Eighteen serious failures of judgment compel questioning whether Scott "Hawaii" Morrison is fit to be Australia's Prime Minister


LEFT: James Kenneth Bowen has attended a 50th anniversary commemoration of Australia's commitment to the Vietnam War (1962-1975); MIDDLE: Major James Bowen is standing outside his tent at the 1st Australian Task Force base at Nui Dat, South Vietnam, during the Communist Tet Offensive in 1968; RIGHT: James Kenneth Bowen seen as Prosecutor for the Queen in the State of Victoria (1978-1993).


The author of this comment graduated BA; LLB (politics, history, German language, and law) from the University of Queensland in 1959, and spent twenty-nine years in legal practice and seven years as an army officer in the Australian Army. He held the offices of Senior Crown Prosecutor and Assistant Secretary for Law in the Territories of Papua and New Guinea (1961-1967). At this time Papua was still part of the Commonwealth of Australia, and New Guinea was administered by Australia as a United Nations Trust Territory. James Bowen served as a major in the Australian Army from 1967 to 1973 (two years Regular Army and five years as Assistant Provost Marshal in the Australian Citizen MIlitary Force). That military service included service at Nui Dat and Vung Tau in Vietnam in 1968 during the Vietnam War. He held the appointment of Crown Prosecutor in Canberra from 1969 to 1978. He was appointed by the Victorian Governor-in-Council to the statutory office of Prosecutor for the Queen in 1978 and retired from that office in 1993.

Upon retirement, James Bowen returned to full-time occupation with history with a special focus on the Pacific War 1941-45. His formal history studies have included Roman history from the Punic or Carthaginian Wars (264-146 BC) to the reign of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD), the military campaigns of Julius Caesar (and translating from Latin his "Commentarii de Bello Gallico"), Medieval history (and in particular, the Hundred Years’ War), the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792-1815), and Japanese history from the Kamakura Shogunate (1185-1336 AD) to 1945. He studied Japanese history for one year, and travelled widely in Japan in 1960 to improve his spoken Japanese.

As a graduate historian, his major focus now is researching and writing about the Japanese attack on Australia in 1942, and in particular, the fighting on the Kokoda Track when Japanese troops invaded Australian soil on 21 July 1942.


* The name derives from the famous Roman senator Marcus Porcius Cato (95 - 46 BC) also known as Cato the Younger to distinguish him from his equally famous great--grand father Cato the Elder. Cato was a noted conservative orator and staunch defender of the centuries- old Roman Republic and its conservative values. In an era of pervasive political corruption, he was a conservative known for his immunity to bribes and his moral integrity. His relentless defence of the Roman Republic caused him to fall out with Julius Caesar and flee Rome. He rejected an offer of pardon from Julius Caesar and committed suicide in what is now Tunisia.

Wherever the picture of Scott "Hawaii" Morrison wearing an Hawaiian lei appears below, it indicates a separate page of eighteen to appear eventually on the international Cato Forum.

This treatment of serious failures of judgment by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison will continue until he is is prepared to honour the sacrifices of Australians in war.

Since 2019, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison has been obstinately refusing to defend the honour of Australia's Kokoda heroes who fought, suffered, and died on the Kokoda Track in 1942 to defeat a Japanese invasion of what was Australian soil in 1942. The need to defend the honour of Australia's Kokoda heroes arose from the deliberate false denigration of Kokoda and dishonouring of Kokoda heroes by the management of the Australian War Memorial in several chapters of the book "Kokoda beyond the Legend" published by the Memorial in 2017. See below at [6].

Six attempts by me since 2019 to communicate with the prime minister with reference to issues raised below have been simply ignored. This egregious discourtesy could be viewed as consistent with the behaviour of a prime minister who departed Australia with his family in late December 2019 to enjoy a holiday in Hawaii while Australia was ravaged by bushfires, and people were dying and property destroyed. That appalling act of self-gratification led to Scott Morrison acquiring the nickname Scott "Hawaii" Morrison which I believe causes him to lapse into fury, and that he prefers the nickname "Scotty from Marketing" which he acquired from his involvement in producing the bikini-clad Laura Bingle TV commercial for Australian Tourism ending with the her words "So where the bloody hell are you?". The banning of the commercial in some important countries for tourism appears to have led to Morrison being sacked from Tourism Australia in 2006.

I can also draw a significant legal conclusion from failure by the prime minister to challenge any of the serious failures of judgment listed below. The law permits a conclusion that all of the allegations of serious failure of judgment listed below carry weight when no attempt is made to challenge them.

