’ll try it anyway.

Type One – “I vote for the Real Australia Party because my father did.”

These people are politically unaware or neutral, and vote because they have to, following a pattern of previous behaviour. They create a problem because they may be voting for policies which are actually detrimental to their own welfare. They can also contribute to the maintenance of the status quo, despite that position being socially and economically untenable.

Type Two – “I don’t vote in favour of anyone. I vote against the party which I most disagree with.”

I think that I fit within this category. I’m extremely cynical, believing that most politicians are or, at some future time will be, corrupt to a greater or lesser degree. People within this category tend to vote for the party or person whom they believe will do the least damage to society.

Type Three – “The political idealist”.

With some members bordering on zealotry, these people are committed to clearly demarcated political beliefs. Polarisation is the fashion here. Broadly speaking, and here I go with the generalisations again, they fall along a spectrum which ranges from rabid socialism to rabid capitalism. Some idealists adopt a position which proposes that most of the world’s ills are due to personal greed and rampant capitalism. My visualisation of the graphic sees these people, by coincidence, placed towards the left-hand end of the scale, whilst their polar opposites, the rich and powerful, occupy the territory to the right.

For the sake of transparency, I must state that, as a part-time idealist, I find myself placed somewhere to the left of centre on the spectrum, but that my position tends to be fluid, rather than fixed.

So, how are we benighted by our political beliefs?

In my own case, my political beliefs currently cause me to exist in a state of constant anger and frustration. Without my beliefs, I would be free to allow the world to continue as it has done for centuries, with the rich and powerful being aided and abetted by politicians to utilise and victimise the poor. For some years, I tried to ignore politics, and it made my life somewhat calmer, but eventually, as corrupt political behaviour seemed to increase markedly, I became involved once again.

Others are also adversely affected by their political beliefs. “Type One” individuals can actually, and unwittingly, support politicians who actively work against the best interests of those people. “Type Two” individuals are typically benighted by cynicism and despair. “Type Three” individuals tend to allow their radicalism to overcome their daily lives, becoming activists for their cause, or become engrossed in the pursuit of wealth and power, to the detriment of their quality of life.

*                    *                    *

Finally, it is my contention that cultural beliefs are, to a significant degree, created by a combination of religious and political beliefs, under the influence of personal beliefs. This does not necessarily mean that cultural beliefs are a blight upon the believers. It is only with respect to some specific cultural beliefs, some particular social attitudes, that people become benighted.

The only culture about which I can speak with first-hand knowledge is our own, and I certainly cannot claim to be an expert with respect to that. Commentary with respect to other cultures must really be speculation, and based upon observation rather than immersion. This commentary will also evidence misconceptions and bias, but some of the observations of apparent cultural values may be worth considering.

To describe the totality of my impressions and interpretations of Australian contemporary culture would require an effort which I’m not currently willing to expend, so my comments will be brief, and general.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics states that about 60% of us identify with a religion. That does not mean that those people are religious, and follow the teachings and practices of particular churches. Many people who identify as “Christian” refer to following the principles of Christian behaviour, but may never have set foot inside a church.

It is likely that the number of religious faiths practised in Australia exceeds 120, so we are extremely diverse with respect to beliefs and practices.

Politically, we tend to assume a dichotomy, an affiliation largely dependent upon social class and wealth, as much as fundamental political ideology.

Our post-invasion culture is very new, compared to that of the First Nations people, and it seems to comprise the remnants of the British culture of imperialism and class distinction, modified by the effects of incoming cultural groups which have arrived in Australia, particularly since the Second world War.

I believe that we are benighted by a number of false cultural beliefs.

We like to speak of ourselves as egalitarian, with a strong belief in the principle of the “fair go”. It’s a myth.

Contrary to the preaching of the discarded Prime Monster, John Howard, racism is alive and well in this country.

A class system, supported and promoted by politicians, sees the taxes paid by the poorest members of our society spent upon the education of the privileged rich in wealthy private schools. In a wealthy country, people are homeless or live below the poverty line, or both.

Political corruption is rife and, sadly, accepted by many as inevitable and incurable.

Discrimination based upon religious beliefs and allied cultural practices, exists. Followers of one religion will too often espouse hate towards followers of other religions. Ethnicity has long been a lynch pin for bigots in Australia, stretching back to the post-war influx of “wogs and dagos”.

We are benighted by the belief that Australia is a land of opportunity, and acceptance of individual difference, because it is a false belief. Scott Morrison would tell you that we are better off here because we cannot be shot for protesting, but that’s yet another piece of political bullshit designed to conceal the truth.

Foreign cultures, some of which are represented in Australia, follow the practice of discrimination against women, in some cases denying them basic human rights. In at least one country, a nation which appears to see itself as a dominant world power, there seems to exist a belief in their “God-given” right to dominate the world, manipulating the lives of millions, who are not their citizens, by both political and military means. The impact of religious and political beliefs in that country appears to be extreme, with believers feeling empowered and entitled to launch a physical attack upon their centre of government, in an attempt to subvert democracy.

Other cultures persecute minority religious or cultural groups, adopting Nazi-style measures including the use of “re-education centres”. These behaviours seem to be accepted as fair and reasonable within those cultures. Certainly, the perpetrators and victims of such cultural practices are benighted by their beliefs.

