Australian Politics
Not all change is good
Grace Baldwin, in Monday’s Herald Sun, joins a long list of commentators arguing in favour of rising Wokeness saying, ‘If you can’t see the need for Wokeness, you’re not looking hard enough.’
Baldwin further describes those questioning Woke ideology as being scared of social progression: ‘Just as the sun rises in the east, social change will always be inhibited by those who live in fear.’
Anyone committed to acknowledging and celebrating the heritage associated with Western civilisation is increasingly being viewed by the younger generations as reactionary, pale, and stale and often described as guilty of being ‘stuck in their ways’ and motivated by ‘fear’. One wonders why the same criticisms are not made of those forever pontificating and banging on about the virtues of preserving Australia’s pre-European, Indigenous culture.
While conservatives are attacked for being outdated and obsolete, the reality, as argued by the English poet TS Eliot, is conservatism involves continuity as well as change. While change is inevitable, it must be seen in the context of an historical narrative spanning generations.
Edmund Burke makes a similar point when arguing each succeeding generation is obligated to pass on to those who come next the patrimony bequeathed from the past. Proven by the French Revolution and Madame Guillotine, Stalin’s Russia, as well as Pol Pot’s Year Zero – evolution is preferable to revolution.
Implicit in conservatism is the belief societies evolve over time and to understand and appreciate the present and plan for the future we need to acknowledge what has gone before. Such a process includes admitting to past shortcomings and crimes on the understanding human nature is imperfect and all cultures, to varying degrees, are capable of cruelty and sin.
Instead of denigrating the past, it’s time to reassert the significance of the West’s cultural inheritance. While denied by neo-Marxist, post-colonial theorists and Black Lives Matter activists, the freedoms and liberties we take for granted in the West along with our art, music, and literature have grown out of the past.
Our parliamentary form of government, based on popular sovereignty, one person one vote, and the rule of law, began hundreds of years ago drawing on the Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, and English common law. It’s only because of the arrival of the King James Bible and Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England with the First Fleet that we enjoy inherent rights and liberties.
While gradually evolving Western, liberal democracies have stood the test of time and one only has to look at totalitarian cruel governments like China, North Korea, and Cambodia to see how lucky Australians are to have inherited such institutions.
Even though thousands of years old Christianity and the Bible still hold vital lessons about the best way to live and how to treat other people. Sayings like ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ and ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ are just as relevant now as when first spoken.
Instead of being against change what conservatives argue is change needs to be gradual, well-argued, and beneficial. What we pass from generation to generation is a precious and fragile gift that once lost is impossible to retrieve.
In the same way, Woke activists argue Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and histories must be acknowledged and respected, it’s only fair and reasonable to suggest the same for Western culture and Australia’s institutions.
It’s also vital to realise, at a time of rapid globalisation and technological change brought about by the digital revolution many young people, in particular, need to be grounded in something more substantial and lasting than Google, social networking, and texting.
Not all change is good and in the same way the Welcome to Country ceremony talks about respecting Indigenous elders and their past, it’s just as important to appreciate and value those elders who have contributed so much to Western civilisation and Australia’s way of life.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/07/evolution-is-preferable-to-revolution/
*************************************************A “damning” Auditor-General’s report has revealed massive problems with the Palaszczuk Government’s social housing register
The Palaszczuk government is failing to build enough social homes to keep up with the surging demand for housing, and isn’t properly checking the eligibility of tenants who they’re allocating homes to.
The worrying findings have been laid bare in a scathing Auditor-General’s report, which has called for a major overhaul over how the social housing register is run by the state’s Housing Department.
The report revealed the government doesn’t do any modelling or forecasting to determine future social housing needs, and there is no consistency over how tenancies are awarded.
It also uncovered that 39 per cent of applicants on the register are unlikely to be given any housing because they cannot be contacted, have inactive applications, or are in the “lower need groups”.
And it found 8,430 of the state’s social housing dwellings have two or more spare bedrooms, and that the department has no process to identify tenants who could be transitioned to the private market.
Opposition Leader David Crisafulli said the report was “damning” – describing it as a “tale of woe”.
“It paints a picture of the government not knowing who needs the homes, how to build the homes, and how to fix the mess that they have created,” he said.
“This report shows the government is failing Queenslanders right across the state. It makes for sobering reading. It has to be alarm bells for the government to immediately start to act.”
Auditor-General Brendan Worrall said while the government’s plan to start construction on 6,365 homes by 2025 would increase supply, it wouldn’t be enough to keep up with demand.
“The department’s current processes to manage the housing register are not effective,” Mr Worrall wrote in his report.
“The department needs to take a multifaceted approach to the growing housing pressure.
