DAYS: 2016 - 2018
These blogs began in 2004 and have been maintained somewhat haphazardly by the founder of A Sense of Place Publishing, journalist John Stapleton, ever since. They are not polished pieces of writing, but a rough "first draft of history", so to speak. Some of the material thus collected has made it into various books, including The Twilight Soi, Hunting the Famous, Terror in Australia: Workers' Paradise Lost and Hideout in the Apocalypse.
Vic Meli came to Australia when he was 18 months old.
ABC NEWS: STEPHANIE DALZELL
Vic Meli's parents left war-torn Malta for a better life in Australia when he was just a toddler.
But growing up in suburban Sydney as a migrant child in the 1950s was challenging.
"Australia was very racist, the polite ones called us new Australians - the others just called us wogs," he said.
Mr Meli is now among a growing number of migrants voting for One Nation.
ABC analysis of voting trends and Census data has revealed last election, Pauline Hanson's One Nation and Clive Palmer's United Australia Party (UAP) polled strongly in electorates with the highest percentage of migrants in Australia, despite campaigning against further immigration.
When asked why a migrant was voting for a party that has been outspoken against some immigrants, Mr Meli said he was protective of his country.
"Migrants are not migrants after they come here, they are new Australians," he said.
"And if they waited a long time in a queue and went through lots of steps — how do you think they feel about a so-called queue-jumper?
Labor suffered a swing of more than 7 per cent on primary votes.
It was a similar story in other diverse electorates.
Take nearby Chifley, where more than 45 per cent of voters are migrants from countries like the Philippines and India. Here, the UAP picked up almost 5 per cent of the vote.
Labor's primary vote was down almost 7 per cent here also.
In the Melbourne seat of Calwell, where 43 per cent of voters are migrants from countries like Turkey and Iraq, the UAP picked up almost 4 per cent of the vote, while Labor lost almost 5 per cent of its primary vote.
ABC chief elections analyst Antony Green said it was difficult to tell from demographics whether the vote for One Nation and UAP was coming from the migrants or native-born Australians in the electorates.
"If you think of One Nation entirely as a party about race and immigration, you'd wonder why it would do so well in a seat like McMahon," he said.
"But it's also a protest party. People are voting for the party as a protest against other major parties. It's a sign of the breakdown of our party system in this country."
Mr Meli said he had not thought about changing political sides until recently.
"If you lived in the western suburbs and you were a new Australian — Labor was your party of choice because they protected the worker," he said.
"I can tell you now, when those idiots went into some mass hysteria in Parliament House, our blood curdled, especially when local MPs, who knew we were opposed to that bullshit, voted for it," Mr Meli said.
"We didn't move, Labor did. We stuck to the same values."
Mr Meli said One Nation's policies, which include a call for greater assimilation of migrants and cut in immigration numbers, resonated with him.
"What Pauline has said, if you come to Australia — be Aussie," he said.
"I did."
The ABC spoke to other migrants in western Sydney who supported One Nation.
All of them said they were scared to go on the record because of the potential for public backlash, but said they saw One Nation as the only way to protect Christian values in Australia.
"I've always said you bring in people into the country but make sure you have the facilities, the infrastructure in place before you invite more people into Australia."
Senator Hanson also attributed her support in migrant communities to her outspoken nature.
"I say what a lot of Australians haven't got the guts to come out and say."
Western Sydney Women director Amanda Rose said many migrants in the area were not even focused on the leader's immigration policy
She said their priorities were jobs, education and providing for their families.
"She can go anywhere in Australia and she'll find her people," Ms Rose said.
"People will at least look at her and say, 'I know what you stand for, I'll either back you or not back you' and you can't get that with the two major parties the majority of the time."
One Nation a party of 'disappointed conservatives'
If they are focused on her immigration policy, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Technology Sydney Andrew Jakubowicz said many migrants were supportive.
He said while Asian and Muslim communities might feel isolated by Senator Hanson's rhetoric on migration, other groups were on board.
"One Nation is a party essentially of the disappointed conservatives," Professor Jakubowicz said.
