Australian politics - Perpetual Thread.

[Camacan]

Indeed, let's go further on private schools.
If we gradually move to no private schools, hospitals, health cover of any kind, make everyone use the public service what follows?
The politicians, donors, powerful people of all kinds have to send their kids to a public school. Go to ED and wait in line.
Can you imagine how fast public schools would improve?

 

[Camacan]

Don't give them any ideas. I'm surprised they haven't trotted out the "we are supporting hard working parents going the extra mile to put their kids through school" rhetoric yet.

There's a Leunig cartoon of a harsh businessman in a bird mask across the desk from two doubtful looking birds hosting a "Sky sale". Why is any ordinary Australia fooled into thinking their economic interests oh-so-perfectly align with the haves? (Sure that point has been talked to death.)

I think the haves of Australia have to have a good look at what is happening on the streets of the US and ask themselves "How much of this comes from a lack of access to quality education?" The Liberal Party dislikes public education because it prevents liberals, but it also prevents authoritarian disaster.

 

[Camacan]

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-and-will-consider-abandoning-net-zero-target



The Nats need to collectively take a short walk off a tall cliff. What a disgusting, small-minded, terminally backward group of people.

Fuck I'm angry.

Right. From the article this state conference is in Coffs Harbour, which has gone through not-normal severe weather very recently, and it's very close to areas with serious immiseration resulting from climate change.

(More broadly I hated the breakup-makeup of the coalition. To play such hardball with a new leader of the opposition, undermining sober considered debate, including god-forbid talking to people on the ground... You don't need to support the opposition in order to support their right to be a good opposition for the sake of the country. So to me this NSW net-zero position feeds right into the tail-wags the dog stuff.)
EDIT: I wasn't clear: the article is at the NSW level.

 

[Camacan]

It will destroy the coalition if the national national party follows NSW. They will end up just a rural rump party.

It pisses me off that no-one talks about the truly catastrophic cost of doing nothing- especially to farmers.

I don't get it. The National Farmers Federation supports net zero, right? They get that it's existential for them? But the NFF supports the Nationals, despite the nats opposing net zero...

 

[Camacan]

• Combine the two above, and we don't see the same outsized influence of rural votes on political parties. Our politics is dominated by the cities and suburbs... which it should be, because that's where the vast majority of us live.

To me there is a danger to Australia in that common, understandable, position. The importance of the well-being and development of regional and rural areas to Australia as a whole tends to be ignored. The security of food production is just the start of it.

(Former PM Paul Keating once said “If you don’t live in Sydney, you’re just camping out”.)

 

[Camacan]

My guess at part of it is that a significant bloc of Australians silently drew back the prospect of what they saw as privileging one racial group. To them, unfair treatment of first nations people may be tolerable, but a special role for them is not.

 

[Camacan]

But but but what about the base load? /s

This is going back a bit, but Clake And Dawe explained what the issue was with clean energy and base load power. (/s)

 

[Camacan]

Irony is dead. And many of our best satirists are also dead.

Speaking of whom…
I think the sarcasm markers are unnecessary when referencing Clarke and Dawe videos. I know, we just explained why it’s hard to tell, but anything John Clarke ever said can be considered biting satire.

I disagree on the second point because John's effortless combination of flying in the face of facts and logic while knowingly offering a perfect poe-faced mask might take some getting used to. All readers might not be familiar with his style or the show, particularly given the time that has passed.

As much as anything I popped the /s in because I didn't want my own words to be read as if I thought the baseline power argument held, and that I was offering straightforward video support.

We need new satirists. We need more people of wit and charm, humanity and insight; people who can puncture harmful nonsense. We need comedians*, historians and journalists -- we need more professionals who say "look out the window", carefully sort truth from lies and rigorously show what hides down which paths: they are national security assets we desperately need and aren't properly supporting. They need more visibility and to be able to make a living at it.

Last bit: the ABC used to be more of a taxpayer-funded reef, sheltering all kinds of weird, wonderful, smart and valuable life. Lack of money -- coral bleaching.

*Yes, I know comedians also favour fart gags; we can have both.

 

[Camacan]

Family owned farms in my area hold an especially important place. There's a whole subculture and living, breathing economy and society built around them. There's a deep history that is important to the area, too. The "catchment" local towns are tied in to their existence; the local farms mutually support the complex local service industry in a way that Agribusiness probably wouldn't.