“It needs to improve its current systems and processes to better manage the increasing demand for social housing in Queensland.”
Housing Minister Leeanne Enoch wouldn’t say on Tuesday if the government would up its investment in social housing construction so that it would match demand.
But she welcomed the report – saying it came at the “very right time” – and said her department would accept all the recommendations made by Mr Worrall.
The Minister said since May last year, her department had also tried contacting about 98 per cent of applicants on the register – of which 21 per cent were uncontactable or were now deemed ineligible.
She confirmed those applications would be taken off the register.
“For me, certainly at the beginning of this year, seeing those kinds of results coming through, it’s pretty clear that the management of the social housing register needed some work,” Ms Enoch said.
“I need that social housing register to be the sharpest instrument it can possibly be right now so that we can meet the needs of people who really are looking for that support from the government.”
The report made eight recommendations, including that the department model future demand for social housing, and that it periodically confirms the ongoing eligibility of all applicants.
“We found examples where needs were not recorded correctly in applications or eligibility was not confirmed before making a housing allocation,” Mr Worrall wrote in his report.
“Some assessments and allocations were missing requisite internal checks.”
*************************************************
"Teal" incoherence
Judith Sloan
Last week I came across an opinion piece penned by new ‘independent’ member for Kooyong, Dr. Monique Ryan. Having read those jumbled, incoherent 800 or so words, the only conclusion is that Dr. Ryan is a loss to medicine because she is definitely not a gain to sound policy analysis.
To say the piece was all over the shop is to be kind. While praising the Albanese government’s plan to remove fringe benefits tax and the small five-per-cent tariff on electric vehicles, she somehow thinks that tightening the emissions standards that apply to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles will also contribute to the uptake of EVs. This is notwithstanding her assertion that these tighter standards will reduce the cost of running an ICE vehicle. Following?
It’s worth quoting the good doctor here. ‘What is the key to unlocking the EV supply chain? Fuel efficiency standards would incentivise manufacturers to bring in their low- and zero-emissions vehicles to Australia – and penalise them for failing to do so.’
According to Dr. Ryan, ‘the Albanese government must introduce robust fuel-efficiency standards equivalent to global best standards. These will cost nothing (sic) but will ensure manufacturers supply a greater range of affordable EVs to our market, rather than being offered only polluting ICE vehicles and the luxury end of the EV market.’
I’m certainly prepared to concede that without a medical degree, I’m finding her ‘logic’ hard to follow. But let me put her straight on a few facts. (Yes, I know the Teals are above facts, but not readers of the Speccie.)
It is true that the fuel emissions standards that apply to the sale of ICE vehicles here are different from those that apply in other parts of the world, including the UK, Europe and the US. Indeed, the previous government looked into bringing our standards in line with Euro 6 which applies in the European Union. These standards involve lower CO2 emissions per kilometre as well as greater fuel efficiency.
But here’s one of the rubs, our two remaining oil refineries cannot currently comply with these standards and would likely close in the event of Euro 6 being enforced, at least in the next several years. (Dealing with the sulphur problem is achievable, but it’s the aromatics issue that hasn’t been solved at this stage, according to my expert friend.)
It’s certainly the case that no refineries are located within Kooyong, but surely Dr. Ryan would be concerned on national security grounds were our refineries to close down. She even mentions the International Energy Agency’s standard on minimum stock holding requirements for liquid fuels as an issue.
Ryan does provide some useful figures on why either enforcing new emissions standards or giving further legs-up to EVs won’t be changing the climate dial anytime soon. There are some 24 million cars on the road at the moment and the average lifetime on the road is 15 years.
It’s the classic stock and flow problem. Forcing higher standards on new car purchases does nothing much to alter the emissions of the much greater stock of cars on the roads.
She then jumps to the unintelligible proposition that ‘electrified transport can be powered by renewable energy. The zero emissions running these vehicles will decrease our carbon emissions by 10 per cent.’ Mind you, she doesn’t give any time frame for this reduction. The fact is that EVs currently account for just 1 per cent of vehicles on the road in Australia. They are expensive and the charging infrastructure is grossly inadequate. According to recent figures, they are about to get even more expensive given the rapid escalation in the cost of batteries.
As for the claim that they will be powered by renewable energy, any connection to the grid currently involves around 60 per cent coal-fired power. As they say in the science books, an electron is an electron. (We presume that Monique excelled at high school science.)
She also overlooks the emissions involved in the manufacture of EVs. Most estimates put the emissions intensity of EV manufacture at around 40 per cent higher than ICE vehicle manufacture. This is principally because of the batteries that are replete with rare minerals. It is not until an EV has travelled around 100,000 kilometres that the lower emissions outclass an ordinary car.
