Australian Politics

It wasn’t just race and politics that motivated people who opposed a black "Voice" in Parliament. Here’s what we found when we dug deeper

Jonathan Bartholomaeus didn't dig deeply enough. The only scales he used that gave a substantial correlation with attitude to "Voice" were RWA and SDO -- both of which were strong measures of conservatism.

http://jonjayray.com/sdo.html

http://jonjayray.com/altdef.html
So all he has found is that is was mainly conservatives who opposed the "Voice" idea, which we already knew. There were no other substantial correlations

It is in any case absurd to say that people who defied all the aurhorities on "Voice" were authoritarian. That's what comes of using defecive measuring instruments in your research. Bartholomaeus took his measurement instruments at face value instead of researching their validity. He clearly didn't even look at the questions he was asking. Very foolish. His conclusions below are rubbish

The outcome of the referendum has been chalked up to deepening political polarisation, Australian’s entrenched racial prejudice and the rise of populism.

In short, opposition to the Voice to Parliament has been characterised as a conservative populist backlash with racist undertones. In the wake of a 60/40 “no” vote majority, this message only serves to deepen the post-referendum divide.

However, new research indicates the story is a little more complex. Findings show it was fundamentally the esteem of authority, the desire for an ordered society, and perceptions of justice and fairness that dictated how people engaged with this emotionally charged political issue, and ultimately how they voted.

It is only by a greater understanding of people’s attitudes towards the referendum (even if we disagree with them) that Australians can move forward and have a more productive bipartisan conversation.

Hierarchical status quo

We collected survey data from 253 people before and after the referendum. We wanted to get an idea of the way people’s worldviews would influence their vote and opinions about the outcome of the referendum.

In June 2023 (roughly 16 weeks before the vote) we asked about people’s attitudes towards authority, their opinion about social hierarchy, and their perceptions of justice in society. In October (immediately after the vote) we asked how people voted and whether they thought the outcome of the referendum would be good for Australia.

Our findings show people who voted “no” and who were pleased with the outcome were more willing to submit to authority. They also preferred a hierarchical society where the social status of different groups is maintained.

These attitudes were more important in predicting voting behaviour than a person’s age, gender, ethnicity, income, education, religion or even their political orientation.

Whereas social hierarchy beliefs are broad and refer to a person’s general view that it’s a “dog-eat-dog” world, racism relates more narrowly to discrimination against people based on their ethnicity. While there’s often a complicated relationship between preference for social hierarchy and racism, these findings counter the widespread claims that those who voted “no” were entirely racially motivated or were simply voting along political lines.

In understanding why some people voted “no”, these findings can promote a more open discussion.

For example, in the future when discussing profound and potentially momentous changes to the country (the current debate around nuclear energy, for example), it will be helpful to remember that people differ drastically in their willingness to follow along with authority.

Some will be quick to cotton on to messages from leaders and may act passionately (even aggressively) on these convictions. Others will be slower and more cautious in their support for ideas expressed by authority.

It will also be helpful to remember people have different ideas about how society should be structured. Some people will prefer a society with a clear pecking order, perhaps fearing the chaos of a disordered society. Others are less concerned with a clear structure in favour of things like social mobility.

Our findings show we shouldn’t reduce support for complex issues simply to one’s political orientation or demographic characteristics. We need to seek first to understand a person’s worldview and attitude towards societal change. Only then can we have a productive conversation about what is best for the country.

Perceived (in)justice

Populism is the idea that a small group of elite people are trying to force change on society. A populist backlash occurs when ordinary people rebel against the powerful minority and exert the popular will of the people. Voting down the referendum has been characterised in such terms.

Our data show people who voted “no” view society as a just place in which people are generally treated fairly. They didn’t accept the fundamental premise on which the referendum was sold: that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are, and have been, unjustly treated. This finding provides a helpful insight into the populist explanation for the referendum outcome.

At its heart, the populist narrative is a story of justice. The idea that the elite are pursuing their own agenda to the detriment of the people strikes us all as unjust.

But it is people who already see society as a just and fair place who are especially sensitive to this perceived injustice. These people can act out in sometimes extreme ways. Consider, for example, the January 6 storming of the US capitol.