The establishment, maintenance and expansion of religious, political and cultural beliefs, may enable a degree of social cohesion and well-being, but that, in my opinion, is a by-product of the process. Religious beliefs are based upon fear, and a desire to avoid punishment for the commission of sins, which are determined by the promoters of each specific religion as sins, whether they be “sins” or not.

Followers of most religions are reassured by the promise of a reward in an after-life, making this present life something of a dress-rehearsal. Some of the more radical or extremist followers of religion are prepared to kill themselves in order to access that after-life, with an advantage. Members of quasi-religious cults such as Scientology, and “faith-based religions” such as Jehovah’s Witness, adopt controlling practices which are anything but ethical and moral, and which, in some cases, are illegal.

Political beliefs, at least in a contemporary Australian context, may claim to aim at securing the best possible outcomes, socially and economically, for Australians, but evidence seems to indicate that these preferred outcomes may only be realised for certain social groups.

It has become a well-used and effective strategy in recent decades to scare the living daylights out of anyone who votes.

A political party (A) may scare the rich and powerful by suggesting that an opposing party (B) will enact legislation which removes or redistributes that wealth and power, thereby ensuring that greed and a sense of self-preservation, will ensure votes going to (A). Party (A) may convince the working classes that Party (B) will enact legislation which threatens to end their jobs and take their mortgage payments through the ceiling, thereby ensuring that real fear will direct votes to Party (A).

Party (B) will employ a similar strategy, predicting dire social and economic consequences for anyone who chooses to vote for Party (A). The practice of voting for a party which promises positive social and economic outcomes in an election situation, if it in fact ever existed, has died an untimely but inevitable death.

Political beliefs, when the crunch comes, are governed by self-interest. Altruism is the province of fools.

Politics in this country has become a battlefield of egos, in which alleged “normal” people will pledge commitment to one side, and refuse to move from an entrenched position, even when clear evidence of corruption exists. It would not surprise me in the least, to see the “show pony” Scott Morrison returned as Prime Minister, such is the need for so many people to be on the winning side.

The current insanity evident in American culture, as embodied in the Trump phenomenon, is an extreme example of cultural beliefs and their “benighting” impact upon societies.

A belief in the “relative greatness” of a culture can only be sustained by the making of negative comparisons with other cultures. For centuries the British regarded their culture as the greatest, a belief which has residual effects despite the collapse of the Empire. The Soviet Union held the same belief and suffered the same fate. Currently China espouses the benefits of communism, but probably needs the threat wielded by a huge military force, in order to maintain its power over its people.

The belief in “cultural superiority” parallels, albeit in a slightly elevated plane, the basic human need to survive. It embodies the principle of survival of the fittest and often is a reflection of the macho need to be seen as powerful, as winning, as dominating.

“My culture is great, therefore I am great”. Trump utilised this human frailty in order to elevate himself into the position of POTUS, “the most powerful man on the planet”, and then, having lost his job, accused the system of trashing American culture and 50% of the American people, bringing almost the entire population into a conflict created by his narcissistic megalomania.

Ultimately, the single greatest negative impact of beliefs lies in the fact that they can deny us free will.

Opponents of this view will argue that the existence of beliefs is a testament to the individual’s capacity to exercise free will, in choosing to believe.

This argument may hold water, until we consider that people who become indoctrinated when they are at a stage of immature intellectual and emotional development, are not exercising the will to believe. They are, in fact, being forced, by an external agency – parents, friends, politicians, churches – to believe.

This is the basic principle of cult formation.

*                    *                    *

Despite the inherent dangers created by beliefs, it is hard to imagine a life without them. A total absence of belief would surely result in a nihilist view of the world, and a tendency towards anarchy. It is our beliefs which give meaning and significance to life, an essential prerequisite in the search for happiness and personal fulfilment.

Beliefs become dangerous when they become all-consuming and carved in stone. We need to have the capacity to modify our beliefs as we grow and learn. Intransigence limits or prevents intellectual and emotional growth. That which we believe at the age of five must surely change as we reach maturity, or we will tend to remain immature. When we become brainwashed, when our minds have been conditioned to accept only one true set of beliefs, those beliefs prevent us from even considering differing or opposing views. I pity the individual whose capacity for questioning has been eradicated by the inculcation of exclusive beliefs.

In company with the capacity and willingness to accept change in our own beliefs, we must accept that there are beliefs which are quite different to our own, and which, in fact may challenge or oppose our own thoughts. These beliefs may be just as credible, as valid, as ours, and a strict adherence to our own values, and a refusal to accept the existence of other values, means that we can become truly benighted.

Finally, I ask that you consider that the raison d’etre of belief systems, is the gaining and maintenance of power over others, that the belief that beliefs are inherently positive or merely benign, is in itself, a false belief.

Ultimately, I respect the rights of others to hold beliefs which are contrary to mine. They are absolutely entitled to be wrong.

 

 

Disclosure – I am not a politician. I have no academic or professional qualifications which underpin my beliefs. The opinions expressed herein are based upon my life experiences over a period of 70 years, and supported by speculation and guesswork. Politically, I lean left-of-centre.

*                    *                    *

A truly vexing question.

One for which there will be a multitude of answers, delivered from a multitude of viewpoints, by people who have a multitude of political, social and cultural beliefs.

I have no conclusive answer. Rather I have a raft of possible answers, all of which are based upon my personal bias and prejudice. I’ll consider the question from two conjoined perspectives – character and motivation.

