A Common and Consistent Thread

Image courtesy The Mandarin

 The consequences of the botched Robodebt scheme are beginning to rattle through the ranks of senior public servants and ex-ministers in the previous Coalition administration.

The debacle was driven by a toxic combination of populist virtue-signalling, public service cowardice, and the raw application of coercive power. 

The fact that there was never any legal basis for the process was completely ignored by those who knew that it was on shaky ground because they were afraid of telling the ministers and their staff something they didn't want to hear.

It killed people, but those people were unemployed, so there wasn't much attention paid.

The most disgraceful aspect of the whole deal was the populist dismissal of people on welfare as having little or no worth, and an attempt to appeal to voters through demonising them. The Coalition apparently believed that there was a vote or two in it. 

It has, for me, a familiar ring.

Back in 2014 I was phoned by someone from DVA at 8:30 one night. She opened the conversation with the words "How does it feel to be defrauding the taxpayer?". I probably should have hung up then and there, but was so flabbergasted that I simply listened as she went on about what a nasty individual I was. Back then I was receiving a part pension through DVA predicated on the amount I was earning as an itinerant consultant. The amount varied, as some weeks I worked two days, some three, and others not at all. 

Because of the varying nature of my employment I was diligent when it came to reporting my earnings. The issue arose because they were using averaging to determine income, and when it was far from average, as mine was, the system fell in a heap.

The scheme that developed into Robodebt was being rolled out, and it was not dealing with reality.

To cut a long story short, I requested my file under the Freedom of Information statute, and began a process with the Commonwealth Ombudsman. It turned out that my reports of my income had been filed, but nobody had read them, and I had indeed been overpaid the part service pension.

Problem was, I was not responsible for the error, but was threatened with debt recovery straight away without any consideration of how the overpayment came about. 

The Ombudsman found that I did have an obligation to return the funds (although one legal friend advised me that I should take the agency to court because the evidence of their oversight was on file) and that I should pay the money back at the same rate at which the debt was incurred. Spread out like that, it was not an issue, so that was what I did, but at no time was there any acknowledgement of the error, or anything resembling an apology.

The timing of this incident was interesting. It happened immediately following the 2014 Coalition budget, which was also the springboard for the development of Robodebt.

The political culture of a party that has always treated voters as collateral was evident between 1965 and 1972 when it conscripted one in twelve young men to fight overseas in a civil war in peacetime to hold on to DLP preferences. That little frolic killed about two hundred. That same culture was evident between 2014 and 2018 when welfare recipients were demonised in an appeal to redneck voters. That killed a number which is unclear, but many were classified as "vulnerable".

It has come back to bite the Liberals and Nationals on the bum, but I doubt that it will make any difference to their political value system. 

Power for power's sake is a common and consistent thread right through from 1965 until 2022. Appealing to fear and loathing has also been completely consistent during this period. 

Comments closed.

Of Bazball and English Encounters

1980 Centenary test scoresheet.

 The ashes series currently underway in the UK reminds me of the Centenary Test held at Lord's between August 28th and September 2nd 1980.

At the time my bride and I were touring the UK and Europe in a hired Bedford Dormobile, a stolid and reliable vehicle, but not the easiest thing to drive on the congested British roads.

Dormobile

We had bought tickets to attend the Centenary test, although neither of us were cricket fans. Our attendance was more about the historic nature of that one-off match, than it was about the ashes, but it was an interesting experience. We were staying in a caravan park in London, and caught a bus to the ground to watch a full day's play.

From memory, Australia declared at the end of each innings, after Graeme Wood scored a century in the first, and Greg Chappell and Kim Hughes got stuck into the English bowlers in the second.

The Poms proceeded (through Geoff Boycott and Graham Gooch) to put up the shutters and play for a draw. It was a great spectacle, but pretty boring cricket.

A few days later, we had to put the Dormobile in for a scheduled service prior to crossing the channel, so booked it into a metropolitan Vauxhall dealer for the job, whilst we went shopping in the Mall and took in a movie. I can't remember what it was. That was over forty years ago, after all. It may have been The Chant of Jimmie Blacksmith, but I can't be sure.

We rocked up to the dealer and I produced travelers cheques to pay for the service. The bloke behind the counter wouldn't accept them, and the banks were closed as it was late in the day, so I called for the manager. We didn't have enough cash, and that was in the days before travelling with credit cards. The manager wasn't happy, and by this time, nor was I, so I told him he was running his business like his countrymen played cricket - lacking in imagination.

I don't know whether this conversation made any difference, or if our threat that we would have to sleep in the vehicle in the forecourt (given it was our accommodation) convinced him, but he released the vehicle. Looking back on it, the travelers' cheques were secure, but I don't think he'd struck anyone using them for payment, and this made him uncomfortable.

Now, forty years later, the Poms (or their media) are claiming they have seen the light and are now playing entertaining cricket. They call it Bazball.

Perhaps they've seen the light. 

What Has Changed?

