Pocock buys billboards to pressure Chalmers on gas export tax

well fair enuff, but considering this admirable man's pre-pollie noble history of active protests, i suggest he begin going back to the old playbook... chaining-onto ol' jimbo til the bastard gives in & finally does the right thing

#AusPol #WhyIsLabor #HahahahaLiebs #NatsAreNuts #GreensYEAH #VoteGreens #VoteProgIndies
RE: social.chinwag.org/users/guard…

canberratimes.com.au/story/922…

US President Donald Trump is letting it be known that he is considering pulling the United States from NATO, and perhaps some of America's alliance relationships. This is in part because of his anger, embarrassment and frustration that his European allies, and even some of his Asian allies such as Japan, South Korea and Australia, did not automatically follow the US, or Israel for that matter, into his war against Iran. His fury was redoubled when many of the European nations, including England, gave chapter-and-verse explanations about their reservations, ones also being voiced in the US.

The war aims were far from clear, the reasons for it were being made up and changed as Trump went along, the urgency never explained. Trump had no exit strategy. His bombast, and, even worse, the noise coming from the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, was a distinct turn-off, and, in any event, never reflected the truth of the conflict. To Europe, indeed, it looked precisely the sort of conflict in which the US has become enmired and enmeshed, and generally defeated, since Korea. It was not a war that US allies had helped plan. It was not a war about which they were consulted. Most had made their opposition clear well before bombs were hitting schools or popes were becoming agitated. No one felt any sort of instinctive duty to stand by an old friend.

Trump may hope that NATO countries, learning that he is serious, might fall into a heap of apologies, with renewed unwilling military investment, and reparation presents such as Greenland. But I doubt he has his hopes up. The disdain is mutual.

He has been disparaging European and NATO leaders for decades and has talked of walking away from NATO before. He has been increasingly indifferent to Ukraine's interests in its defence against a Russian invasion and has made it clear that he expects Europe to assume the whole burden, if it wants to. He, and the Vice-President, JD Vance, seem not to care much about Ukraine.

Trump has hurled insults and abuse, and European leaders have become increasingly frank with their populations about their reservations concerning the value of the US as a great and powerful ally. Especially under Trump. But Europe has seemed quite conscious that even a more steady, steadfast and patient successor American president will be unable to restore the old status quo. Unlike Australia, most NATO countries have had a dialogue with their citizens and their neighbours about their concerns with the American government.

The NATO countries and alliances Trump is talking of walking away from have not lost their desire for collective security, even if they have declining faith in whether America will be by their side. They fear Russian aggression. They understand that the western alliance embraces Asia and Pacific nations as much as Europe and the Atlantic. Increasingly they are thinking about practical ways of drawing into their plans Australia, Canada, and key western-oriented nations such as South Korea, Japan and Singapore. They maintain close relationships with countries such as the ASEAN nations and India, who are also concerned about mutual defence in superpower politics.

Australia and other Asian powers are closely involved in informal contingency discussions. They are well aware of NATO thinking about possible future western security arrangements that do not involve the US, let alone US military leadership. In some respects, people are hardly talking about anything else. The personality, the moods and the character of Trump are key national security questions.

The scenarios include America picking up its toys and going home to be a truculent isolationist state, the US retaining an eye on its hegemonic interests but no longer much concerned with collective security, and even the US playing some sort of lone ranger. No one assumes that the US will change sides, or totally disengage, or that it will stop pressing most of its interests in the Pacific neighbourhood. But they do expect that American policy will remain erratic and unpredictable, on the existing Trump model. It's assumed the US will decline to take up a lead role as an international citizen, let alone with a chequebook. And further, that the US will become increasingly indifferent to international human rights concerns, and matters of the environment, the international movement of peoples, the functions of United Nations agencies and international development matters.

If there is any serious break-up, it is unlikely that it will follow any initiative, ideas, or even outbreaks of courage or common sense coming from Australia. It is already clear that the governing Labor Party does not have the stuff for that. Indeed, during the period in which the US has become estranged from old friends, the Australian political, intelligence and defence establishment has moved closer to America, but without any sign that our servility is building up credit in the bank.