*                    *                    *

We seldom, if ever, see the true and complete nature of a politician. What we see are the public behaviours of people who place themselves in the public eye, and therefore must expect scrutiny. However, this public persona may conceal character traits, both positive and negative. Herein lies the key problem. Can we trust the politician of our choice?

It takes actual research, not a quick run through of social media reports, in order to discover key facts about a politician, which may give a more accurate insight into the person’s character. Few, if any, electors take the time and trouble to do anything more than make a cursory assessment of their candidates, using a “fingers-crossed” approach to selection, in the hope that they will support a politician who may prove to be “the best of a bad lot”.

Since every politician is an individual, possessing unique personal characteristics, in order to make even the most dubious “public bar” assessment of political character, I must generalise. It’s always a mistake to generalise, but here goes, anyway. In making my assertions I will be referring to specific pollies whose work I have experienced as exemplars, but I will neither name them nor record their affiliations, since I wish to maintain a non-partisan approach.

As with all groups of people, there exists a spectrum within which each politician finds his or her space.

At one extreme we will find people who are so totally altruistic that they will almost sacrifice themselves, in order to do good things for other people. There are very few of these people, and those that do make it into parliaments don’t last very long there.

At the opposite end of the line, we have the evil bastards who will do nothing unless it has a positive personal outcome, either financially or politically. These are the true liars and cheats, to whom corruption is a game in which s/he who is most corrupt, without being found out, wins. Occasionally some of these people end up in gaol. Sadly, there are more of these individuals than we can tolerate, and they appear to significantly outnumber the extreme altruists.

Somewhere towards the centre of the spectrum we have the majority of pollies, each with her/his own variations upon a theme, and each with tendencies towards altruism or gross self-interest.

There are politicians who are genuinely good people. They possess a set of positive, pro-social values and they wish to do the best possible job for their constituents. They reject the corrupt practices which are rife in all political settings, and the deals which they make, as they attempt to advance the cause of those who elected them, tend to be ethical and morally-based. These people realise that they will occasionally have to sail close to the wind, but they will not countenance any wrong-doing, regardless of the potential “big-picture” positive outcomes.

In my experience these pollies tend to be found in the Senate, or among the ranks of Independents in both Houses. That is not to say that there are no party members who have decent credentials. Sadly, their performances are often overshadowed, publicly, by the behaviour of others who become known for rorting, and doing deals which line their pockets, and the pockets of their family members.

I would encourage readers to consider the current crop of MP’s of all breeds, assessing those whose public profiles allow them to be assessed. It may be difficult to get much data on MP’s who are in Opposition parties, or who are Independents. Start with those who are most often in the news. Then look at the performances of your own State and Federal MP’s. What have they achieved for you? What personal characteristics do they appear to have? Did you get a good one, or a dud?

So, with respect to character, I suggest that we get a mix of personality types within our collection of political specimens. Ranging from the idealists to the bandits, the group includes genuine people who will act ethically in order to produce outcomes for their constituents, even if it means bending a little along the way.

*                    *                    *

Motivation is, inevitably, closely associated with character.

Once again, we have to consider the spectrum, which in this case ranges from the desire to do good things, to the desire to have and use power.

Altruists want to do good things. Narcissistic megalomaniacs want to use power to serve their own ends.

I like to think that the “average politician” is motivated to some extent, by each of these things, but that they are held in balance by ethics, humanity, morality and common sense.

Sadly, the “average politician” gets relatively little public exposure, compared to the bandits, and those who create monumental stuff ups through the exercise of poor judgement. “Good news never made a paper sell.”

My observations of contemporary operators at the Federal level in Australia, have revealed several pollies who appear to committed to serving the best interests of their electorates, and of the nation, and, indeed, the world. They tend not to be well-known outside their electorate, and do not have a sufficiently high profile within government or opposition, to make their voices heard in the party rooms.

Also less well-known, are those who know that, in order to retain pre-selection for their seats, they must toe the party line. The party system is where corruption begins. A level of compromise is required in all political dealings, but it’s in the party rooms where compromise can lead to the destruction of ethical behaviour, and the misrepresentation of electors.

Better known are the obvious arseholes. This unfortunately large group contains the selfish bastards who care more about their own egotistical, political and financial interests than they do about their constituents. At the Federal level, currently, we have a group of pollies who kowtow to Big Business and Big Money, secure in the knowledge that, as long as they look after the interests of these groups, there will be adequate funding to conduct election campaigns, and secure, well paid post-politics jobs.

One of the current crop is a showman who will do and say anything which is politically convenient, and in the service of his commercial masters. We have another who, with impunity provided by the system, tells deliberate lies about those who oppose him, and even fabricates documents in the process. It is alleged that this individual has been responsible for lining the pockets of his family members through the use of his political power and influence. Another, who was sacked after committing scandalous acts of pork-barrelling, has risen from the dead as a result of inter-party deal making. Others are guilty of spreading lies and misinformation, under the protection of the political system.

It is no wonder that our Federal Government is so strongly resisting the establishment of a Federal anti-corruption commission. A number of the current crop would be facing embarrassing investigations by such an entity.

At the State level we have recently witnessed the gaoling of two former MP’s, and the sacking of another corrupt operator, following investigation by the state’s ICAC, which is currently looking into the behaviour of another high-profile MP.