By understanding the populist account in terms of justice, we can clearly see how the post-referendum divide in society has formed: those who voted “no” feel vindicated at having avoided an unjust change to society, while those who voted “yes” become wary of these people for their extreme and seemingly unwarranted reaction. Understanding not only the important role that justice plays in people’s lives, but also that people can have differing views of what justice is, is crucial to keep in mind.

In a world where political polarisation is increasing and where we are confronted with news (some real, some fake) that continually seems to deepen this divide, taking the time to understand the complexity of people’s worldviews and political opinions – even those you might disagree with – is more important than ever.

Jonathan Bartholomaeus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

https://www.inkl.com/newsletters/morning-edition/news/it-wasn-t-just-race-and-politics-that-motivated-voice-to-parliament-no-voters-here-s-what-we-found-when-we-dug-deeper

************************************************

Economic downturn there for all who have eyes to see

Inflation doesn’t stem from external forces or market failures, nor is it an unpredictable ‘black swan’ event, as described by Nassim Taleb. Inflation rather results from poor government policies. It’s more like a ‘pink flamingo’, an obvious problem that everyone sees but neglects to address until it’s too late

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman astutely commented that, ‘Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation.’ This observation may provide insight into why, despite claims to the contrary, the Albanese government seems to be implementing policies that perpetuate and sustain inflation rather than mitigate it. After all, inflation can generate the tax revenues needed to fund the government’s extensive and expensive spending programs.

The government and its economic advisors appear hesitant to recognise that the era of fiscal and regulatory irresponsibility, which has been cushioned by the deflationary effects of globalisation and the accommodating monetary policies of central banks, is rapidly approaching its end.

Treasurer Chalmers frequently refers to the evolving global economic and strategic landscape as ‘churning and changing’. Yet despite acknowledging this shift, he has not adapted his policy toolkit to meet the new challenges. As the saying goes, to a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and the government continues to tackle every economic and social issue with the same combination of increased spending and more legislation.

Within government, the default response to any situation, whether the economy is thriving or struggling, seems to be the same: increased government spending and regulation. There never seems to be a compelling economic argument or appropriate moment to reduce either.

Since the early 2000s, Australia’s prosperity has been underwritten by the dividends of globalisation. Record commodity sales and prices, along with the deflationary effects of China and other Asian countries becoming manufacturing hubs, have helped keep consumer prices low. And when poorly conceived policies threatened economic growth, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) would swiftly intervene with accommodating monetary stimulus to mitigate the damage.

This benign environment is rapidly coming to an end. The landscape is indeed ‘churning and changing’. And given the government’s refusal to reconsider its policy settings and foundations, it should not be surprised that inflation remains stubbornly high. Rather, it should be surprised that it isn’t rising further.

In the little over two years since the Albanese government took office, nearly every economic policy that might have previously had minimal impact has instead contributed to inflation – from sovereign interventions in commodity markets; to increases in middle-class welfare; to labour market interventions that reduce productivity; to unprecedented levels of spending, particularly on out-of-control and fraud-riddled social programs; and energy market deformations. The government’s actions, individually and cumulatively, are entrenching inflation.

Friedman was awarded his Nobel Prize for his work on monetarism, famously stating that, ‘inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon’. Often overlooked, however, is the second part of his insight that ‘inflation… can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output’.

This imbalance was evident in the RBA’s latest Monetary Policy Decision statement, which noted that, ‘higher interest rates have been working to bring aggregate demand and supply closer towards balance’. This statement also reaffirms Say’s Law, which observes that supply creates its own demand, and changes in aggregate demand only affect the price level, not real gross domestic product or employment.

Yet while much of the current economic discourse focuses on aggregate demand, there is scant discussion on enhancing aggregate supply through promoting productivity and production. Instead of pursuing policies that enhance productivity and production, it has become increasingly common for governments to label every new spending or regulatory initiative as an ‘investment’ or ‘productivity’ measure without any evidence to support such claims.

The notion that universal government-funded childcare enhances productivity is as credible as suggesting that government-owned petrol stations would lower fuel prices. Such policies are more likely to destroy businesses and jobs than to create them.

If a business were to invest like government, it would rapidly go broke.