The list of serious failures of judgment by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison below has doubled in length since 2019, and will continue to be published until he is prepared to honour the sacrifices of Australians in war.


1. He abandoned Australia when it was ravaged by deadly bushfires to holiday with his family in Hawaii.

2. Without consulting Australians, he is secretly planning to change our National Anthem to shame non-Aboriginal Australians.

3. As Federal treasurer, he was responsible for the total loss of Australia’s car industry in 2018.

4. Without baseload nuclear energy, his planning for net zero emissions in 2050 will convert Australia into a Third World country.

5. Scott "Hawaii" Morrison's $120 billion plan for a hydrogen-powered Australia is criminal lunacy.

6. He damaged Australia’s trade by needlessly antagonising Communist China instead of allowing the United States to push this grave issue.

7 & 8. He has shown repeatedly that he is not prepared to honour the sacrifices of Australians in war.

9. By denying publicly the centuries-old presumption of innocence in cases of sexual crime, he arguably contributed to denying Cardinal Pell a fair trial.

10. He has denied thousands of innocent Australians who served honourably in Afghanistan the presumption of innocence of involvement in a very small number of alleged war crimes.

11. He has abandoned the centuries-old right to the presumption of innocence to win favour with female voters. He has arguably denied a person accused of sexual crime a fair trial by arranging a meeting with the female accuser before the trial.

12. He rediscovered the presumption of innocence in the case of a senior parliamentary colleague accused of sexual crime.

13. He risks the lives of Australians by failing to appreciate that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is not designed for air combat against the world’s best air superiority fighters.

14. Through incompetent management of quarantine, he allowed the deadly Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) to destroy thousands of Australian businesses and lives.

15. He made a sick joke of Australian Federation with his sham “National Cabinet”.

16. As High Priest of “Woke”, he allowed idiots in the Australian Defence Force to ban references to terms “wife” and “husband”.

17. He is incapable of understanding that buying a massively expensive and presently non-existent French submarine design to be delivered after 2030 is akin to buying pie in the sky. He refuses to acknowledge that the Collin-class submarines would be lethal for their crews in combat.

18. He refuses to deny that he will allow implementation of the Uluru Statement that proposes Aboriginal ownership of the whole of Australia through constitutional amendment. He lacks the common sense to listen to Jacinta Nampijinpa Price (see below) and appreciate that education and jobs are most important for improving the lives of Aboriginal Australians still living on welfare.


19. His pressure for a “big Australia” through massive immigration will suppress wages, deny young Australians home ownership, and increase the fracture of Australia into a country of tribes that share few values. Trendy politicians like Morrison call this achieving "diversity". Most Australians are fed up with politicians who keep big business and developers happy by flooding Australia with immigrants when many do not speak English and are doomed to be a massive welfare burden on taxpayers.

As a postgraduate criminologist, something has long troubled me about extraordinary behaviours of Scott "Hawaii" Morrison, some of which are listed below.

The continuing blunders of Prime Minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison listed here, and growing, are driving nails into the coffin of his Coalition government.

As a postgraduate ciminologist, and former senior Crown prosecutor who has spent over twenty years in Australia's law courts cross-examining psychiatrists and psychologists appearing for some of our worst criminals, something has long troubled me about the disturbing behaviours of Scott "Hawaii" Morrison listed here; and then I drew on the human psychology component of my postgraduate criminology at the Australian National University. Selfishness, involving a sense of entitlement and self-gratification regardless of the cost to other people, and a lack of empathy for the suffering and sacrifices of other people, are character traits often but not necessarily associated with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, commonly referred to by laypeople as narcissism. The narcissist shares these disturbing character traits with the sociopath, but the sociopath adds a total lack of remorse for his or her bad behaviour.

I am not for one moment suggesting that the disturbing behaviours of Scott "Hawaii" Morrison listed below indicate clinical narcissism, but the apparent lack of concern that the prime minister has shown for the sacrifices of Australians in war, for the denigration of those sacrifices by management of the Australian War Memorial since 2012 (see 6 below), for the horrendous cost to Australia of the bushfires in 2019, and for the reckless harm he inflicted on Australia's trade with China, should be troubling for all Australians.


1. Can Australians respect in Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a prime minister who abandoned Australia to take a holiday in Hawaii while his country was burning in 2019?