Then there is the matter of maintaining the land's viability and the welfare of livestock. The locals tend to care deeply about both, despite their rough-and-ready exterior. Lends itself to high quality, safe, food coming out of the area, even aside from the matter of decency. Agribusiness wouldn't see it that way at all. And sustainability is a different issue to someone worried about their grandkids being able to be on the farm.

 

[Camacan]

Those are all good things. None of them should qualify a farmer to use a retirement structure to dodge massive amounts of tax.

But they do make the transfer of assets between farming generations a matter of much more than simple economics. Because they are far from a simple commercial asset, broad-brush measures that aim to reduce inequality by heavily taxing something only perceived in economic terms could do a lot of damage by failing to see that a single number can't capture the complex human reality.

I absolutely can't properly address your specific point properly, however. I just don't have the background or domain knowledge.

I just wanted to try and capture the way that a farm moving from parents to children around here could be for their children in turn, and so on. Not necessarily a way of trying to preserve unfair inter-generational wealth. More a way of passing on the golden opportunity to do hard physical work in all kinds of weather all year round to grow food for others.

You would have seen me sound off with some big-picture sweeping ideas before, but here I guess I might have an insight into how big measures to confront a problem can have unintended consequences.

 

[Camacan]

I'm afraid I still disagree - I strongly believe that using Super to avoid tax and hand down a farm to the next generation while still keeping it in a highly tax advantaged structure is fundamentally wrong. The analysis that @rainynight65 linked covers it far better than I could.

Edit: Fixed a sentence that made no sense.

I agree with you.

But I'm very wary of regarding putting family farms out of business as acceptable collateral damage in any measure taken to address unfair tax advantages / inter-generational wealth.

I don't want to be suckered by farmers being trotted out as an excuse for not addressing these problems, either. I can see I need to read more before rabbiting on commenting further.

 

[Camacan]

Howard inherited an Australia where the lives of the young were getting disrupted. Getting housing security became impossible for many through accelerating property prices and student debt. Not being able to buy a place makes family formation harder, disrupts settling down generally.

Howard did absolutely nothing in the face of this. He never once gave the slightest indication that he knew Gen X existed, the problems we were facing or what we were calling for in terms of social progress.

More personally, my experience of STEM education was that graduates were faced with an over-stressed and under-funded system and not enough jobs outside of academia. Howard had a hand in this too, not just the hostility to education but his utter lack of interest in moving Australia away from banana republic to high tech industries.

So tend to think of Howard as poster excreta for how Gen X got screwed over in the 90's.

 

[Camacan]

This is ancillary to policits, but I think it fits here. The ABC is considering an 'impartiality clause' that its staff will be forced to abide by.


The article on Capital Brief is paywalled but this Bluesky post has a gift link (requires email).

I think this is very much political. There's always been a understanding that the ABC leans moral and that goal has a political impact.

This is an extremely concerning development. As a refresher on the Antoinette Lattouf scandal:
ABC chief content officer Chris Oliver-Taylor was found by a judge to have sacked Lattouf
"to appease pro-Israel lobbyists." This is in response to her non-work reposting reports of starvation being used as a weapon in Gaza.

So it is indicative that ABC management have no intention of curbing their own, serious, bias. Despite being found to have engaged in misconduct, they are looking for stronger means to silence staff in future.

Arguably Lattouf did engage in bias, in the matter of war crimes being acceptable. Looking at the ABC's impartiality rules... they are shockingly weak in this respect. Given this is Australia, I absolutely expected more that:

Impartiality requires that the ABC:

• Takes no editorial stance other than its commitment to fundamental democratic principles including the rule of law, freedom of speech and religion, parliamentary democracy and non-discrimination.

To the point I wonder if presenting both-sideism about genocide wouldn't actually violate that. Rather than trying to silence staff, the ABC's "impartiality" standards need to be strengthened to explicitly state human rights principles they won't violate.

Did the march across the coathanger mean nothing? I see this as a sign that the ABC's management needs to be cleaned out, so it can regain its rightful place as our national broadcaster.

 

[Camacan]

A threat of violence is a threat of violence. The reporter should go to the police.