"What they're looking for is a party who will articulate their sense of frustrated desire."
Former Liberal candidate Dai Le, who is now an independent councillor in Fairfield, said she first became aware of Senator Hanson's support among her community at the last election, when people asked for One Nation how-to-vote cards.
"In south-west Sydney, the majority are non-English speaking, 50 per cent are born overseas, and who really represents them?" she said.
"The population and constituents are now questioning the representation of the major parties, and any minor parties, who actually stand up and voice different perspective and do not talk in the same language, have a different language, a different perspective on society, on social issues, on economic issues.
"The voters are ready for that."
Pauline Hanson effect politically significant
Mr Green said while One Nation only holds two Senate seats, Senator Hanson's power was still politically significant.
"I think the concern for the Labor party is if they lose support to One Nation, which is what appeared to happen in a couple of Western Sydney seats, those people might be on the way to vote for the Liberal Party instead," he said.
"What you're seeing is a loosening of the ties."
But political science lecturer from Sydney University Shaun Ratcliff said it was important to remember part of One Nation's success in 2019 was because the party ran more candidates than previously.
He said different migrant groups voted for all sorts of parties, and those who voted for One Nation were typically motivated by economic insecurity and immigration policies.
"Plenty of research has shown some people that were part of earlier groups that arrived a few decades ago, for instance, were not necessarily supportive of new groups from different parts of the world coming to Australia."
Labor and Liberal politicians admit they need to do more
Further south in Melbourne's inner-north, Egyptian-Australian Labor MP Peter Khalil said he believed his party needed to better engage migrant voters.
"I'm going to be very straightforward — which is unusual for a politician — but I have, for many years, said we cannot take for granted, multicultural communities," he said.
"Yes, they've always been big supporters of the Labor party but that doesn't just happen automatically."
The Member for Wills did not suffer any backlash in his own diverse electorate and is now part of a new multicultural Labor committee set-up to examine the issue.
"We have a job to make sure we are constantly finding ways to address the needs of these communities to make sure they feel like they're being represented," he said.
Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said the rise of support for One Nation was a concern.
"It's a lesson to both major parties that you've got to be in touch with the mainstream, but also be concerned about some of the issues that the politically correct and elites within our community don't necessarily want to talk about," he said.
"We've got to reach out to every sector within the community.
"We do it well but accept at all times we can do better."
For Vic Meli, One Nation has heard his concerns in a way the major parties never have.
Home affairs departmental officials were left scrambling on how to answer a question about a “strategic review” outlined in the government’s own budget papers, with senior staff admitting to being unaware one had been ordered, or what became of it, documents released under freedom of information laws reveal.
The review into Peter Dutton’s department was ordered just five months into the creation of the super-portfolio to identify “integrating capabilities, reducing duplication and maximising efficiencies”, with the then treasurer Scott Morrison setting aside $7m for the project in the 2018 budget papers.
A response to a freedom of information request from the Guardian into how the department had come to claim it had not released a report Dutton later claimed didn’t exist reveals the confusion within the department about what the strategic review listed in the budget papers was referring to.
The assistant secretary of enterprise governance and risk division responded “this review is not me and I am not aware of it”, when approached for information, despite the relevant budget paper having been included, with the inquiry bouncing around, as officials tried to undercover what the budget paper was referring to.
Eventually it was decided that the $7m review in question was related to a portfolio capability roadmap completed by the department in late 2018.
First assistant secretary in the capability, planning and development division of the department, Angus Kirkwood, gave approval on 5 July for the response that included that this roadmap “has not been publicly released”.
“A Home Affairs Portfolio Capability Roadmap was completed and provided to the Minister for Home Affairs in late 2018. The report has not been publicly released,” the original statement read.
But mentions of the roadmap were removed from the statement before it was provided to the Guardian. It was revised to: “A Home Affairs Portfolio Review was completed and the report has not been publicly released.”
Emails show that the response was also sent to the office of the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, “for noting”.
The department conceded there would be more questions from journalists following its response, instructing media staff to say “we have nothing further to add” when the inevitable followup queries came. Events played out as predicted.
The response was eventually provided to the Guardian on 8 July.