The woodcutters we encountered

The controversy about ADF behaviour in Afghanistan simply won't go away, with Jacqui Lambie's referral of the Australian Defence Force officers to the International Criminal Court over alleged war crimes. 

 Whether or this is going to have any useful outcome is doubtful, but it has certainly elevated the issue on the international scene, and undoubtedly made senior commanders uncomfortable. 

Perhaps the soldiers involved will see it as an opportunity to bring these senior commanders to account, and through that, be granted some vindication. It has always seemed passing strange that they were blissfully unaware of the alleged misconduct. 

Because my 1970 experience with 5 Platoon included mostly long distance patrols and ambushes in the Tan Ru, a long way from any villages, there were very few encounters with civilians, so I vividly remember this rare one. We were on a TAOR* in March 1970, when we came across a party of woodcutters in what was a free fire zone, in other words, an area where civilians were prohibited from access. They were using a very overloaded truck and when we caught sight of them, attempted to drive away from us, as they were in and on the vehicle, and our patrol was obviously on foot.

The patrol commander shot off a magazine of M-16 in the air, and they got the message and stopped. We then spent the rest of the day guarding them until the local authorities got out of bed and answered our request to have them vetted. This took all day, so we spent hours with them. They were a mix of women, old men, and quite a few children.

We treated them well, making sure they had water, and put up hootchies to protect them from the sun. This treatment was an expectation of everybody in our unit. I can't vouch for what happened outside 7 RAR, but maltreatment of civilians was not part  of our behaviour.

Some of this may have been a result of what had been drilled into us through the soldier's handbook. I've included scans of the text below.

This material was taken from the excellent From Nui Dat to Discharge (Adrian Taylor & Karl Metcalf), April 2020, which is a compilation of material collected from members of 4 platoon B Coy, 7RAR. 

It makes interesting reading. Some extracts -

You must observe these rules whether or not the enemy does likewise...

And 

Remember always treat your prisoners in a humane manner...

And 

All the persons in your hands, whether civilians or battle captives, must be protected against violence, insults, curiosity, and reprisals of any kind...

Now I'm not going to pretend that there were never any incidents of mistreatment of prisioners in Vietnam by ADF personnel, but I never saw it, and when it did happen, a blind eye was not turned. It was also rare. It was certainly light years from what is alleged in Afghanistan. 

So what has changed in 50+ years?

I'll venture some suggestions, gentle reader.

The first is a growth (probably cancerous) in our military culture that there exists such a notion as a "warrior class", for whom the normal rules of conduct do not apply. This culture seems to have unfiltrated OR's (and some NCOs) in the SAS regiment. The results are clear to see. Apart from the unfortunate Afghans who encountered it, usually to their cost, it has killed a lot of Afghan veterans who were traumatised by it, and have taken their own lives since. It is a sick and sad culture.

The second is the progression to an all volunteer ADF. 

Conscription, with all its evils (particularly when it is selective and not universal) leavens the culture of any unit by including a cross section of individuals who don't necessarily see military service as a career choice. Professional military units always attract a sprinkling of psychopaths seduced by the notion that they are free to kill, and if not weeded out after enlistment, they can do enormous damage to the culture of any unit.

At least the all volunteer force deployed in Afghanistan included sufficient well balanced individuals with backbone who blew the whistle on the few psychopaths who did all the damage.

The question remains - why were the senior commanders unaware?

*Task Force Area of Responsibility - Routine overnight patrols out to Line Alpha from Nui Dat,.

Rude Awakenings

 

Pic courtesy primer.com.au

Once again, gentle reader, the media is replete with narratives, strange but true, about the behaviour of the boys and girls in Canberra.

It has become bleedingly obvious that the hallowed and timeworn power balance between the genders in both major parties has been upset. Intriguingly, whilst most of our elected representatives have understood the changes, there are quite a few for whom the penny has yet to drop.

Notable amongst these are individuals like our most previous prime minister, the current member for New England, and a certain senator for the state of Victoria. The previous PM made a mess of his party's management of the Brittany Higgins debacle, which, in the wash up, has become a human tragedy, leaving a trail of victims, and costing the Australian taxpayer a great deal of money.

The member for New England continues to pontificate about how relationships between elected representatives and their staff should be managed, despite his chequered history.

And the Victorian senator has been revealed as a streaming hypocrite, after being interrupted in mid sermon by one of his alleged victims. It didn't take long for other alleged victims to emerge.

Even the election of a swathe of female TEAL members, partially on the coattails of this changing power balance seems to have gone unnoticed by these three individuals who are representative of a rapidly disappearing group of parliamentarians. They remind me of a herd of artificially inseminated  cows.

They are vaguely aware that something very significant has happened, but are utterly bewildered about its consequences. 

The Mobster Indicted

 

It's difficult, gentle reader, to ignore the soap opera in train across the Pacific, and once again, I am drawn like a moth to the flame. Please forgive me, but it is pretty incredible stuff.

The bland facts are, that an ex-POTUS has purloined a heap of classified documents, loaded them up, and taken them with him when he left office.

There is absolutely no doubt about this. The evidence is documented, recorded, and available.