If only there was some video evidence of threats of being made.

That Katter openly made threats and admitted to having committed acts of violence publicly speaks to a sense of impunity. The custom that a man can resort to violence if he feels dishonored has deep roots. It's a profoundly toxic notion and I don't think we've shaken it.

 

[Camacan]

QL is an oddball as the state elections tend to be more favourable to Labor - probably thanks to Sir Joh's reign of terror and Campbell Newman's fuckery - but it leans more strongly towards the LNP in federal elections.

For those unfamiliar with the reign in question, this recent Guardian article could function as introduction.

Propelling my pen was a sense of obligation to do justice to the stunted opportunities and deliberate and casual cruelties inflicted on the state and many, many, Queenslanders under Australia’s most blinkered, authoritarian and corrupt postwar regime.

 

[Camacan]

I grew up in Queensland under Joh. Not by choice, my parents moved us there when I was 2. It's not just that the government was corrupt, it's that everyone knew it was corrupt, but the most well intentioned could do nothing about it, and the majority of Queenslanders just didn't care enough. Not until Chris Masters got on Four Corners and showed it all up.

Which underlines the foundational importance of a fully funded public broadcaster and independent investigative journalism. I know it would be uncomfortable for them, but it would do our politicians a world of good if they set aside a day to publically go through the biggest scandals of the last fifty years, reflect on where we've been, and give thanks they were exposed.

As for Bob Katter, I was just reflecting how batshit bonkers the violent outburst was. His accusation was that by mentioning his Lebanese ancestry, Bavas was implying that it made him foreign, and he wasn't. Okay, so if you are rabidly insisting that your origin doesn't preclude being 100% Australian, why are you opposing immigration on the basis that it does?

And why the fury? If your ancestry is fine, why get angry at it's mention?

(Of course The Nine journalist was making no racist implications.)

In the same press conference, Katter explained what Australian values migrants must have:

Do they have democracy? Do they have rule of law? Do they have Christianity or some similar belief system?

I mean we can all see how threatening a journalist is in accordance with those principles.

 

[Camacan]

I'll be very interested to see what next year's census says for religion, given 2021 had "No religion" at 38.9%.

It's crazy how unrepresentative these far-right white nationalist creeps are. Can't be any one of a multitude of races, can't have a bunch of genders, can't have most religions, or none, can't be in the majority of the political spectrum. No gays.

WRT the census, I'll be interested to see what the two LBGT+ questions the Albanese govt. was forced to add will reveal, too.

 

[Camacan]

So Graham Linehan was arrested at Heathrow after three transphobic posts on twitter, including what I would say was an incitement to violence. I expect that Linehan would say it was a joke:

If a trans-identified male is in a female-only space, he is committing a violent, abusive act. Make a scene, call the cops and if all else fails, punch him in the balls.

It seems immensely disappointing that Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner is now saying that police shouldn't be enforcing the law with regards to threats of violence.

But when it comes to lesser cases, where there is ambiguity in terms of intent and harm, policing has been left between a rock and a hard place by successive governments who have given officers no choice but to record such incidents as crimes when they’re reported. Then they are obliged to follow all lines of inquiry and take action as appropriate.

To my mind this displays an utter lack of understanding that the "humour", particularly in the context of a proment public figure with a long history of hate speech can never be a cover for a incitement to violence.

It also of the real world effects of hate speach on crime and culture, and what the supression of prominent public examples of dehumanising bigotry can do.

When I was growing up in Australia, LBGT dehumanization and hate was entrenched and feral. Part of how that was expressed was "humour". There was a string of murders in Sydney that the police did not investigate and thereby had a hand in. It's all too easy to imagine the offending officers joking to one another as a way of justifying what they were doing.

It matters. One example among many: recently an AFL player was penalized after using a homophobic slur, and has issued a public apology. This is seen. Every time, it reduces homophobia by normalizing it. This limiting of free speech means less harassment, ostracism and violence. Less work for police, if you have to somehow justify police time being used to protect the public.

 

[Camacan]

I mean, Linehan should arguably have been arrested for The IT Crowd (yeah, I said it), which proves he needs to have someone else to actually write the funny stuff. (Allegedly his contribution to Father Ted was formatting it as a script, and all the actual jokes were his co-writer. Allegedly.)