In our local context, with council elections looming, we are about to be provided with information about prospective candidates. Some of these people have proven track records. Others are largely unknown. With our recent history of representative failure dominating the conversation, we must look to choosing wisely. It would be wonderful if we were able to select the “best options”, instead of being required to take a risk on the “least worst options”.

It is dangerous, and indeed fallacious, to tar all politicians with the same brush, since each is an individual with a discrete personality and motivation, but I will return to my original assertion – we seldom, if ever, see the true and complete nature of a politician.

What we see are the public behaviours which politicians want us to see. In too many cases these images are slickly crafted and smoothly presented by supportive media sources. Looking behind the presentations can sometimes be difficult to do, but it’s worth trying.

When does an abiding interest become an obsession? This is the third or fourth piece about Morrison, which I have produced. My initial interest in him was piqued when he “came from nowhere” to be installed as Australia’s Prime Minister, and increased when I discovered that he was such an interesting character. However, it has been his almost tragic performance as a leader, his propensity for creating striking public relation gaffes, which has maintained an increased my interest in tracking his performance.

*                    *                    *

The following information is offered for the benefit of anyone who would like to know how my experiences have influenced my judgements. It may appear to be a grossly egotistical exercise in self-promotion, but that is not my intent.

My first experience of leadership, with myself in the role, was gained during secondary school when I attained a position of rank within my school’s Army Cadet Corp. I found that I could achieve more as leader of similarly aged peers, if I treated them with respect, spoke honestly, was prepared to do my share of “grunt work”, and expected respect in return. I found that the “bringalong philosophy” worked better than hectoring or pulling rank. I also found that by setting an example, in which I showed respect to my senior officers, my role as a leader was enhanced.

During the following 50 years, I filled leadership roles in my social and professional lives, and those principles learned at school, stood me in good stead. My social leadership experiences included roles as in a number of sporting, social and special interest groups.

In my professional life, which lasted for 45 years, I was responsible for leading as many as thirty colleagues at a time, in a variety of demanding workplace situations. In every situation I employed the “bringalong” strategy of group leadership – be honest, be authentic, do your share of the shit jobs, don’t ask anyone to do something which you wouldn’t be prepared to do, listen to and respond to criticism as a professional, not as a personality.

I am proud to be able to make the claim that, when moving on from any leadership role, the members of that group were, for the most part, not pleased to see the back of me.

My political stance has been created by my personal history. As a child of poverty, I was never going to be a supporter of the conservative powers which created and promoted that poverty. My early support of the Labor Party waned as that organisation became more and more “Liberal”, and due largely to the hypocrisy of Bob Hawke.

My current stance, whilst “left-leaning”, focuses upon the creation and proliferation of social justice. I am specifically not a communist.

*                    *                    *

When Morrison succeeded Turnbull, the man to whom he had pledged support, as leader of the Liberal Party, I did some serious research on the man, due to the fact that, by dint of his public performances, he initially impressed me as being phony. Since that time my initial impressions have been confirmed, so much so that now it is my opinion that he is a self-serving hypocrite.

My feelings about Scott Morrison, the man, are largely based upon my observations of his public behaviours, behaviours which are inextricably linked to his position as Australia’s Prime Minister. So, when I make a judgement about Morrison the person, it is inevitably based upon my judgements of the actions of Morrison the politician.

I believe that it is likely that most of us make our initial judgements about another person based upon their behaviour, and that, over time, we refine those judgements in the light of broader experiences of the subject. It’s why first impressions are often telling.

My first impression of Morrison, the man, was essentially a negative one, and, over time that impression has been confirmed and expanded, but I try to put aside my dislike of the individual when I make judgements about his performance as our country’s leader, and that is the purpose of this writing.

Even allowing for my limited capacity to remain objective, with respect to the person, I must confess to finding Morrison an abject failure as a leader.

Leadership styles vary, in line with differences in personalities. My perceptions of leadership styles will be influenced, but not necessarily determined, by my perceptions of leaders’ personalities.

Here are a few personal opinions of recent examples: Keating – a “head kicker” with an incisive mind, a social democrat with a hard edge, refused to suffer fools; Howard – a committed elitist hard-liner, ruthless in his pursuit of power, he expressed and achieved clear gaols; Rudd – employed an intellectual approach to dealing with aggressive opposition, probably let down by a gentility incompatible with his role; Gillard – a little overwhelmed by her position as a female prime minister, imbued with principle but lacked the steely nature and aggression of a Thatcher, in a setting which reeked of macho bullshit; Abbott – not worthy of comment; Turnbull – entirely focussed upon the pursuit and gaining of the role of prime minister at any cost, lacking personal integrity, willing to tread whichever path resulted in the retention of power.

Morrison’s “leadership style” has been developed over a relatively short period, given that his elevation to the prime ministership happened almost by accident. When it became necessary to dispose of Turnbull, the Liberals were left with a leadership vacuum. When it became a choice between Dutton and Morrison, it became a task of choosing the “least worst” option.

I believe that this is where Morrison first struck trouble. Without the necessary lead time, during which a potential leader is able to build and modify a “style”, Morrison was forced to fall back on a “manner”, a system of behaviours which he had used to create a political persona that had only been suited to his position within the party.