Let’s face it, EVs in Australia are a niche purchase for virtue-signalling wealthy types – there is often an ICE vehicle within the family too – and some businesses.
Electricity powering can also suit taxis or share driving as well as urban delivery. But we are a very long way from EVs making any noticeable impact on Australia’s emissions. The facts that we have right-hand driving and we are a vast distance from where EVs are manufactured will mean that the options for this type of purchase will remain limited for some time.
No doubt the Teals will continue to utter more policy vibes along these lines. Their proposal that emissions should be cut by 60 per cent by 2030 – Labor’s policy is 43 per cent which is damaging enough – is just a bad dream. But no doubt they will continue to spout platitudes about all the jobs that will be created and that the transition will cost nothing (sic).
It was surely ironic that when Allegra Spender, another Teal member of parliament, was asked whether she drove an EV, her excuse was that she doesn’t have a garage or off-street parking. As a result it would be too difficult to charge up an EV.
Join the club, honey. It is estimated that at least a third of Australian households do not live in premises that would allow EV charging at home. Moreover, the need for three-phase power to enable fast charging limits at-home charging because three-phase power can only be supplied to a fraction of dwellings in an area without a complete (and expensive) transformation of local distribution systems.
https://spectator.com.au/2022/07/dr-monique-ryan-a-loss-to-medicine/
****************************************Anti-Beijing firebrand Vicky Xu is back, taking Chinese attacks head-on
Anti-Beijing firebrand Vicky Xu is back in the fray after making a strategic withdrawal in the face of unprecedented threats to her life, friends, and family – punished, she says, for her work revealing the Chinese Communist Party’s wrongdoings.
“Beijing and its supporters have sought to silence me and frankly, I cannot let these powers win – so I’m back,” Xu said.
And she will be back contributing to public life at a vital time in Australia’s geopolitics, with an upcoming speech at the Sydney Opera House and a new book out next year.
Her memoir, You’re So Brave, was picked up by publisher Allen & Unwin earlier this year and described it as a “coming of age geopolitical drama”. Xu is also scheduled to speak at the Opera House’s Antidote festival on September 11 in What Would China Do?
“It’s crazy times out there,” was her assessment.
Until recently, Xu had been a policy analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute – where she was the lead author of one of the world’s foremost papers on the Chinese government’s persecution of Uiyghur Muslims – and was a journalist at The New York Times and the ABC.
Her work brought her the ire of the Chinese government and its legions of social media bots and supporters: she has been stalked by mysterious people, her family and friends in China had been interrogated, and she has sustained industrial levels of abuse online, Xu said.
Usually a loud voice against the CCP, Xu had since the middle of last year shied away from the spotlight after Beijing stepped up its attacks against her.
“National fame, or notoriety, was bestowed on me overnight by the Chinese party-state and its propaganda apparatus,” she said. “I was condemned in state and commercial and social media for being one of China’s biggest traitors. Death and rape threats were through the roof.
“I couldn’t go to a Chinese restaurant [in Canberra] without being recognised. The campaign was extremely misogynistic in its nature, calling me a she-demon, accusing me of wild promiscuity.”
Even in her year of relative obscurity, Xu was relentlessly harassed by the Chinese government. “As recently as two months ago, I was approached by a strange Chinese man at my local swimming pool … [he] has been trying to persuade me to talk with the local Chinese consulate, trying to persuade me to go back to China to visit my parents,” she said.
“The state has gone after me in a really personal way. There has been – what I would call – psychological torture on my loved ones back in China. They’re isolated and treated with overwhelming hostility in their communities. “Some have been repeatedly interrogated.”
Xu said the past year had been a time of “grief” and “mourning” for her. “This campaign basically destroyed my family relationships, friendships, and everything I had back in China for the first 19, 20 years of my life,” she said.
“Since then … I’ve spent a lot of time processing the grief of not being able to see my family and friends and everyone I love back in China for the foreseeable future.”
After months of being wracked by the question of whether her work was worth this price, Xu said “at the end of the day, I believe in freedom of speech”.
She expressed scepticism, however, at the ability of the Albanese government to navigate Australia’s fraught relationship with China. “I remember how atrocious the Labor Party was on China before they came to power, how the vast majority of Labor politicians let partisan differences get in the way of understanding the CCP-state as what it is.”
And the personal blowback from speaking out? “That’s OK,” she said. “That’s part of the deal.”
************************************
Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM -- daily)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
***************************************
Evelyn Rae, a conservative Australian political commentator
Margo Robbie -- a beautiful australian
My son Joe at ANU
One of the happiest pictures ever -- Cleo Smith, aged 4
No comments:
Post a Comment