Still, he'll turn this into some big victimisation thing, and blame everything else except his own stupidity.

I find his reaction extraordinary. The fury. The, as you say, sense of being a victim. As a comedian he has a world of things to target. But being told that he must not repeatedly denigrate a particular group, that's an outrage. I think it's not "free speech", it's the right to victimize that is so precious to him and those like him.

 

[Camacan]

By the next election, if the Libs win in the state they're currently in, <insert preferred deity here> help us all.

That being said, I don't think Sussan Ley will last that long.

I haven't properly dug into her politics to understand if she really is the centerist she claims to be, but as a person she seems mature, decent and civil. But that does not seem to be enough to handle the kind of thuggery that passes for intra-party politics in the coalition. When she reached a quick compromise with the Nationals after the split, despite the fact they were insisting on policies that had just been rejected by the electorate I thought it was a bad sign for her. Those in the party that would resort to strong-arm tactics were emboldened and party discipline was weakened. To me, the current business with Price is of a piece with that.

 

[Camacan]

Facetiousness aside though, wouldn't it be better for our polity if our elected representatives had to face tough questions instead of being handed a soap box?

To that point, Media Watch had an exposé of a how the government is ordering newsrooms to put out it's releases as if they were journalism with "Strictly no third party or opposition comment." Third party is code for independent experts or commentators.

This bizarre arrangement, journalists agreeing to restrict their reporting in return for a so-called drop dates back decades. Consecutive governments seeking to exploit their monopoly on information to further their own agenda, hoping their unfiltered message will be reprinted and then picked up by radio and TV. And as a shrinking press gallery has shed its policy specialists and the news cycle grown more frenetic, so the power imbalance has grown. But frustrated journals tell us it's only been in the past year that spinners feel so emboldened as to routinely put the no third party dictat in writing. And it's not confined to Labor.

Spoiler: The segment on Youtube

View:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuHWxwQyyUE&t=277s

To reach for an overused word, this is outrageous, particularly for a Labor government. Between this and their attempts to obstruct and restrict freedom of information requests, my base level of belief that the Albanese government at least supported some basic democratic principles has taken as serious knock.

 

[Camacan]

Well, it won't get asked in Question Time, because the Opposition do it as well. It seems a lot of entities, not just political parties, are doing this kind of thing.

And of course, they should all be called out on it.

Apparently it's a "practice" that has been going on for a long time, but now people are willing to put it in writing and sign their names to it. That speaks of a sense of growing impunity that bothers me greatly. But why would they feel that way? The first thing that comes to mind is that they feel that the media outlets are too complicit and beholden to speak out. Secondly, that they feel that the Australian public has become so cynical about politicians that it wouldn't cause a scandal.

I wish:
A) That more people watched Media Watch. (I should watch more Media Watch but I'm watching what I watch.)
B) That the news cycle wasn't a goddamned monolith where the same handful of issues get everyone's attention in lockstep and then dropped immediately.

 

[Camacan]

So the shadow home affairs minister is threatening to quit:

Andrew Hastie says he would quit the shadow frontbench if the Liberals remain committed to a net zero by 2050 policy, spelling more trouble for Sussan Ley as the opposition leader tries to steady a rocky ship.

Has anyone told him not to be Hastie? I mean, just in general.

This would be a good time for Sussan Ley to come out strong on climate for the sake of her party. I don't see how straight-out climate denialism can be a vote winner.

Robust studies of climate change perceptions in Australia, the UK and America show that only very small numbers of people actually deny that climate change is happening. The figures range from between 5 to 8% of the population.

 

[Camacan]

It may only be a small percentage, but they all watch Sky News or work for the IPA, two key demographics for the Liberal Party of Australia.

That's my point: if the liberals want to win elections they can't keep "winning" on Sky News but not with the electorate. I mean, you can hope that the disinformation gains traction over time but at this point it's a loser, right? My hope is that Sussan Ley thinks "Too many bushfires, too many floods. It's time to stop playing to the nutters and rebuild the party."
(IPA in this context.)

 

[Camacan]

Coalition to fight Labor’s universal childcare plan as Ley signals ‘unrelenting’ pursuit of efficiency.