The manner which he chose was that of “the good bloke”. Hawke had taken much the same position as a “man of the people”, a “loveable larrikin”, and had carried it off, since he had intellect and had already had years of service in the union movement in order to perfect the play, but Morrison is no Hawke.

Morison’s image is essentially “football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars”, but in my opinion, that image creates a conflict, and belies the person. Here’s where Morrison’s chosen persona conflicts with the demands of leadership, and where his personality conflicts with, not only his persona, but with the demands of leadership.

Let’s consider his background, and identify the conflicts which it creates. An upbringing in upper-middle class east Sydney separates him from his blokey image, in much the same way as Malcolm Fraser’s image as “the grazier from Nareen” separated him from ordinary Australians. Morrison’s strong religious convictions, and the ethical requirements which they place upon him, conflict with the public’s perception of him as refusing to apply empathy in his decision-making, and opening him up to allegations of hypocrisy.

In my opinion, it’s the perception of hypocrisy which causes Morrison to be disbelieved and distrusted by so many ordinary people, and creates his greatest weakness as a leader.

His ham-fisted attempts to identify with Australia’s “working class people”, have created cynicism. A significant number of thinking individuals doubt his sincerity, and even his understanding and application of the concept of truth.

As an avowed atheist, and an entirely irreligious individual, I may be criticised for focussing upon Morrison’s religious proclivities when assessing his behaviour as a leader, but I don’t see how personal beliefs can be separated from personal and professional actions.

I know nothing substantive about Morrison’s form of Christianity, except that it is a form of Christianity. I will focus attention upon only three key Christian religious precepts which I believe should underpin Morrison’s personal, and therefore professional behaviour. It is coincidental that these Christian values coincide with the behavioural tenets adhered to by many who pursue no formal religion.

My understanding of religious values suggests that the inappropriate use of power over others is not OK, that empathy for and consideration of the needs of others is mandatory, and that lying is taboo. (Where “truth” is concerned, I’m talking about “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, not selective truth, the convenient truth which suits a purpose, or creates a lie through the omission of inconvenient, critical facts – the latter traditionally being the brand of truth favoured by certain politicians.)

Let’s consider those, one at a time.

It’s my opinion that Morrison is guilty of the inappropriate use of power over others, and in this specific case, vulnerable others.

On Morrison’s desk is a trophy. It’s a facsimile of an Asian fishing boat, with the words, “I stopped these”, engraved upon it.

From a “Guardian” article produced a couple of years ago: “Morrison was instrumental in designing the country’s notoriously harsh border protection policies when he was immigration minister in the Abbott government.

Morrison and his successor, Peter Dutton, have never been apologetic over the Operation Sovereign Borders policy which includes offshore processing and turnbacks of asylum seeker vessels, because it brought to an end the deaths of people when boats often capsized.”

Here we have a conflict between perception and reality. It raises questions in the minds of Australians. Did Morrison stop the boats in a bid to save lives, an action consistent with his religious position, or did he stop the boats simply because he could, as an indication of the power which could wield as a government minister? Were his actions humanitarian or narcissistic?

Documents revealed today (9 September 2021), suggest that Morrison chose not to secure vaccine doses, when pressed to do so, in the middle of last year. He had the power to ensure a supply of vaccines which, many speculate, may have prevented the current crises in NSW and Victoria.

Additionally, it has been alleged that he chose not to use his power to create safe, dedicated quarantine centres which, people speculate, would have prevented the escape of the virus which is currently killing people in NSW and Victoria. A question of opinion arises – was Morrison, as has been alleged, simply negligent in his choice to delay ordering vaccine supplies, or was he just utilising his power to influence the lives of others?

His now notorious one-liner, “This is not a race”, may be seen to support the latter of these two propositions, in the mind of a biased commentator such as myself. It’s my perception, but what is the reality?

Morrison has the power to end the suffering of the Biloela family, to end the practice of refugee isolation and imprisonment – a potential denial of human rights – but he refuses to do so, claiming that this would precipitate an influx of “boat people”. Another abuse of power over those weaker than himself, or a Christian endeavour to save lives? Perception versus reality.

Here’s a major problem for Morrison as a leader, in my opinion. Trophies are associated with success in a competition. Displaying his “boat” opens his motivation to interpretation. Does his trophy say “I stopped people smuggling and the resultant loss of life”, or does it say “By using my political muscle, I stopped these unwanted bastards from polluting Australia”?

I’d suggest that, since the display of the trophy could be construed in multiple ways, he should not have it where it can be seen as a possible sign of narcissistic arrogance. His action in placing the trophy in his office is an indication of political and public relations naivety, which is not consisted with what we should expect from a prime minister.

Empathy – the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. It would be expected that, as a devout Christian, Morrison would feel empathy. To what extent have Morrison’s behaviours displayed a capacity for empathy?

His immigration stance, his reluctance to engage in discussions around women’s right to live safely in an Australian context, his perceived attempts to limit his government’s duty of care for women and for minority groups, his implicit refusal to improve quality of life for First Nations people by acting with them in appropriately-centred, community managed enterprise, his public displays of apparent contempt for actions such as the women’s march and Brittany Higgins campaign on sexual assault, mark him as someone who not only lacks empathy, but perhaps, uses his power to crush those who most need it.