Unfortunately, the unfounded assertions made by our politicians and governments often go unchallenged, despite the noticeable correlation between the increasing size and frequency of so-called government investments and productivity measures, and declining actual productivity and frequency of economic dislocations. For more than two decades, it has been bipartisan policy at all levels of government to consistently undermine productivity and production.

Just as the era of globalisation-driven economic windfalls is coming to an end, so too, it seems, are the days of frank, fearless, first-rate economic advice from Treasury. Earlier this year, Treasury Secretary Stephen Kennedy praised the inflation-powered system of bracket creep tax increases as an ‘automatic stabilising influence’, arguing that adjusting tax brackets for inflation during a period of rapid price increases would feed money back into the economy, making it harder to control inflation. Conveniently, Kennedy failed to mention the crucial alternative to increasing taxes to ameliorate inflation: reducing government spending, a response which could help bring inflation under control without surreptitiously and usuriously taxing Australians.

Addressing Australia’s economic challenges requires a fundamental rethinking of government and government policy. This shift includes altering the political incentives that encourage unchecked spending and excessive regulation. If an investment manager or business director made representations akin to what our politicians did, they would be rapidly prosecuted and jailed. Asic and the ACCC would be on to them faster than a hawk spotting prey in an open field. Yet conveniently, the statements and financial projections made by politicians are not subject to the same civil and criminal liabilities imposed on private sector actors. Making unfounded and unsubstantiated claims about the benefits of higher spending and wasteful programs is how elections are won.

For far too long, governments at all levels and across the political spectrum have been aware of Australia’s economic issues; problems that call for less government, not more. Unfortunately, the political incentives are to deliver more and more government, irrespective of the costs and consequences.

A cognitive and policy reset is urgently needed. Australia’s next significant economic downturn won’t be a sudden, unexpected event but rather a ‘pink flamingo’—a clearly visible issue that is rapidly gaining momentum. The warning signs are evident. At question is whether there will be the will to act before it is too late.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/08/eyes-wide-shut-2/

*************************************************

Our abused Sexual Discrimination Act

A decision in the Federal Court last Friday confirmed a shocking reality that many of us already knew; it is now illegal for women to publicly make a single-sex space in Australia under the current operation of the Sex Discrimination Act (1984) (SDA). The SDA is no longer fit for purpose, or rather, its purpose is now to threaten women into submission.

What we are seeing is not the ‘unintentional consequences’ of gender identity protections. The legislation that Justice Bromwich ruled on in the Federal Court regarding the Tickle v Giggle case is the SDA operating exactly as it is intended to operate by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), who have been slowly re-purposing the SDA for decades.

The Federal Court ruled that Sall Grover and Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd had engaged in indirect discrimination by removing Roxanne Tickle from the social media App that Grover had created for female people.

All the arguments mounted by Grover’s legal team failed, except for the argument that Grover could not have ‘directly’ or intentionally discriminated on the basis of gender identity, as gender identity can’t be discerned on sight because gender identity is invisible. Gender identity is essentially a legally protected sexed soul built from stereotypes.

Significantly, Bromwich declared ‘that in its contemporary ordinary meaning, sex is changeable’. Bromwich based this on a few cases in the last 30 years where this had been applied to trans-identified people for compassionate reasons.

No one thought to gather all the cases and legislation where women and girls are dealt with by the law as humans with a specific reproductive path. The Sex Discrimination Act, under which Sall Grover and her business were sued, was once such a piece of legislation.

The SDA originally recognised that the female body had a reproductive path that placed women and girls at a structural disadvantage in society. In the 40 years since its inception, the SDA has been the victim, like so many women and girls, of unbridled molestation.

The SDA came into effect under the Hawke Labor government in 1984 after years of campaigning by women’s rights activists. The legislation wasn’t original, but a type of civil rights legislation that was being trialled in Western nations to encourage full participation of women in society, free from discrimination and male pattern sexual harassment.

The SDA has been altered 56 times since 1984, almost always at the instigation of the Australian Human Rights Commission who administer the Act, and most famously by the Gillard Labor government which removed the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ from the SDA in 2013.