Of all the things you could possibly go after, universal childcare is the one they're choosing?! The one that is eye-wateringly expensive until the kids get into primary school?

They aren't learning. They aren't learning from what happened yesterday.

During the election, Dutton pledged to a work from home ban for public servants. The ACTU and others pointed out that's putting the boot into women. In general WFH is what allows some Australians to be in the workforce and get by. When the shittiness of their proposal registered, he was forced to backflip. Opposing universal childcare seems the same to me: a lack of knowledge or care about what enables people to work resulting in bad policy. I'll be interested to see if their opposition to universal childcare gets the same response.

I know it's possible to be naive about it, but to me the healthy way for a democracy to function is that the losing party takes on board the reasons it lost and at least modifies its policies to accommodate the rebuke. That way it is more able to function as an effective opposition and hold the governing party to account.

 

[Camacan]

So we've finally recognized Palestine.

The establishment of an embassy and active diplomatic relations will flow once the Palestinian Authority meets reform commitments sought by the international community.
They include recognition of Israel’s right to exist and commitments to hold democratic elections and enact significant reform to finance, governance and education.
Governments recognising Palestine insist Hamas must have no role in any new state.
“This is the world saying that what is going on in Gaza is completely unacceptable,” Albanese said.

We're doing alongside the UK and Canada, but the US has been threatening us:

“Proceeding with recognition will put your country at odds with longstanding U.S. policy and interests and may invite punitive measures in response.”

As you do, when an ally stands up against genocide.

All this while the PM is still struggling to meet with Trump. I think that the PM is exceptionally foolish. No agreement could be trusted; there is no honor. And with the recognition of Palestine it could also result in some kind of horrific ambush like the one Zelenskyy suffered. It could be the perfect time to enact some harsh sanction on a nation seen to defy the US. Or at least that's my fear. No time for meetings, Australia should be working hard to decouple from the US as much as possible, as quickly as possible.

 

[Camacan]

I think she's dog-whistling to the people on her own side of politics. Or is it virtue-signalling? I just can't keep up...

Normally I would agree. But what she did is considerably more drastic. There's been a convention that you don't criticize a sitting prime minister while they are overseas. SMH for example is describing it as 'unorthodox'.

Ley is directly addressing members of a foreign political party with poling suggesting that he doesn't have public support for the recognition of Palestine. This undermining, after US threats just invites those addressed to think Ley supports their 'right' to dictate Australian foreign policy, to my mind.

 

[Camacan]

Yeah, no-one saw that coming. I guess they really don't want to win any metropolitan seats at the next election.

It's also not a win for the coalition in rural and regional Australia either.

All Australians, including a majority of those in seats held by the National Party, accept human activity is causing climate change, he says.

That's from Jason Falinski, NSW Liberal president talking to the ABC. And voters outside the cities are coping the effects of climate change, making it hard to disbelieve.

"There are over 90 per cent of regional Australians in this poll who say they are feeling the effects of climate change already," she said.

"Eighty-two per cent of regional Australians are really particularly concerned about droughts and flooding and how that will effect crop production and food supply, so there's great agreement across regional Australia around the impacts of climate change and we need to be getting on and doing something about it."

 

[Camacan]

A little while back on Insiders they were discussing the upcoming net zero choice. The youngest member of the panel said there were two soundbites that would lose Ley both sides of the debate at once:
"We support net zero but..."
"We don't support zero but..."

I think she meant that the electorate has reduced attention span and has been habituated to simplified messages, so any policy has to be all or nothing, no complexity, no nuance. Which is not good for democracy in general.

But the deeper politics doesn't allow any viable "middle" position, either. Those in favor of action know the world has to beat those targets to have a chance of avoiding the worst outcomes. So the muddled, contradictory position the coalition reached doesn't fly.
(And not just because it's trying to avoid emissions.)

Of those on the opposite side of the debate, some are identity-based-denialists, some have been taken in by fossil fuel disinfo, some are hard-core cynics. But none of them really can brook compromise, either.

 

[Camacan]

What the actual?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11...states-to-rein-in-hospital-spending/106017654



I have to agree with the quoted health ministers - this is beyond belief. The Pm is basically telling the states they must stop spending so much on hospitals.