His protestations that he can declassify a document by thinking about it are incredible, but there are plenty that have drunk the Trumpaide, who believe it. For me, the amazing aspect of all this is not so much that he makes these bizarre statements, but that some people actually believe them.

Then there's the cover up. Like his partner in crime, the late and unlamented Richard Nixon, the cover up has the potential to do real damage to his case. Not that there is any issue about the extent of the case against him.

It's stark and clear.

The jellybacks in the Republican party are using "whataboutism" as his defence. Nobody cares - nepotism has been a feature of US politics since Adam was a pup. 

If nothing else, it makes for fascinating entertainment. Watching a slow train wreck is always riveting.

If only it was fiction. The fact that it isn't is the most disturbing feature of the ongoing saga.

BRS and the ANZAC Myth

Pic courtesy Canberra Times

It's been a little quiet here lately, gentle reader.

A 30,000 word thesis deadline was hanging over my head, which has now been met, so back to normal posting..... 

 The media is wall-to-wall Ben Roberts-Smith, at the moment. It sells well as a story because it brings together so much of what causes outrage, and outrage always sells.

Personally, I feel some sympathy for Roberts-Smith, not because I believe he has been accused unjustly, I simply don't know, but because he's collateral in the culture wars. Soldiers are always collateral, of course, as any Vietnam veteran will tell you. 

 There are so many aspects of this issue which are tragic. The rate of suicide amongst Australian veterans of Afghanistan is the first aspect of the tragedy. Then there's the issue of the reputations of the ADF and the SAS. 

When I was in what we called the "Funny Country", the SAS were held in awe. We had little to do with them, and they were largely invisible to friend and foe alike at the time, and they would always avoid a fight if possible. 

 Fighting wasn't really their role. They were essentially involved in collecting intelligence, and they were very good at it. 

They seem to have been used in a very different way in Afghanistan which brought them into contact with civilians. Some units seemed to have gone feral. This may have come about because their own culture has always seen them as a race apart and they made up rules as they went along. It's difficult to understand how higher command turned a blind eye to this, but it's apparent, by the outcome, that they did. 

Accountability needs to go all the way up the line, and this doesn't seem to be happening. 

 Then there's the ANZAC myth, as distinct from the ANZAC tradition. The myth holds that Australians in uniform can do no wrong, and if they are fighting for King and Country, they're somehow excused from accountability. The problem with this notion is, that if accepted, it brings our fighting men and women down to the same level as those who would use terrorism and intimidation to achieve their ends. That simply won't wash. 

Heaven help anyone who is critical of aspects of the myth.

The best aspects of the ANZAC tradition uphold compassion, a fair go, and the capacity not to take ourselves too seriously. The last aspect is what makes us so different from the Americans, something which was very obvious in Vietnam all those years ago. 

 The media need to let go of this story, as it harms all those involved, especially the soldiers who served, and their families. There's a whiff of stereotyping wrapped up in this, redolent of the "baby-killer" meme which did the rounds post Vietnam. This doesn't mean the media shouldn't report it, but they should not exploit it. That seems to be something that local media can't avoid.

Accountability needs to be applied, but doing so in the full glare of publicity, to sell clics and newspapers will do more harm than good, and enough harm has been done already, both in Afghanistan and back home in Australia.

Polite Meaningless Words

 

Image courtesy Google

One of my favorite poems is W.B. Yeats' "Easter, 1916".

It contains the line (repeated) "polite meaningless words".

He describes how the actions of the Irish rebels transformed them from ordinary people living ordinary lives to the personification of a "terrible beauty". That "beauty" was the dream of an independent Ireland, free of the yoke of perfidious Albion.

He expresses it well, and the powerful music of the language carries the emotion of the tribute with simplicity, clarity and power.

As a child growing up in North Queensland and attending a couple of small bush primary schools, I remember daily morning parade when we recited the following -

"I love my country; I honour my Queen; I salute my flag".

These were polite meaningless words for us as school children. 

We mumbled them because it became habit. There was never any emotion or intensity behind them. We had more important things to be concerned about. We would have been able, however, to explain what these words meant, if asked.

Nobody objected. The Loyal Oath was very much part of the social furniture. This was, of course, the late fifties.

Now, in 2023, we have the routine "Welcome to Country".

It resembles the loyal oath in that it is a simple acknowledgement of history. Both the Welcome to Country and the Loyal Oath are acknowledgements of fact. The first acknowledged the fact that as young Australians, we understood that we lived in a constitutional monarchy, and we owed it our loyalty. We were not responsible for that fact of history, but were the inheritors of it.

The Welcome to Country also acknowledges the facts of history. For over 50,000 years prior to colonisation, the original inhabitants of this country had lived in this country until they were dispossessed of it. We are not responsible for that fact of history, but are the inheritors of it.

So we use a few words to acknowledge it. It may, like the Loyal Oath, become "polite meaningless words", but has value because of what it represents.

The curmudgeons who take exception to it have very little real understanding of our country's history or culture.

They will, I'm sure, get over it.....