It wasn’t until the end of July, when Labor sought the tabling of the report in the Senate after seeing the Guardian’s story, that the department revised this statement again to claim there was no such report, and instead the strategic review comprised of “a number of packages of work undertaken”. “This did not form one review that can be released.”
Once Labor’s Kristina Keneally passed the motion demanding the report the department referred to be tabled, Dutton’s office became involved in explaining why the report did not exist, with the department admitting it had “incorrectly” provided a response the strategic review had been finalised.
Keneally said the scramble for answers within the department shone some light on why home affairs staff reported having the lowest morale within the public service.
“Let’s get this straight – the Department of Home Affairs couldn’t even answer three basic questions about their own strategic review: Was it done? What did it find? Will it be released publicly?,” she said after seeing the FOI response.
“If this is what taxpayers get for $7m of strategy advice under Peter Dutton, heaven help us. It’s no surprise that a recent survey showed that the Department of Home Affairs ranks dead last among public service agencies for morale, and that one in every three people working in home affairs wants to leave.”
Home affairs officials will face budget estimates on Monday.
The Coalition has preserved its lead over Labor despite concern over the economy and dissatisfaction of drought relief for farmers as Anthony Albanese’s approval ratings plunged to their lowest since he became Opposition Leader.
It’s not often the NT News misses a chance to show off their latest crocodile discovery.
But Monday’s front page may be exposing the biggest croc of them all.
In an unprecedented move, newspapers across the country are covering up their front pages with blacked-out stories to draw attention to laws eroding media freedom in Australia.
From Cairns to Burnie,Australians will wake up to censored newspapers across the country as a coalition of media companies launches the Right To Know campaign, to change six critical areas of law that are threatening freedom of the press.
Since 2002, there have been 75 pieces of federal legislation introduced that are designed to protect national security threats but have helped the government keep important – or embarrassing – information from the public.
Journalism, the campaign argues, cannot – and should not – be collateral damage in a democracy.
New research reveals that 87 per cent of Australians value a free and transparent democracy where the public is kept informed, but sadly, only 37 per cent believe this is happening in Australia today.
Australia sits at number 21 on the World’s Press Freedom index, in between Suriname and Samoa and far away from our friends across the ditch, New Zealand who have a much healthier ranking of seven. Norway is number one.
Today media companies from all over Australia unite in an unprecedented action to fight for press freedoms and the public’s right to know what’s going on in this country.
Australia’s Right To Know coalition of more than a dozen of the nation’s top media companies and industry organisations is campaigning for change to six critical areas of law that is allowing a veil of secrecy to being thrown over matters important to all Australians.
Since 2002, there have been 75 pieces of federal legislation intended to protect the public from national security threats but that have found new ways from stopping the public’s right to know what the Federal Government is doing.
New research reveals that 87 per cent of Australians value a free and transparent democracy where the public is kept informed, but sadly, only 37 per cent believe this is happening in Australia today.
While the government withholds information relating to aged care abuse, proposed new powers to spy on ordinary citizens, and the terms of land sales to foreign companies, Australians believe these are matters they absolutely have a right to know about.
The straw that broke the camel’s back were the raids on News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst (who now faces possible criminal charges, ironically because she reported the government was considering new powers to spy on all of us) and an unrelated raid on the ABC headquarters after a report detailing incidents of Australian special forces troops killing men and children in Afghanistan.
One day Australians might come to thank the Australian federal police for their raids on the ABC and the home of a News Corp journalist last June, the public integrity professor AJ Brown suggested during a Senate inquiry last week.
The raids – combing through the ABC’s computer system and the journalist Annika Smethurst’s kitchen cupboards and underwear drawers – were condemned around the world as outrageous and heavy-handed. But Brown was observing that they have also finally focused national attention on the rising tide of laws inhibiting press freedom and public interest whistleblowing.
Any concessions the government has made in response to the public shock and outrage have been nice words rather than concrete action.
In August the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, issued a ministerial direction saying he expected “the AFP to take into account the importance of a free and open press in Australia’s democratic society and to consider broader public interest implications before undertaking investigative action involving a professional journalist or news media organisation in relation to unauthorised disclosure of material made or obtained by a current or former Commonwealth officer”.