Growing, aging population. Everyone who suffers medical harm due to under-funding, if they don't die, represents additional ongoing costs. I endured a regional hospital recently. It was just scary: not enough nurses, dangerously under-trained and under-supervised nurses. Operations delayed or canceled due to not having enough anesthetists. People getting discharged in a hurry when it wasn't safe to do so for a variety of reasons. Until recently, the lack of doctors at certain times meant patients were regularly getting airlifted to bigger hospitals. Funding needs urgent increases in many areas..

 

[Camacan]

As per usual, it looks like the Government are willing to negotiate with the Coalition to water down the proposed Nature Laws.

Coalition and Labor negotiate nature laws



Watt reckons he's open to negotiation with the Greens but I question why he'd even be open to negotiating with a party that wants to weaken the laws. The way I see it the Government would rather deal with the climate deniers in the coalition for shitter protections than the Greens for stronger protections. No doubt they'll spin it as the Greens fault.

Edited

Lemme get this straight. The coalition have just trashed their environmental credentials. Neither business or the general voting public thinks they are in touch, responsible or relevant in this area. So this is the perfect time for labour to endorse the coalition and associate itself with them by negotiating over the nature laws.

 

[Camacan]

They'd rather that than lower themselves to negotiate with the greens:

Yes. That's remarkable.

It got me to wondering why Labour has reached a point of being so spiteful towards the Greens.
I found this opinion piece by Prof Mark Kenny of the Democracy Sausage podcast illuminating. It's dated, being from June 2023, but still helpful.

The rancorous tone of public exchanges reveals deep-seated enmities born of an increasingly direct electoral contest in the inner cities, legitimate policy differences, and a hyper-sensitivity to criticisms made of each other.

In the article, Mark Greens have form for opposing major Labour programs. At the time the Housing Australia Future Fund was stuck in the senate because of the Greens and it looked like it wasn't going to pass at all. As it turned out they stalled it for six months. Mark characterizes the opposition as being perfectionist in nature. There's also the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme back in 2009 which the Greens blocked.

More deeply he notes that part of the antipathy is part of a very general pattern in politics where groups that are courting the same voters tend to hate each other, hence what he claims is the mutual dislike between the Labour left and the Greens.

He also points out that Labour hates the way the Greens keep pointing out that they hold the interests of the haves of Australia sacrosanct:

Last year, they recalled parliament around the country to put caps on energy prices, you see the treasurer get up and say, ‘we’ve put caps on energy prices. But all of a sudden, rents don’t matter. Why is it that a third of the country don’t get the sort of representation - renters - that a lot of other people in this country do?’.

(At the time Green housing spokesman Chandler-Mather.)

In general Labour hates being called out for it's inaction on climate change, economic redistribution, etc by a party they think has the luxury of being at no risk of governing hence needing to fund actions taken.

 

[Camacan]

The Greens held out and got a better deal. They could of agreed to vote for it weeks ago, it was better than what was in place, they didn't, they negotiated an even better deal.

And I don't believe they let the perfect be the enemy of the good "all the time" I feel that's an exagerration.

This is the good side of multi-party politics. Rather than policy being decided behind closed doors, with no consolation, transparency or public debate, at least there was some of these.

Imagine if the budget had to be made public well in advance and the government had to get the support of other parties to pass it. The government would hate it, and it would have all manner of downsides, but at least it would be debated before it was enacted.
(Expecting someone with some formal political education will explain why this idea is a bad idea.)

 

[Camacan]

The ABC is reporting that NSW Premier Chris Minns says that 'guns laws will change' in the wake of this event, and is considering recalling Parliament.

While many people will applaud his prompt action, knee-jerk responses aren't necessarily best in the long term. For example, uniform gun laws across the country might be more effective in preventing future attacks like this.

From the SMH.

One of two shooters who fired at Jewish families at Bondi Beach, killing 15 people including a child, held a gun licence for at least a decade and owned six deadly firearms.

On the face of it, that's insane. No-one should be in possession of a firearm in Australia without a legitimate need of it, and there are very few of those. Gun licenses should be entirely based on essential need: those with a current professional requirement for a firearm. Outside of farms, I don't see why it is acceptable for a firearm to be in a residence in Australia in 2025.