It was clear in the Explanatory Memorandum of the 2013 change that the definition of man and woman was removed from the SDA specifically to include trans-identified males in the definition of women. The memorandum states:

These definitions are repealed in order to ensure that ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are not interpreted so narrowly as to exclude, for example, a transgender woman from accessing protections from discrimination on the basis of other attributes contained in the SDA.

When Julia Gillard was asked last year about the 2013 amendments by Women’s Rights Network representatives, her rationale for the change was that there are a ‘number of people who genuinely believe that they are trapped in the wrong body and they want to be recognised as the gender their mind and soul have always told them that they are’.

The second key piece of legislation Justice Bromwich relied on in his decision was the newly minted Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration (Act 2023) (BDMRA), which only came into effect between the trial in April and the judgment last week.

Because the validity of the (BDMRA) was challenged constitutionally by the Giggle legal team, and against international women’s rights treaties, and failed, the implications of the use of the act go much further than birth certificates.

The legislation that the Federal Court just recognised as constitutionally valid, and in no way contravenes international human rights law, states in black and white that the kind of ‘internal’ gender identity that is protected over sex, the kind of gender that changes sex, can exist in ‘name, dress, speech, and behaviour’.

A male trying to gain access to women’s formerly safe spaces, doesn’t even need to have a certificate, because gender identity protections under the Qld BDM Registration Act, protects a man performing female gender via a hat, a garment from Millers, a tilt of the head, or a higher octave of voice. Any sign of ‘woman gender’ allows a man to access all areas for any reason and he can’t legally be removed if he claims a gender identity, unless he breaks the law, he doesn’t need a certificate because gender identity is an internal soul evidenced by words.

In my opinion, the way constitutional validity of gender identity legislation has been handled, combined with the discarding of international human rights concerns, has left the courts as the enablers of women being removed as a sex class.

We call this a culture war, but this is a class war, playing out in our institutions.

How many working-class fathers do you think would accept grown men identifying into the change rooms where their daughters are compelled to change while the child is in the custody of schools and sporting institutions? All schools and sporting institutions will fall under the authority of this ruling, and we need to take away its structure piece by piece.

When Shannon Fentiman introduced the Qld BDM Registration Act to Parliament she said, ‘I am proud to rise to introduce the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Bill 2022. I want to start by acknowledging the many trans and diverse people and their allies in the gallery today. These are the people this legislation is for.’

Under the Queensland constitution, members of Parliament are bound to make laws for the people of Queensland, not fringe interest groups or invisible gender souls. The Qld BDM Registration legislation redefines human sex categories against criteria the government itself provides. The mandate to allow the government to redefine human sex categories in law was never given to the Queensland Labor Party.

Individuals simply won’t be able to fight these dictates in court. In the process of Giggle v Tickle, Sall Grover’s business has been ruined, and if she didn’t have a group of supporters to fund her, she would certainly be bankrupted by the legal fees. Combined with the $10,000 awarded by the judge to Tickle personally, Sall Grover is obliged to pay Tickle’s costs (that are only partially capped). The legal fees that Sall is facing, including her own, will come close to $1M, and that is not including the High Court challenge she is about to embark on, which will likely exceed an additional 500K. You could almost buy a house in Brisbane for that.

Tickle was funded by the Grata Fund, which is listed as a legal aid charity, that fund social justice causes.

In endeavouring to interpret the correct intention of gender identity protections, Bromwich adopted the terminology, without which, it is impossible to make gender identity make any sense at all but that makes human sex a birth condition that is subject to change. He stated:

‘…cisgender refers to a person whose gender corresponds to the sex registered for them at birth. That is to be contrasted with a person whose gender does not correspond with their sex as registered at birth, commonly referred to as transgender. The respondents do not accept the legitimacy of the terms cisgender and transgender. I find both terms useful and convenient for the purpose of deciding and discussing the relevant facts and in accordance with the gender identity discrimination provisions in the SDA.’

The problem with ‘assigned at birth’ as a sovereign concept in law, over the more scientific understanding of human sex as an immutable characteristic, is that sex is not a birth condition, sex is a life condition. Furthermore, the life condition of sex is authoritative in the life of girls and women in a way that places them at a structural disadvantage.

