Crispin Hull

28% is dangerous for Labor

Another month of polling indicates that the new three-way split in Australian politics is permanent: a tad under a third of the first-preference vote to each of Labor, One Nation and the Coalition.

If support for One Nation had not surged, Labor’s primary-vote position would be diabolical and the usual self-fulfilling destabilising talk about leadership change would be rife.

Usually there is enough folly and perfidy in Australian politics to fill many columns every week. This week, though, the story is one of a politician doing what politicians are supposed to do: improve the well-being of their constituents, especially in the face of big corporate interests.

It began when the ice-maker in our fridge stopped making ice. Yes, I know this is very much a first-world problem, even in the tropics. That was in November, 2022.

The lessons from 1914

On 4 August 112 years ago, stupid decisions by the leaders of great powers at the time, Britian, Germany, France, Austria-Hungary and Russia, resulted in a catastrophic war that caused the deaths of millions and economic damage and dislocation that resonated for decades.

We are in a hauntingly similar situation today and we should strive to learn from the history so there is no repeat.

Senate threat to Labor legacy

Since the recent rise of One Nation, pollsters have had to deduce not just a Labor-v-Coalition two-party-preferred tally but also a Labor-v-One Nation two-party preferred tally. In recent polls, Labor has come in front in both tallies and the pollsters have therefore predicted that Labor will “win” the next election.

By “win”, they mean getting a majority in the House of Representatives. The Senate in hardly mentioned. But without getting legislation through the Senate, an Australian Government is merely managing, not governing.

Good time to act on rights

Many delegates attending this week’s ALP National Conference no doubt feel the motto of this Government is: “Do nothing for as long as possible and then do as little as possible that you think you can get away with.”

That was certainly the case with tackling pervasive and destructive gambling advertising. It has also been true of dealing with the hopelessly inadequate returns Australians get from their gas resources.

Weakness of economics of extinction

The Singapore Oceanarium is an engineering marvel. It holds 45 million litres of water (18 Olympic pools) across 22 displays. It also has a 36m by 9 m glass window through which you can see sharks, stingrays and other large fish in the open ocean.

250 years of democracy under threat

There was much to celebrate and be grateful for last Saturday as the US marked the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

The declaration contained two of the most momentous concepts for humans: that humans are created equal with inalienable rights and that power is derived from the consent of the governed.

Iran trumps US on Hormuz

US President Donald Trump’s innate inability to empathise with others and lack of intelligence to foresee consequences are likely to hand Iran a long-term financial advantage and incidentally, but more importantly, threaten the treaty that has been the most productive of peace and prosperity in recent history – the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The tit-for-tat breaches of the US-Iran 60-day ceasefire in the past few days certainly point that way. Let me explain.

The Chief Whinger’s strategy

The message was clear. It was from a recent migrant from South Africa who was married to a recent migrant from Bosnia.

At a round table birthday party discussion, the subject of Pauline Hanson’s National Press Club speech came up. The migrant said she did not feel qualified to comment but mentioned a hospital visit with her child which cost nothing; the lack of violence; the abundance of good food at a reasonable price; and how she and her husband were on track to buy a house. In short, she wondered: “What are you whingeing about?”

Gotcha or getting tax right

Federal Treasurer Jim Chalmers went about his tax reform the wrong way. He thought that if he could get the negative-gearing, trust, and capital-gains changes over the line in the Budget process he would be in a position to offer some income-tax cuts in subsequent years.

Pin It on Pinterest