What is most concerning, however, is that Morrison appears to believe that his image as a leader is better served by expounding his love of “the Sharkies”, his awareness of “how good is Australia!”, and his apparent willingness take policy-influencing advice from Jen. His lack of awareness of the issues which bring him into disrepute and subject him to public ridicule, reveal a worrying lack of perception and leadership skill.

However, it is perhaps Morrison’s seemingly strained relationship with the truth, which puts him up there with Howard and Abbott as among the most despised prime ministers that Australia has produced – my personal and biased opinion, of course.

Good Christians don’t lie.

Effective, skilled political leaders do lie, but they don’t do so blatantly, in the public eye.

Morrison fails in both respects. Perhaps he justifies his reluctance to tell the whole truth as allowing him to do his “good works”, to remain in power so that her can pursue his vision of a better, fairer, more just, egalitarian Australia. Perhaps he thinks “I may not be telling the absolute truth, but enough truth to ease my conscience, and I’m only doing it for the greater good.”

I’m sure that a committed practising Christian would not have allowed the Sports Rorts to occur, and that other Ministers would not have been permitted to allegedly engage in activities which, in my opinion, are potentially inappropriate, and he certainly would not have defended the perpetrators, when their indiscretions were revealed.

An effective leader might have acknowledged very real and very human errors of judgement. That leader might have apologised and asked for forgiveness, and then moved on with the business of leading. Morrison refuses to do those things. In fact, he refuses even to acknowledge many of his blatant mistakes. That’s lousy leadership.

I think that even Hard-line Howard acknowledged that “errors” were made with respect to the Children Overboard Saga, and I seem to remember that he even tried to explain his failure to live up to his promise that no GST would ever appear under his leadership. Morrison appears to believe that acknowledgment of errors is not a requirement of a strong leader.

In the interest of fairness, or in attempt to make it look like I’m trying to be fair, I need to suggest that, as is true with many public figures, there are at least two “sides” to Scott Morrison. I’ll record some opinions with respect to just two.

I’m imagining Scott Morrison, husband, father, devout Christian, and productive community member – a normal person who exists without the trappings and limitations of political life. He’s a decent person who is devoted to his wife and children, who feels love and empathy for the people who are closest to him, and a person to whom Christian beliefs, and the behaviours which those belief teach, are a mainstay of his life. He is someone who would never knowingly do anyone a bad turn. He enjoys his football and the company of like-minded people. He’s remarkably similar to men everywhere.

However, I’m also seeing the public face of someone who is totally lacking in authenticity, a show pony to rival the inimitable Bob Hawke, and someone who is so ambivalent about his public image that he can’t decide when to be the politician and when to be “one of the boys”. It is this confusion that marks him as fake, and as totally incapable of fulfilling the role as Australia’s leader. They don’t call him “Scotty from Marketing” for nothing.

Morrison’s political persona is full of contradictions. He presents himself as a font of wisdom, as precise, aware, having “a plan” to meet every eventuality, but he shoots himself in the foot at the first opportunity, creating an image of a buffoon who carries out “stunts” as exercises in leadership. He effectively makes himself a laughing stock, and people, especially this person, are running out of humour.

An effective political leader doesn’t perform in parliament, wielding a piece of coal as he denies climate science, in the support of his political party’s financial backers.

He doesn’t appear in “The House”, wearing a supercilious, almost Trump-like grin, and mocking legitimate opposition. He leaves that sort of behaviour to individuals like Tony Abbott.

He doesn’t go on holiday as his nation is engulfed in fatal bushfires.

He doesn’t return from holiday when shamed into action, and then visit fire-ravaged areas, where he allows a media crew to film him as he tries to force people to shake his hand.

He doesn’t use ludicrous one-liners like “I don’t hold a hose”, and get up the noses of the thousands of men and women who do.

He doesn’t obscure the truth, as he seeks to cover up political indiscretions by his parliamentary colleagues. He doesn’t use another glib remark, such as “Nothing to see here”, when Blind Freddy can see that there’s a hell of a lot which needs to be seen.

During a pandemic, and with evidence available on a global scale, to support the need for fast action, he doesn’t put the creation of effective quarantine measures in the “too hard”, or “not immediately necessary” basket, nor does he try to shift blame to others when his failure to act becomes apparent.

He doesn’t delay the ordering of essential vaccines, and then try to place the blame on others when his alleged negligence potentially results in illness for thousands and death for hundreds.

He doesn’t hide from the public and the press when the shit hits the fan, reappearing only when he has devised a suitable programme of spin, with which he expects to extract himself from the pile of excrement which he has created.

He doesn’t create yet another catch phrase – Hindsight Heroes – in order to denigrate his critics.

He doesn’t place himself above the people whom he claims to serve, by using the power of his position in order to have a benefit which is not available to the powerless members of society.

When hundreds of thousands of families are separated, by virtue of lockdown health orders, it is cruel and unconscionable behaviour to engage the services of the RAAF to fly himself to Sydney, in order that he may then travel by car from the airport, past the homes of thousands of people for whom such an action is illegal, to spend Fathers’ Day with his family.

He doesn’t further compound the error by posting on Facebook, a photograph, reproduced in an entirely inappropriate context, along with a message to fathers everywhere, in what might be interpreted by an unreasonable individual such as myself, as “rubbing our noses in it”.

We can expect our prime ministers to be heroes, or complete bastards, or a blending of the two, but we don’t expect them to be phony.