Hard thinking about the future of US engagement with the world necessarily involves considering the future of the ANZUS and AUKUS agreements, and the risk that either or both could simply be torn up in a fit of American anger at Australia, or at the world. Trump has very elastic ideas about when and whether treaties are for the long or the short term. He is often described as transactional in his relationships and his values, but this involves little sense of enduring friendships and relationships. It's more a matter of "what have you done for me lately?". The working assumption is that the benefits of deals or arrangements flow primarily towards the US, and that they are up for renegotiation if the flow changes.

There are big opportunities in the way the US is nursing its wounds. Australia is being pushed by circumstance towards a more independent defence and foreign policy, whatever the feeling in some quarters that we must stick close to nanny. But what if the initiative for some split up is not to be an Australian one, but an American one? What if western nations still want viable security arrangements and relationships, even if America doesn't want to play?

America, after all, is doing exactly the same thing at their end, and will not be asking our views about their options. America's more craven fifth-columnists here may hope that Australia emerges at the other end even more closely connected to America, but it won't happen simply because they want more sucking up. And they cannot deny the real possibility that America may consciously go another way without any regard for old associations or agents in place here. Trump is not sentimental about such matters.

It's a debate now being forced on us, not of our own choosing. An independent assessment of where our defence and foreign policy interests are usually begins as a question of whether we'd be better off going it alone. But what's now involved is more a matter of alternative arrangements if the old ones become unworkable. This debate assumes we'll be looking for new friends in continuing security arrangements. These new friends will be old and reliable friends in new roles, with whose strategic thinking and defence doctrines Australia is familiar. The impetus for talking about it, locally, or in conversations with others, need not be (though it should be) factored around domestic issues of pride, and nationalism, our geography and culture. It's about judging our own future national interests. It need not be seen as a declaration of independence from an overbearing and ailing former partner who has become too eccentric, so much as a simple adaptation to a new reality forced on us by external pressures.

Albanese and the Labor party could engage in such a debate, and in such a transition without being seen (other than by The Australian and the Strategic Policy Institute) as surrender monkeys. In just the same manner as discussing a future national defence policy, it is, after all, simply prudent planning. It's acknowledging that the world is changing rapidly, that there are new challenges and threats, and new opportunities to define our place in the region.

Particularly if, or as, old realities cease to be, and some of our partners walk away. Presiding over such a discussion need not involve the government's repudiation of its nuclear submarine deals, although the deal may collapse as a consequence of decisions made elsewhere and imposed upon us. I think that it would be a sign of our regional maturity if Australia made such a decision independently of aligning itself with NATO, Japan and Korea. Likewise I do not think it inevitable that an honest discussion will always have Australia in formal alliance relationships with nations permanently pitted against Russia and China, or even potentially Israel. But it is plain that Albanese and his colleagues are up to only tiny steps, not grand ones.

It should, of course, be occurring with a real dialogue between government and the Australian population, as well as with friends and neighbours. And even with nations in the region, such as China and potentially India with whom we have potential differences. Consultation is not simply a matter of talking behind closed doors with "stakeholders" - those with a vested interest in the status quo. It involves being open to new ideas - always a challenge for Albanese.

Australia under Albanese may have managed the trading and security relationship with China more successfully than previous conservative governments. Yet Albanese and the Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, and even the odd defence chief cannot help making ritual hostile noises about China, mostly to placate US opinion. One would think from the chatter of the stakeholders that Australia now sits in the default position of thinking it would join the US in defending Taiwan if China attempts to invade. Two years ago, the working assumption was otherwise, and, if the position has changed, it has not been discussed with the primary stakeholders - the Australian people. It is an effect of the secretive way that defence policy is being made. It would not enjoy majority Australian support, and would be very damaging to Australia's short, medium and long-term national interests.

We should look to the recent conflicts in Iran, Palestine and Ukraine. In each, our great and powerful friend had access to overwhelming superior force, whether by themselves or with Israel. In none of these wars has that power yet prevailed in changing the power structures. In none have threats and tantrums, whether directed at popes, US allies, or even at the supposed enemy, worked much either.