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison

Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison (above) scaled a massively elevated level of self-gratification by departing Australia with his family in late December 2019 to enjoy a holiday in Hawaii. He would probably say that everyone is entitled to take a holiday, but he indulged this appalling exercise in self-gratification at a time when Australia was being ravaged by bushfires in three States, with nine people dead including two volunteer firefighters, more than 700 homes destroyed, and millions of hectares scorched.

Residents of fire-ravaged Kobargo refuse to shake the hand of Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison, freshly returned from his family holiday frolic in sunny Hawaii while Australia was burning, appears to have triggered the poseur detectors in bushfire-ravaged Cobargo while touring the small New South Wales town because he received a very hostile reception from the country folk. A firefighter refused to shake Morrison’s hand when the prime minister approached him. He made very clear his revulsion by saying to the prime minister, “I don’t really want to shake your hand.”

When a female resident declined to accept Morrison’s hand when he offered it, the prime minister reached down and took hold of her hand and shook it. He obviously failed to realise that he had just committed a technical common assault. When residents called out "You're not welcome here", an obviously embarrassed Morrison retreated quickly to his Commonwealth BMW and sped off.

In the context of the bushfires that had ravaged Australia in December 2019, and published comment from the usual doomsayers claiming without the slightest evidence that climate change had caused the bushfires, I wrote to Prime MInister Morrison urging him to invite one of the most distinguished atmospheric physicists in the world to Australia for consultation with his Environment Minister. That distinguished atmospheric physicist is Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen of the famous Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the United States.

Professor Linden has received some criticism for his conservative approach to climate change, and in particular, his rejection of excessive “climate alarmism” as being inadequately supported by hard facts. Most of this criticism has come from those whose incomes depend on climate alarmism. Professor LIndzen has been a consultant on earth climate to American presidents, the US Congress, and the United Nations. it is characteristic of Scott "Hawaii" Morrison that he did not bother to reply to my proposal. However, his churlishness provided me with incentive to expose more of his serious character defects to the Australian people.

2. Can Australians respect in Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a man who cares so little about democracy that he believes that he can change our National Anthem without consulting Australians to produce in it acknowledgment of white blame for Aboriginal disadvantage following British Settlement in 1788.

Implementation of the Aboriginal Uluru Statement of 2017, as expanded and significantly refined by the Referendun Council in its Final Report, would produce change or changes to the Australian Constitution that would result in disintegration of Australia into hundreds of sovereign Aboriginal "First Nation" enclaves, and could raise serious issues of property ownership for the 97 percent of Australians who lack any Aboriginal ancestry. My detailed comments on proposals for constitutional change in the Referendum Council Final Report can be viewed at "Implementation of the Aboriginal 'Uluru Statement' will shatter the Australia that the other 97 percent of us love".

The Uluru Statement actually suggests that proposed recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty (i.e ownership) over the whole of Australia through amendment of the Australian Constitution would be qualified by it co-existing with the Crown; but the Crown has alienated its ownership of the freehold property on which millions of Australian homes and businesses are located. So implementation of Aboriginal sovereignty (i.e. ownership) over the whole of Australia by constitutional change, as demanded by the Uluru Statement, would mean that hundreds of Aboriginal "First Nations" would become sole owners of all freehold land across Australia including the homes and businesses built on that freehold land by the 97 percent of Australians who lack any Aboriginal ancestry.

If any part of the Uluru Statement and the FInal Report of the Referendum Council were to be implemented in the Australian Constitution, no matter how apparently innocent the language might appear, it is frightening to think what activist High Court judges might do to ownership of property by Australians who lack any Aboriginal ancestry.

Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison (above) has acceded to the demand from Aboriginal Australians to recognise the many hundreds of tribes inhabiting Terra Australis (now Australia) in 1788 as being "First Nations" that retained sovereignty over vast areas of Australia. This recognition of Aboriginal "First Nations" is viewed in the Uluru Statement as the first step towards granting hundreds of Aboriginal "First Nations" ownership of the whole of Australia. So Scott "Hawaii" Morrison is leading a charge that threatens the livestyles and property ownership of the 97 percent of Australians who do not have Aboriginal ancestry.

So a crucial first step in this massive change to the lifestyles of the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry is recognition by the Australian government that the many hundreds of Aboriginal tribes inhabiting Australia when the First Fleet landed at Port Jackson in 1788 were not actually Aboriginal tribes but "First Nations". Scott "Hawaii" Morrison generously acceded to this Aboriginal demand in his broadcast to Australia on New Year's Day 2021. After telling Australians that he had changed their National Anthem without first consulting them, the prime minister went on to acknowledge his government's recognition that the hundreds of Aboriginal tribes inhabiting Australia in 1788 were no longer to be called "First People" or "First Australians, but henceforth would be accepted by his government as having the status of Aboriginal "First Nations".