The following are statements of opinion, not provable fact: Morrison is an exceptionally poor excuse for a leader. His commitment to himself is greater, by far, than his commitment to the people. He creates and expounds excuses for himself and for his failures. He “blame-shifts”, another Trumpian strategy, at the first opportunity, refusing categorically to accept responsibility for his mistakes, but glorifying himself by publicly revelling in his self-perceived success – “I stopped these”.

His public behaviours are, all too frequently, “cringeworthy”.

I can live with my dislike of Morrison, the personality, because he doesn’t otherwise affect me, but I cannot countenance the existence of Morrison the Prime Minster of Australia – in my opinion a hollow figure, a phony.

I think that I’d even swap him for Peter Dutton.

This is a fairy tale.

The year was 2020.

The world was in the grip of a pandemic called Covid-19. It is a disease which killed millions of people and made many millions more, very ill, illness from which many would never fully recover

Near the end of June 2020, in Australia, an island country in the south Pacific Ocean, the Prime Minister and his colleagues, the Federal Health Minister and the Federal Treasurer, along with the bureaucrats who managed the Health Department and the Treasury, had just completed negotiations with five reputable organisations across the world, which were working to produce vaccines.

These companies appeared to be those most likely to produce an effective vaccine, soonest, and Australia’s leaders were following a policy of spreading their “public health eggs” across a number of baskets, just in case some of the vaccine developments failed.

Although, like New Zealand, Australia was less affected than the rest of the world by the pandemic, with relatively few deaths and comparatively little serious illness, the PM and the Federal Government were taking no chances on the virus getting a strong foothold in the country.

In a press conference Omo stated: “This is a race against time and the virus, and as Prime Minister, I’m now leading that race to get every Australian vaccinated. It’s the surest way of maintaining Australia’s lifestyle and our economy, by avoiding the need to lock down our communities, as we have seen happening overseas. Make no mistake, vaccination is the solution to this huge problem.”

Oh, I should have explained. You’ll be wondering where the name “Omo” came from.

It’s a nickname that the PM gave himself, shortly after gaining office. It harkens back to his pre-politics days as a senior advertising executive in a firm responsible for a marketing campaign for soap powder. The campaign was hugely successful, propelling the Omo brand to market leadership, and the PM, “Omo”, liked the idea of associating himself with success, and with the “squeaky clean” image which the Omo name conjured in the minds of imbeciles.

It also gave him access to such effective, attention-grabbing one-liners as “No dirt to see here”, “It’ll all come out in the wash”, and “We’re going to keep a clean sheet on this pandemic”.

Having secured access to enough vaccine to inoculate every Australian four times over, as soon as any vaccine was approved, Omo turned his attention to distribution.

“There’s not much point in having the vaccine sitting in our sparkling, economical, environmentally friendly, 5-star rated Fisher&Paykel fridge, if we don’t have an efficient mechanism for getting it into people’s arms”, he said.

Omo called together all State and Territory leaders, along with their respective Health Ministers, to make short-term, medium-term and long-term plans. He announced this series of meetings to the Australian people, via a late-night press conference. (He needed to get the message across quickly, before he forgot the excellent one-liner, which he had just created: “If you fail to plan, then you can plan to fail”.) He delivered that one with his trademark smile.

After each strategic meeting, Omo called a press conference, at which he informed the Australian people of the progress, made by the hard-working state politicians and bureaucrats whom he was leading from his desk in Canberra, towards developing his mass vaccination plans.

“I want all Australians to know what’s happening. We need to come clean about the virus and about our plan to beat it.” he said, grinning.

People were pleased to see that strong leadership was producing results. Within two months of tireless work by public servants, overseen by Omo and his Chief Medical Officer, Dr E. Duzzen-Knoe, a “medal-winning” broad plan “of breathtaking scope”, as Omo put it to the media, had been arrived at.

Doctors had been providing flu vaccines to patients for years, as part of an organised programme, so their expertise could be called upon to deliver some of the approved Covid vaccines. However, their role would be limited, due to the demands of inoculating 80% of the Australian people. “Doctors,” said Omo, “had other jobs to do as well. They’ve got businesses to run, and these businesses contribute to economic growth.”

Pharmacists were yet another avenue which would be utilised in order to “spread the load, not the virus”, Omo joked.

All public and private hospitals would be expected to assist. Qualified nurses who could be released from other duties, would man vaccination facilities, along with those staff who were prepared to work unpaid overtime. “We can’t afford to pay everybody”, Omo seriously intoned, “There are a number of electorates which require urgent injections of cash for the construction of carparks.”

However, the most significant, ground-breaking and “gold-standard” thrust, would be through the employment of private providers who would be contracted to manage mass-vaccination centres. Omo just happened to know a few suitable businessmen who could “get the needles jabbing”, from his meetings with them at Liberal Party fundraisers.

These centres would be established at a range of venues, including sporting arenas, empty carparks, showgrounds in rural and regional centres, and the like.

As part of his overall management strategy, ensuring that others carried out the required work to create and implement the National Plans, Omo was able to inform the public that as soon as a vaccine was approved by the TGA, and upon receipt of the advice which he considered suitable, from ATAGI, he would announce a date for vaccinations to commence. “We’re not mucking around on this. We might still be in the first half of the game, but I’m not waiting for the final whistle to blow before putting my boots on”, was his answer to a question from a journalist who wanted to know a likely date for the programme to commence.