And the attorney general, Christian Porter, has said he would be “seriously disinclined” to authorise the prosecution of journalists and that the director of public prosecutions would need his personal approval before proceeding with any charges.
Fine sentiments, but you don’t need to be an investigative reporter to see they fall well short of any kind of statutory guarantee, and as the Law Council president, Arthur Moses, told the National Press Club, the result would be “an apprehension on the part of journalists that they will need to curry favour with the government or, in particular, the attorney general in order to avoid prosecution”.
Over the June quarter, Australia’s household debt hit a record high 191% of household disposable income, after roughly tripling since the late-1980s:
The latest Bank for International Settlements (BIS) global household debt data also confirmed that Australia has the second highest debt load in the world behind Switzerland, as well as the second highest average principal and interest payments on debt:
According to the ABC’s Michael Janda, Australia’s record household debt loads have become a millstone around the economy’s neck, forcing households to both work longer and spend less:
Ninety per cent of the nearly 55,000 respondents to the ABC’s Australia Talks National Survey rated household debt as a problem for the nation.
On an individual level, 37 per cent are struggling to pay off their own debts, with almost half of millennials reporting that debt is a problem for them personally…
Professor Roger Wilkins from Melbourne University is the deputy director of HILDA… says housing debt has more than doubled in real terms since HILDA was launched in 2001.
“So it’s now averaging around about $350,000 for those who actually have mortgage debt, compared with around about $160,000 in 2002, 2001,” he observes…
“When people are increasing their debt from one year to the next, they’re essentially accessing the equity in their home … people are evidently using that increased equity to fund consumption.
“Now that consumption could take many different forms — it could be renovating the home, it could be going on holiday, buying a new car.”
The problem is, after many years of a virtuous circle of rising home values on the back of rising debt, allowing further rises in home values and funding our lifestyles, to an extent the music has stopped…
“Such things as reducing interest rates as a guaranteed way of increasing demand so that there’s more employment, more housing, more purchase of housing and so forth, that no longer works”…
“What this research from the RBA shows is that households that have a higher level of debt, even if they have the same level of wealth overall, are going to have lower levels of consumption,” says Zac Gross, an economics lecturer from Monash University who used to work at the Reserve Bank…
Given Australians are amongst the world’s most indebted people, it’s no surprise then that we’re not running to the shops…
But we’re not just saving money by spending less, we’re also trying to work more.
Professor Rachel Ong ViforJ from Curtin University has found that the increasing number of older Australians who have yet to finish paying off their mortgage are far more likely to remain in the workforce.
“If you’re aged in your 40s, 50s or 60s and you’ve paid off your mortgage debt then the odds of you leaving the workforce is about four to five times higher than someone in the same age group who still has a mortgage debt burden,” she says…
Dr Manning says the ultimate flow-on from continued high debt levels is the risk of a financial and economic crisis if Australia’s overseas creditors get nervous about our ability to repay what we owe them on time and in full…
“If foreign lenders begin to take a dim view of Australia and, particularly, its banks, they’ll be reluctant to reinvest, they may require a higher interest rate, they may, in the last instance, simply refuse, in which case you’ve got big problems,” he says.
There’s nothing here readers of MB don’t already know. We’ve raised these risks repeatedly since our inception in 2011.
The drain on Australia’s economy is illustrated below. Household consumption accounts for around 55% of Australia’s final demand:
Household consumption is falling fast as consumers tighten their belts amid stagnating incomes:
As bad as the situation is, it would be much worse had the household savings rate not crashed and household debt risen, thus allowing households to increase their consumption spending as their incomes stagnated:
Obviously, the ability (and willingness) of Australian households to continue leveraging up to fund consumption is hitting its limits, which means that consumption spending growth must continue to fall.
Which make you wonder the Government’s overriding economic plan is to drive that leverage higher.
Basically, the Australian economy is facing a long period of sluggish demand growth as our record high household debt becomes a giant millstone around the economy’s neck.