Australians who are familiar with the terms of the Uluru Statement could reasonably draw a conclusion from Scott "Hawaii" Morrison's acknowledgment of Aboriginal "First Nations" that he was foreshadowing implementation of part or all of the very controversial Aboriginal Uluru Statement.

The demand for Aboriginal sovereignty (i.e. ownership) over the whole of Australia appears to have been too much of a hot potato for the Referendum Council to mention in its Final Report.

Australians should be prepared for more secret changes to their National Anthem from a prime minister who appears to have no respect for their basic rights in a democracy. He is apparently working with an almost unknown Aboriginal Recognition in Anthem Project which was behind the secret change to the first verse of our National Anthem where "For we are young and free" was replaced by "For we are one and free". I have been informed that the second and third verses of the National Anthem will also be secretly changed to introduce the concept of "truth-telling" mentioned in the Uluru Statement. In this context, "truth-telling" will require all Australians to acknowledge shame when singing their National Anthem for cruel dispossession of Aborigines from their hunting grounds when the British First Fleet arrived in 1788.

I will no longer stand and take any part in this travesty of a National Anthem to be foisted on Australians by a prime minister who has no respect for democracy.

3. Can Australians respect in Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a man whose bumbling incompetence as Federal treasurer lost Australia all of its vital car manufacturing?

IMAGE LEFT: Scott "Hawaii" Morrison presided as Australia's treasurer over the loss by Australia of all vital car manufacturing; IMAGE RIGHT: the last Holden Commodore rolls off the assembly line in 2017.

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison was appointed Federal treasurer by Prime MInister Malcolm Turnbull in September 2015 over the knifed body of Prime MInister Tony Abbott, and he held the office of treasurer until he secured the office of prime minister in August 2018. Morrison has never entirely shaken off the stench of disloyalty emanating from his role in the ousting of Tony Abbott and his reward of the office of treasurer from a grateful and equally disloyal Turnbull.

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison presided as Australian treasurer over the closing down of all car design and manufacture in Australia. In October 2017, Holden followed Ford and Toyota by shutting the door on car design and anufacture. After 100 years of building cars in Australia, Holden closed its doors, leaving 2500 employees without jobs and hundreds of automotive suppliers without work and faced with closure.

The grave implications for Australia of the shutting down of a strategically vital industry are made clear by Craig Milne* writing in "News Weekly" of 3 April 2021:

“The Australian automotive industry was efficient, technically capable, and in possession of world-class design and engineering skills…Apart from its significant addition to economic output, automotive manufacturing made an important contribution to Australia’s technical capabilities … The automotive industry encompassed an encyclopaedic range of important, complex, and difficult manufacturing processes…It employed advanced manufacturing techniques, like robotics and automation; it managed complex materials handling and assembly procedures, and attained operational and quality-management practices at the best standard of performance. * Chief Executive, Australian Productivity Council.

The loss of this industry, and the subsequent dissipation of its embedded skills and capabilities, has meant that any Australian capacity to undertake the production of complex , technology-intensive products in large volume, with high reliability and quality, and at a low cost, has now been lost.”

Only bumbling incompetence can explain the fact that Ford, Toyota, and Holden were all allowed to close down car design and manufacture in Australia without any apparent effort on the part of Treasurer Morrison to save any. The complex industrial skills involved in car design and manufacture are also very relevant to Australia's defence capabilities - as Craig Milne makes very clear. Treasurer Morrison obviously failed to appreciate this fact that should have been obvious to anyone but the proverbial "village idiot'.

Thailand builds cars for Japanese maker Honda, and with the cost of labour in countries like Thailand a tiny fraction of Australia's labour costs, and with no tariff on cars imported from countries with which Australia has a free trade agreement such as Thailand, and only 5 percent tariff on cars imported from other countries*, it was obvious that Australia's relatively small population could not sustain operations by three car manufacturers. But one car manufacturing operation could almost certainly have been saved if Treasurer Morrison had the sense and will to do so. * NOTE: To protect its car manufacturing, China sensibly imposes an average tariff of 25 per cent on imported cars.