As it happened, Omo’s caution was justified when one of the vaccine production programmes failed and another struck production problems. “This is why we secured vaccines from multiple organisations”, said Omo, “Australians can now be sure of access to three effective vaccines within a couple of months.”

With the start of the vaccination programme imminent, Omo chose to launch a “full-scale assault” (his words) on the problem of people entering the country from overseas, and the risk of importing the virus which this posed:

“I’m throwing all of the ideas suggested by the selected interested parties into the super-economical Fisher&Paykel washing machine, spinning them around, and hanging the best ones on the latest model Hills hoist to dry.”

Special “quarantine hotels” had been set up as an emergency measure, since they weren’t needed by the tourists who normally inhabited them. Despite the fact that the responsibility for quarantine in Australia rested with the Federal Government, aka “Omo’s team”, these were managed, poorly as it turned out, by state governments which were inclined to use non-specialised security companies to maintain control of those in quarantine.

“The states, especially the Labor run states, have failed to carry out the tasks which we have entrusted to them, on behalf of the people of Australia. Therefore, we are going to immediately resume control of this critical area, by contracting a number of extremely reliable businesses, the CEO’s of which I know personally, to construct and control specific quarantine facilities, each located within a bull’s roar of an airport and major hospital near each state and territory capital. The Australian government will heavily subsidise the construction of these facilities, which will then be run at a profit by the businesses concerned, thereby contributing to our overall economy.

Given that this will take some time, I have decided to limit the return to Australia by non-critical citizens, who may only want to re-join their families, or escape the dangers of living in Covid-riddled countries like India. I’ve taken this tough decision in order to enable travel to and from Australia by important citizens – politicians and major business people – the people who keep the economic engine running, those who spin the dryer.

It might be necessary for people like Tony Abet, or Matty Korma, to jet across to Europe in order to enhance Australia’s global position as a major world economic power. The non-critical citizens should have returned home months ago, as soon as the pandemic was announced. Their failure to plan for the impact of Covid is deplorable and unforgiveable.”

Omo’s plan, which had been developed by bureaucrats responsible to his Ministers for Health, Immigration and Treasury, entailed all entrants to Australia, with the exception of politicians and selected businesspeople, having been vaccinated overseas, flying in to the airports located near the new private-enterprise quarantine facilities. Masked, and observing social distancing, they would then be transported directly to the facilities, where they would be housed for fourteen days, at their own expense, before being released into the community.

Omo’s plan was finally complete. Like the Creator, he sat back and looked at his work, and saw that it was good.

In a 2GB radio interview, Omo was asked this question:

“Prime Minister, your leadership in this crisis has been exemplary. The speed with which you have reacted to this pandemic is nothing less than amazing, and you have made every post a winner, as far as the nation is concerned. Your rival and Leader of The opposition, Elbow, could never have done anything like the magnificent job which you have done, are still doing, and doubtless will continue to do. Can you tell the listeners why you chose to act so decisively, tried so hard to ensure bi-partisan support, and made it your business to communicate clearly and effectively around all of the issues involved? I guess what I’m asking is why you’ve done such a magnificent job?”

Omo’s reply was statesmanlike:

“As this nation’s leader, the bucks stop with me, and I’m earning my dough, as the baker said to the bishop. This is not a soap opera. Australian lives are at stake. If I hadn’t acted so quickly there would certainly have been many very sick Australians, and probably some dozens of deaths as well.

Let me put this scenario to you, and to the Australian people:

Elbow is PM, and he fiddles around, spending months to get himself organised. He reckons that, since the country is pretty much free from the virus, we don’t need to race to get people vaccinated. That would be a totally irresponsible attitude.

As a direct result, in 2021 we might have seen the deplorable situation where, say, Victoria had been in lockdown half-a-dozen times, NSW had had a massive outbreak which had, for example, killed twenty or more people, and Queensland was losing huge amounts of tourist dollars, which would be doing unimaginable damage to the national economy.

With the population distribution as it is, we could have had twelve million people in lockdown simultaneously. Due to Elbow’s failure to get the washing done, The Australian People would have been hung out to dry.

Not on my watch. As Australia’s leader it’s my job the consider such a worst-case scenario, and to plan comprehensively and comprehensibly, to make sure that it never eventuates.”

The rest is history. By February of 2021, 80% of Australians were fully vaccinated. Occasionally, a non-critical citizen returning from overseas brought back some virus, but the impact of these rare events was almost imperceptible. Omo’s stunning leadership was lauded around the world as “gold-standard”, “the way to go”. In response to the praise directed at him by world leaders, Omo humbly stated:

“I don’t hold a hose, so I can’t fight bushfires, and I can’t use a syringe, so I don’t vaccinate people, but what I can do is provide outstanding leadership which focuses upon honesty, transparency, the acceptance of responsibility, the application of Christian empathy, and the provision of financial resources in electorates where I need them to go. Please continue to wash your hands,  use one of the approved hand sanitisers, and maintain social distancing in all areas except exempted Hillsong gatherings. Remember that cleanliness is next to godliness.”

In answer to a question about his expectations for the forthcoming federal election, and his battle with Elbow, asked by a person claiming to be a Sky News journalist (?), Omo just gave his most amiable, good bloke grin and said:

“Just like Unilever’s excellent soap powder, it’ll be a whitewash.”