Even if Albanese is too timid and frightened to organise such a debate, he must recognise that things have changed dramatically over recent months. There's no longer a general international conspiracy to keep quiet about Donald Trump or his cabinet ministers, in the hope that he will not be provoked. No longer any value in hiding in the hope that he might not notice you and thus avoid imposing a new tariff. If all the nations Australia holds in greatest regard are focused on what to do about Trump, will they see an Australian unwillingness to offend as cowardice? Is our silence a failure to attend to our own sovereign interests?

Albanese made a very bad mistake in initially embracing the American and Israeli war in Iran. He was the only American ally (apart from Israel) to do so. He quickly backpedalled when he found himself alone in no-man's land. He had at least the common sense to avoid offering Australian assistance (or Australian lives) to the US, despite reproaches from Trump. Trump's desperation to get oil moving past the Strait of Hormuz will increase as it impacts on world economic health and stock markets. Australian involvement with European nations in a plan excluding the US, assuming it goes ahead, is another matter, perhaps a dress rehearsal for just the new combinations and arrangements on the drawing boards. Loyalty is a two-way street.

  • Jack Waterford is a former editor of The Canberra Times.

#AusPol #WhyTheFuckIsLabor #HahahahaLiebs #NatsAreNuts #GreensYEAH #VoteGreens #VoteProgIndies #PHONkedinthehead
#USPol #TuckFrump #FuckRWNJs #magamorons #FuckChristoFascists #FuckAllReligion #OrangeOaf #HeyFascistCatch

Trump is forcing Australia to finally grow up on the world stage

It takes two to make alliances and the US may run away first.

Kos' insights

thenewdaily.com.au/opinion/202…

Voters no longer want managers – they want fighters

Across Western democracies, voters are abandoning consensus politics in favour of leaders willing to fight, name enemies and prosecute a cause – a shift reshaping both left and right.

#AusPol #WhyTheFuckIsLabor #HahahahaLiebs #NatsAreNuts #GreensYEAH #VoteGreens #VoteProgIndies #PHONkedinthehead

Voters no longer want managers – they want fighters

What is happening with voters and politicians across western democracies is not a normal cyclical correction.

@Jinjirrie i honestly don't know how it'll pan out.

  • on one hand are the super obvious points... the liebs' history of fucking the country, the demographic shift away from them, the utter vacuity & outright nastiness of their "policy" brainfarts, PHON's history of self-destruction, their chronic absence of actual policy, their hideous racism & transphobia, their tenacious defence of flat-earthism anti-science...
  • otoh, the strayan electorate has a long history of shooting itself in the foot with outrageously dumb voting choices... & my despair at the apparent rise & rise here of imported merkan toxicity

so... 🤔🤷‍♀️

#AusPol #WhyTheFuckIsLabor #HahahahaLiebs #NatsAreNuts #GreensYEAH #VoteGreens #VoteProgIndies #PHONkedinthehead

@Jinjirrie fuckheads be fuckheady & do copious fuckheadary 😡🖕

#auspol #hahahahaliebs

What Pauline Hanson's popularity tells us about ourselves

It’s tempting to look at the rise of Pauline Hanson yet still not take it very seriously. It’s time we confronted our arrogance on this.

Women's Agenda

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9217052/ben-roberts-smith-vc-recipient-innocent-until-proven-guilty/

'Wider ramifications': Michael McCormack worried Ben Roberts-Smith's arrest will hurt ADF

Opposition veterans' affairs spokesperson Michael McCormack fears the arrest of Australia's most decorated living former soldier will undermine the Australian Defence Force's recruitment efforts.

Australian Federal Police arrested Ben Roberts-Smith at Sydney Airport on Tuesday over alleged war crimes during his service in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2012, with the Victoria Cross recipient expected to face five Commonwealth charges in court on Wednesday.

"Nobody who hasn't worn a uniform, nobody who hasn't been sent to war ... understands what he's gone through," Mr McCormack told this masthead, saying it was important to acknowledge "the complexities of war."

"He was sent to do a job, sent to serve his nation, called upon to do duty," he said, describing that Afghanistan conflict as "a war like no other" with ADF members fighting an enemy that did not wear a uniform.