If you have been saying to yourself ‘surely this won’t get through the courts’, you can stop that now. We should all support Sall Grover and her crowd funder to continue her fight to the High Court, but personally I have little hope of this being changed in the courts.

This issue, I believe, will only be ultimately fixed through the political process, through bringing our politicians to account, and for the conservative parties to take up this cause in earnest.

People are in favour of gay rights, we already know that, but not this is not that.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/08/our-abused-sexual-discrimination-act/

***************************************************

40°C in August? Why is Australia so ridiculously hot right now?

Blaming the heat on global warming is absurd. It is mere unprovable assertion. And note that is was as hot in 1910, long before the modern industrial economy was widespread

It’s winter in Australia, but as you’ve probably noticed, the weather is unusually warm. The top temperatures over large parts of the country this weekend were well above average for this time of year.

The outback town of Oodnadatta in South Australia recorded 38.5°C on Friday and 39.4°C on Saturday — about 16°C above average. Both days were well above the state’s previous winter temperature record. In large parts of Australia, the heat is expected to persist into the coming week.

A high-pressure system is bringing this unusual heat — and it’s hanging around. So temperature records have already fallen and may continue to be broken for some towns in the next few days.

It’s no secret the world is warming. In fact 2024 is shaping up to be the hottest year on record. Climate change is upon us. Historical averages are becoming just that: a thing of the past.

That’s why this winter heat is concerning. The warming trend will continue for at least as long as we keep burning fossil fuels and polluting the atmosphere. Remember, this is only August. The heatwaves of spring and summer are only going to be hotter.

The Bureau of Meteorology was expecting many records to be broken over the weekend across several states. On Thursday, bureau meteorologist Angus Hines described:

A scorching end to winter, with widespread heat around the country in coming days, including the chance of winter records across multiple states for maximum temperature.

The amount of heat plunging into central Australia was particularly unusual, Hines said.

On Friday, temperatures across northern South Australia and southern parts of the Northern Territory were as much as 15°C above average.

Temperatures continued to soar across northern parts of Western Australia over the weekend, with over 40°C recorded at Fitzroy Crossing on Sunday. It has been 2–12°C above average from Townsville all the way down to Melbourne for several days in a row.

Bear in mind, it’s only August. As Hines said, the fire weather season hasn’t yet hit most of Australia, but the current conditions — hot, dry and sometimes windy — are bringing moderate to high fire danger across Australia. It may also bring dusty conditions to central Australia.

And for latitudes north of Sydney and Perth, most of the coming week will be warm.

What’s causing the winter warmth?

In recent days a stubborn high pressure system has sat over eastern Australia and the Tasman Sea. It has kept skies clear over much of the continent and brought northerly winds over many areas, transporting warm air to the south.

High pressure promotes warm weather — both through clearer skies that bring more sunshine and by promoting the descent of air that causes heating.

By late August, both the intensity of the sun and the length of the day have increased. So the centre of Australia can really warm up when under the right conditions.

High pressure in June can be associated with cooler conditions, because more heat is lost from the surface during those long winter nights. But that’s already less of an issue by late August.

This kind of weather setup has occurred in the past. Late-winter or early-spring heat does sometimes occur in Australia. However, this warm spell is exceptional, as highlighted by the broken temperature records across the country.

The consequences of humanity’s continued greenhouse gas emissions are clear. Australia’s winters are getting warmer overall. And winter “heatwaves” are becoming warmer.

Australia’s three warmest Augusts on record have all occurred since 2000 — and last August was the second-warmest since * 1910 *. When the right weather conditions occur for winter warmth across Australia, the temperatures are higher than a century ago.

The warmth we are experiencing now comes off the back of a recent run of global temperature records and extreme heat events across the Northern Hemisphere.

This warm spell is set to continue, with temperatures above 30°C forecast from Wednesday through to Sunday in Brisbane. The outlook for spring points to continued above-normal temperatures across the continent, but as always we will likely see both warm and cold spells at times.

Such winter warmth is exceptional and already breaking records. Climate change is already increasing the frequency and intensity of this kind of winter heat — and future warm spells will be hotter still, if humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions continue.

https://www.inkl.com/newsletters/morning-edition/news/40-c-in-august-why-is-australia-so-ridiculously-hot-right-now