by DAVID FLINT – IS THE Albanese Government’s over-extended media honeymoon finally drawing to a close?
Even the ABC was not able to avoid mentioning the Brittany Higgins scandal of which the government’s Senator Gallagher is only the tip.
While she may be offered as a sacrifice, the fact is Labor weaponised a rape allegation to trick voters the Liberal Party has a “woman problem”.
A side-effect is that being male in preselections can now attract a Melbourne Cup-style handicap. We should not be surprised if, in the current climate, some man claims he is really a woman.
But why did Albanese’s honeymoon last so long?
John Howard’s and Tony Abbott’s barely lasted beyond the declaration of the poll results.
After all, this is a government going downhill. In real Australia, the cost of living is the issue, not gender dysphoria, the Voice, or a republic.
Promising significant electricity savings, the government is delivering not only what is becoming among the West’s most expensive, unreliable and unavailable electricity.
They are also ensuring that Australian “fossil” fuels allow Beijing to have significantly cheaper, more reliable and more available electricity.
True, Albanese’s predecessors also succumbed to this foolishness, but the Albanese Government has vastly accelerated the process.
Add to that an impossible level of immigration designed presumably to vastly increase Labor voters – over 700,000 in two years.
Because of the government’s anti-dam and anti-development policies, most will settle in overcrowded eastern capitals, where house prices and rents have already gone through the roof.
Then there’s a level of inflation not seen for many years and you would have to wonder why the honeymoon lasted so long.
But with its apparent end, will we see an end also to news too often little more than a rewording of some ministerial press release, especially those on climate issues? And why are politicians not subjected to closer media scrutiny on these issues?
In recent conversations on ADH TV with Senator Malcolm Roberts and the The Epoch Times’ Daniel Teng, a common theme has been the apparently religious faith most politicians have in the discredited theory of man-made global warming.
A key question is why, among so-called “renewables”, the Albanese government still declares nuclear energy illegal and disapproves of new hydro while insisting on solar and wind, both of which seriously damage the environment and enrich Beijing, not only at their installation but in their comparatively frequent renewal.
The corollary is why is it acceptable to the Albanese government for the communists to use vast amounts of Australian coal and gas, all sending CO2 into the atmosphere, while these are increasingly forbidden to Australians because they emit the same CO2?
This leads to the question raised in our conversations, that when it comes to Beijing, are the elites either gullible or captured or both. (Some, like the Biden family enterprise, are already in receipt of extremely generous communist largesse.)
As to reliance on communist integrity, the leading American-based strategist, Gregory Copley, warns that independent analysis of PRC economic activity indicates it could be as much as 60 per cent less than official statistics.
Yet too many in the West treat Beijing’s statistics and their signatures seriously, the latter being something that political strategist Rick Brown warned against when the free trade treaty was mooted.
As our elites should now realise, Beijing has no more regard for treaties than Bethmann Hollweg had when, in 1914, he famously dismissed the German-signed treaty guaranteeing Belgian neutrality as a mere “scrap of paper”.
In the meantime, when it comes to the Australian mainstream media, a glance at the recent King’s Birthday Honours List from Wellington is curiously relevant.
This is not because republican Jacinda Ardern accepted being made one of four new dames. Rather, it is the fact that Queen Camilla was made a member of the prestigious Order of New Zealand.
Unlike the 2015 award of an Australian knighthood to the late Prince Philip, this did not result in a media-orchestrated manifestation of outrage.
Led by treacherous elements within the cabinet and aided by leaks, the real purpose was to give impetus to a campaign to replace Prime Minister Abbott with Malcolm Turnbull.
While the out-of-touch mainstream media imagined Turnbull would be very popular, this conclusion was never supported by the voters.
Now, as the increasingly farcical Albanese honeymoon draws to a close, can we hope for at least a balanced treatment of both sides in the Voice referendum?
As the founders pointed out, the constitutional safeguards concerning change exist not to prevent change, but to prevent change made “in haste” or “by stealth”.
Recent examples are Shireen Morris in The Australian newspaper stating without qualification that the Commonwealth Franchise Act, 1902 provided that “aboriginal natives of Australia, Asia, Africa, or the Pacific Islands were not entitled to be on an electoral roll”, and George Williams claiming this was a “ban” on Aborigines voting.
As I explained in a letter to The Australian, by not including the proviso, “unless so entitled under section 41 of the Constitution”, readers would be unaware of two crucial facts.
First, this means anyone who “acquires” a right to vote in a State election cannot be prevented from voting in federal elections.
Second, at this time Aborigines were entitled to vote in four States without restriction and in Queensland and Western Australia if they owned or leased property worth £100.
Introduced by the Barton Government, principally to extend the women’s vote in SA (including Aboriginal women) and WA to all Australian women, there was no reference in the Bill to Australian Aborigines.
According to Keith Windschuttle in The Break-Up of Australia, the “clear intention” was to ensure that “all Aborigines in Australia, without qualification” could vote in federal elections.
As introduced, the section referred to was part of a policy against exploiting indentured labour mainly from Pacific Islands.
To get the Bill through, mainly because of Labor demands, the government reluctantly agreed to include the word “Australian”.
This surely demonstrates that Australians are entitled to the full facts before they vote.PC