"Many of them, of course, wore farmers' garb and still had deadly weapons and used them against Australians ... I do feel for our veterans. And I just wonder what this, ultimately - and I know Ben Roberts-Smith is just one case - but what does this say to our ability to then recruit others to go and serve their nation?"

AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett said it was alleged the 37-year-old former soldier or his subordinates shot unarmed Afghan nationals who were not taking part in hostilities but were detained, unarmed and under the control of ADF members when they were allegedly murdered.

The arrest was a result of a joint investigation by the Australian Federal Police and Office of the Special Investigator (OSI).

OSI Director of Investigations Ross Barnett said war crimes allegations were "extremely complex matters to investigate."

A further 13 matters involving allegations of war crimes by ADF members in Afghanistan are ongoing, after 39 cases were closed after investigations did not gather enough evidence for a prosecution.

Mr McCormack said Australian soldiers were sent into "very rugged terrain and difficult conditions" in Afghanistan.

He said it worried him that a civilian court would judge the actions of ADF members in a conflict zone, instead of a military adjudication.

"Where do we start and stop with this?" he said.

"They get the nation's highest honour for valour, and they come back, and then they have a civilian court tell them that they should not have done whatever they did."

Ultimately, though, he said: "We'll let the courts decide, and that's the due and proper process."

He said if Mr Roberts-Smith was acquitted of war crime murder charges, he would be owed an apology by the media.

"It's all well and good for investigative journalists and media outlets with very deep pockets to pursue Australian servicemen and women, but mainly men, for things that happened in the fog of war, in the difficulty of war, in circumstances that are like no other here in Australia," Mr McCormack said.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese declined to comment on Tuesday.

"I have no intention of prejudicing a matter that is before the courts," Mr Albanese said.

Opposition leader Angus Taylor issued a joint statement with his defence spokesperson James Paterson, defence industry spokesperson Philip Thompson and Mr McCormack on Tuesday afternoon.

"The Coalition wants to acknowledge the extraordinary role of our special forces," it said.

"The developments we're seeing should not detract from the respect and gratitude we hold for the men and women who serve this nation in some of the most difficult and dangerous circumstances imaginable.

"We are incredibly proud of our serving ADF personnel and our veterans. They deserve our respect, our support, and our unwavering commitment to stand by them."

The Australian War Memorial has announced plans to update the wording on a plaque next to its display of Mr Roberts-Smith's uniform, medals and equipment in the Hall of Valour.

Mr McCormack said any change to the plaque should be worded "very carefully" and that "we're all entitled to the presumption of innocence, until proven otherwise."

#AusPol #WhyIsLabor #HahahahaLiebs #NatsAreNuts #GreensYEAH #VoteGreens #VoteProgIndies

'Wider ramifications': Michael McCormack worried Ben Roberts-Smith's arrest will hurt ADF

'Nobody who hasn't been sent to war understands what he's gone through'.

@abc_bot so unbelievable... yet not

#auspol #vicpol #HahahahaLiebs

@guardian_bot at the time i thought he was pretty ok, but in retrospect maybe not so much. his govt, then the keating govt, were major instigators of our catastrophic lurch into the scourge of neoliberalism. ofc subsequent govts intensified this, then added their own flavours of shitfuckery, but bloody hell they sure were given a leg up by the h/k govts, sigh.

#AusPol #WhyIsLabor #HahahahaLiebs #NatsAreNuts #GreensYEAH #VoteGreens #VoteProgIndies

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/the-man-who-knew-too-much-barry-jones-on-albo-putin-and-the-end-of-the-line-20260330-p5zk0t.html?ref=rss

At 93, the Labor legend and former science minister is eyeing the “exit ramp”. But he isn’t going quietly.
Rob Harris:

Weighing a life as sprawling as Barry Jones’ is no simple task – least of all for the man himself.

At 93, with what he calls an eye on “the exit ramp”, Jones is not inclined to dwell on the accolades. After decades at the front line of politics and ideas, he knows he mightn’t be around much longer. What matters to him now is not what he has done, but what endures – and what has been left undone.

“I’m preoccupied with what hasn’t been achieved,” he says.