All that said, I agree that knee-jerk responses are often bad governance. Getting clear consensus across Australia about how we're going to tighten gun control and then doing it properly is the right thing to do.

 

[Camacan]

As an American I have no standing to weigh in on Australian politics, but I wanted to point out that every horrific shooting here is followed by GOP calls to "let cooler heads prevail", thereby preventing anything from getting done.

I get the instinct to get something done while hearts and minds are fired up and ready to take on the gun lobby. But doing things in a hurry can lead to big rhetoric hiding weak reforms, or regulation that is very strong, but impractical, such that it has to be walked back later.

In general, I want politicians that have the strength of character to take this moment and dedicate their careers to eliminating guns from civilian Australia to the extent which we can, not dedicate themselves for the news cycle.

 

[Camacan]

I hope this is more realistic in Australia than it is here.

This is a second Port Arthur massacre in the heart of our largest capital at a place of sentimental significance and a vile hate crime. There will be changes, depend on it.

Early statements are positive, but to my mind, problematic.

Albanese said he would flag tougher laws with state and territory leaders at a national cabinet meeting on Monday afternoon. The prime minister said the proposed reforms would include limiting the number of firearms someone could have and an audit of existing licences.

“People’s circumstances can change. People can be radicalised over a period of time. Licences should not be in perpetuity,” Albanese said.

That's positive, but I worry the implication is if the only radicalized people engage in gun violence. Anyone can.

Premier Chris Minns said:

"It means introducing a bill to parliament … making it more difficult to get these horrifying weapons that have no practical use in our community. If you’re not a farmer, you’re not involved in agriculture, why do you need these massive weapons to put the public in danger?”

Good, but will either Minns or Albanese really take on the gun lobby? Will they say "This bastard had six guns legally because he said he said he was a recreational hunter. This is the consequence of putting up with that crap for votes and it ends here."

 

[Camacan]

Cathy Wilcox has a very apt take on bipartisanship in the wake of Bondi. From her Mastodon account:

View attachment 124426

Howard's life's work has been the wasting opportunities. The one exception was introducing an (wholly inadequate) measure of gun control. He's diminishing that one legacy he had by suggesting there's some conflict between trying to get guns out of the community and addressing antisemitism.

 

[Camacan]

There's a few things related to the Bondi shootings that I have had a hard time finding words for, but David Heilpern is saying it much better than I could.

And in this initial period, I know what it is not time for. It is not time to blame Anthony Albanese for failing to do what Benjamin Netanyahu or some in the Jewish community demanded. It is not time to stifle criticism of Israel under the guise of stopping antisemitism. It is not time (yet) to investigate the possible failings of our intelligence services in anticipating and stopping this. It is not time to ban protests and shy away from our international obligations. It is not time to dilute democracy with overreach laws. And it’s certainly not time to politicise by introducing an immigration system based on religion.

It is also not time to claim false flags or Mossad involvement or preach “what about Gaza” or Sudan, or anywhere else for that matter. I love many in the Palestinian movement and they have said kind, compassionate things in the face of this violence, but before anyone starts to orate about historic morals or immediate comparisons, please take a breath and say that right now Jewish lives matter. Just that. Unequivocal. There will be time for deeper lessons later.

 

[Camacan]

What I do find funny is Sussan Ley saying "The Coalition will block this bill!" but their numbers are so low that Labor can easily bypass them, especially if the Greens are onboard.

My instinct is that two-party politics is a game of "fake it 'til you make it." The party out of power spends its time puffing out it's chest and carrying on in order to perform the role of government-in-waiting. The electorate, gradually becoming disillusioned by the government of the day picks up on this.

(At least that's how I feel it used to work. These days roughly two in three people didn't support the major party that got in. My sense is that too many pressing issues are going unaddressed for business as normal to be a safe bet. Even in Australia.)

 

[Camacan]

Given our preferential voting, while those 2/3rds may not have directly supported Labor, they supported them more than the LNP.

Agreed. However, that's not the same thing as primary support. The UK has gone down that road: there's an article in the Guardian with the line:

An economic recovery could still change the parties’ fortunes. But the days when only two parties were licensed to supply Britain with prime ministers are gone

My point is Ley's rote antics speak of a complacency, an expectation that the coalition will get back in soon enough.