It is a disarming starting point for a figure whose career has few parallels in Australian public life. Long before he entered parliament, Jones was a household name as the brilliant TV quiz show champion of Pick-a-Box – a polymath whose recall dazzled audiences.

But even then, knowledge was only part of the story.

“I’m always interested in making linkages,” says Jones, one of the National Trust’s Australian Living Treasures.

“I can see patterns. I can see relationships between things somehow which other people haven’t.”

That instinct – to connect ideas, to think across disciplines and timeframes – became the defining thread of his career. It took him from high school teacher in Melbourne’s working-class suburbs to pioneering talkback radio host, to state politics, into federal parliament, into cabinet as science minister under Bob Hawke, to the presidency of the Australian Labor Party, and onto the global stage through UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee.

In September last year, Jones suffered a “ridiculous fall” at home in Melbourne, with a “three-point landing”.

“I hit my head, right buttock and base of spine,” he says. What followed was 40 days in a Melbourne hospital and respite care. In a piece for The Saturday Paper, penned while recuperating, he said his leg “had done an Optus”.

“The lines of communication were cut and I could no longer walk. My life changed forever.”

He’s now home and recovering, but frail. His famous mind, however, is sharp as ever. Among those to debate the world by his hospital bed were Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty, philosopher Rai Gaita, ex-prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, climate campaigner and political disruptor Simon Holmes a Court, ex-union boss Bill Kelty, former media executive Ranald Macdonald, teal MP Monique Ryan and champions of the arts such as Jill Smith and Ralph and Ruth Renard.

He’s keeping a close eye on the rise of Queensland senator Pauline Hanson and of growing anti-immigration sentiment. His stint in respite care sharpened his view in a way no policy paper could.

Of his 21 nurses while in care, only two were “Anglo”, he says. The other 19 were Nepalese, Hong Kongers, Indonesian or Somali heritage.

“If we didn’t have them, we’d be in diabolical trouble,” he says. “I will be increasingly dependent on that kind of skill.”

“You can’t look at the whole question of [immigration], whether it’s good or bad, have a particular fixed number of people coming in, before you make a decision about how many people you want, like me, living on into their 90s.”

The experience reinforces his long-held belief that Australia’s future depends on its ability to remain open – even as politics often drifts in the opposite direction. He fears too many people have picked up one of US President Donald Trump’s observations that empathy is “a very bad word”.

“Empathy means ‘weakness’,” he says. “If you think about somebody else’s interest rather than just your own, then you’re ‘weak’ in the situation. It’s quite troubling.”

Jones’ renowned curiosity has placed him at unlikely intersections of history.

He has “known or met” every Australian prime minister since Robert Menzies’ first stint in office in 1939, “give or take a few”. A chance meeting with Dame Patti Menzies in a suburban supermarket led to a friendship and many long conversations with her husband. The recordings remain in Jones’ vast personal archives.

A close friendship with Malcolm Fraser nearly created a new political party. He missed a chance to chat with Scott Morrison at the funeral of former Nationals leader Tim Fischer, but he can boast Billy Hughes, Australia’s seventh prime minister, on the list.

What was Hughes like, I ask. “Doddery, but interesting,” he replies. “Of course, he wrecked every party he joined.”

Hughes – the fiery wartime leader – was still in parliament when Jones encountered him, a living relic of an earlier political age. Decades later, in a collapsing Soviet system, Jones would meet another figure who at the time seemed entirely unremarkable.

He’d joined former foreign minister Gareth Evans to meet with St Petersburg mayor Anatoly Sobchak in 1990 but when the pair arrived, they were greeted by his assistant.

“Mr Putin will represent him instead,” Jones recalls being told. “This sort of colourless figure came in and we sort of looked at our watches and thought, ‘Oh, God, how long we’re going to sit here talking to him?’ We sort of waved him off after a while and thought, well, that’s the last we’ll ever see of him.”

He pauses, almost amused by the memory.

“Well, we couldn’t have been more wrong.”

From Hughes to Vladimir Putin – an “odd couple” that captures the sweep of Jones’ life as both participant and observer. If there is a consistent theme, it is foresight.

He pioneered the campaign for homosexual rights and successfully advocated for the abolition of the death penalty as an MP in the Victorian parliament in the 1970s. He also dedicated much of his career to reviving the Australian film industry and preserving Antarctica from the threats of mining.

Hansard, the official transcript of federal parliament, shows Jones was the first person to speak of pending climate change. He spoke early about artificial intelligence, the genetic revolution and the implications of an ageing population – often decades before those ideas entered mainstream debate.

“Climate change was one of those things that drove a lot of my colleagues mad,” he says.

He had been thinking about it since the 1960s. But as he would discover, foresight rarely aligns with political incentives.

“I would say to Bob Hawke: ‘Look, we’ve got to take the issue of climate change seriously’,” he recalls. “And he’d say, ‘but when’s the impact going to be seen at its worst?’

“And you think, well, it might be another 25 years and he’d reply: ‘Well, you come back to me sometime later, before the 25 years is up, and we’ll do something about it, but I’ve got a problem this week’.”

That exchange has stayed with him – a shorthand for the dominance of short-term thinking.

“I think it’s horrible,” Jones says of modern politics. “We don’t have debates any more.”

His assessment of Anthony Albanese is careful, but telling. He has a “very interesting mind”, Jones says, is “extremely diligent” with “a mastery of detail”.

But in Jones’ telling, those qualities have not always translated into the kind of political courage required to act on issues such as gambling reform – where he says the case for change is overwhelming, but the politics might be hard.

This is where he grumbles about the Albanese government’s lack of ambition. Jones points to the landmark inquiry led by the late Peta Murphy, which laid bare the social harm caused by gambling, and proposed sweeping changes.

“It’s an outstanding report,” he says. “But in fact, it’s been marginalised.”

The consequences, he argues, are visible in communities across the country.

“You’ve got people who are destitute, who then become suicidal, absolutely violent with their families,” he says.

“There’s an extraordinary amount of spending in it, and that’s indefensible. Our lack of social responsibility over gambling is simply appalling.”

In the days after this interview took place, Albanese announced several new measures to address issues raised in the report, including further restrictions in gambling advertising, but critics still believe the changes are wholly unsatisfactory.

Jones worries that Albanese has been too fixated about breaking promises from his days in opposition, such as with capital gains tax concessions and negative gearing. He also can’t understand why Albanese has “pushed aside” raw talent on his frontbench like his long-time friend, Tanya Plibersek.

“There’s some areas that I’d like to see him more interested in – in some of those quality-of-life areas. I wish he was much more interested in the arts, in heritage, in the preservation of great Australian places.”

Jones also laments the lack of Labor figures in the modern era, such as Whitlam-era minister Clyde Cameron, a former shearer and head of the Australian Workers Union.

“No tertiary education at all, but ferociously well-read. If people said, Clyde Cameron’s going to be up at eight o’clock, the House would be full because we knew there’d be a very lively, a very interesting, very challenging debate.”

“Now you think, well, who’s the equivalent of the Labor side of Clyde Cameron? I don’t know.”

Jones speaks of a parliament that once thrived on argument and intellect, where figures could hold the chamber with force of ideas alone. Now, he says, the system is thinner, more transactional, more cautious – shaped by money, factional deals and a relentless focus on the immediate.

And yet, even in his critique, Jones draws careful distinctions. Australia, he insists, still gets some things right.

“We take for granted the way in which we run clean elections,” he says, pointing to the independence of electoral authorities and the culture of compulsory participation.

But where the system falters, he argues, is where courage is required.

For a man now measuring time differently, those missed moments loom large. The climate warnings that came too early, the reforms that stalled, the debates that never happened.

#AusPol #WhyTheFuckIsLabor #HahahahaLiebs #NatsAreNuts #GreensYEAH #VoteGreens #VoteProgIndies #PHONkedinthehead

The man who knew too much: Barry Jones on Albo, Putin and the end of the line

At 93, the Labor legend and former science minister is eyeing the “exit ramp”. But he isn’t going quietly, taking aim at Anthony Albanese’s lack of courage on reform and a political system that has lost its way.

The Sydney Morning Herald