Anyone but a bumbling incompetent politician like Scott "Hawaii" Morrison should have been able to save at least one car manufacturer in Australia. Using Section 51 (xxxi) of the Australian Constitution, Morrison could have acquired "on just terms" either Ford, Holden, or Toyota when it became clear that those companies were shutting down all car design and manufacture in Australia and run the acquired factory as an essential Commonwealth defence-related enterprise. He should have appreciated that Germany and France subsidise their car industries massively because those countries appreciate how vital car design and manufacturing is to create and retain skills relevant to the defence of their countries. Morrison could have used Commonwealth pressure to ensure that the many thousands of cars used at every level of government down to city councils came from an Australian car factory.

As Communist China's threatening shadow comes ever closer, Australians may learn to regret that Scott "Hawaii" Morrison lacked the intelligence, as treasurer, to appreciate that car design and manufacturing is a vital defence-related capability.

The bumbling incompetence of former Treasurer Scott “Hawaii” Morrison has seriously impaired Australia’s defence capabilities in any protracted war when sea lanes can be easily disrupted. We can only hope that a leader of the Australian Labor Party at national level will see the return of car design and manufacture as vital to Australia's defence capabilities.

4. Without baseload nuclear energy and a strong industrial base, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison's muddled planning for Net Zero CO2 emissions in 2050 will see Australia a very poor country.

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison reponds to the "climate change" hysteria gripping much of our planet with the notable exceptions of Communist China and Russia by asserting that his planning will see Australia reach net zero greenhouse gas* emissions by 2050 through "technology". By "technology", he does not mean clean nuclear energy used by many countries, but the use of renewable sources such as wind and solar energy. * Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane.

He makes this utterly bizarre claim in "The Australian" newspaper of 24 April 2021 saying:

“Our goal is to get to net zero as soon as we possibly can through technology … not taxes......We have the highest uptake of solar rooftop in the world and we’re deploying renewable energy 10 times faster than the global average per person".

This political "snow job" fails to acknowlege that wind turbines are placed across Australia at a considerable cost to the environment and the scenic beauty of their locations. German engineers have calculated that wind turbines face a greenhouse gas deficit for at least three years before they produce clean but unreliable energy. That greenhouse gas deficit comes from the mining of the metals involved in these gigantic structures; their construction in places like China which draws heavily on coal-fired energy; their transportation to Australia which draws heavily on diesel and other fossil fuel sources; their unloading and transportation across Australia; and finally, the use of fossil-fuel powered energy to construct them. The German engineers were talking about wind turbines actually produced entirely in Germany. When Australia has to draw on China for wind turbines, we can reasonably assume that many years will pass before a wind tubine in Australia overcomes its massive greenhouse gas deficit.

The non-government Climate Council of Australia offers this explanation of net zero emissions:

‘Net zero emissions’ refers to achieving an overall balance between greenhouse gas emissions produced and greenhouse gas emissions taken out of the atmosphere....to meet the goal of net zero, new emissions of greenhouse gas must be as low as possible. This means that we need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas – and transition to renewable energy*....To reach net zero, it is vital that (Australia) replaces all fossil fuels use, meet all of our energy needs with renewables and take concrete action to restore damaged landscapes, promote resilience of those living on the land and repair past harm to the atmosphere. Doing this will reduce the new emissions of greenhouse gas to as close to zero as possible, and remove the greenhouse gases we put there in the past." * "renewable energy" refers to energy produced by wind, solar, and hydroelectric sources.

Apparently, no one has explained to Scott "Hawaii" Morrison" and the Climate Council of Australia that there are times when the wind does not blow and the sun is obscured by thick clouds, especially in southern Australia.

The Climate Council suggests that battery storage will provide power to homes and businesses when there is no wind and the sun doesn't shine; but battery stored power is very costly and not practical for big cities which are very likely to endure severe city-wide blackouts without nuclear baseload power replacing coal, gas, and oil.

The Climate Council makes no reference to use of clean nuclear power * as a source of baseload energy despite the fact that nuclear reactors are delivering safe and non-polluting baseload energy in 32 countries across the globe. Clean nuclear power is used by all G20 countries except Australia, Italy, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. Clean nuclear power is also used by the top 20 countries in ranking of national economies (GDP) - again with the exceptions of Australia, Italy, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. * Nuclear power plants produce no greenhouse gases.

Australia has been operating a nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights south-west of Sydney since 1958. Despite this nuclear reactor proving to be perfectly safe, the Howard Coalition government banned the generation of baseload power from clean and very safe nuclear reactors in 1999 for no valid scientific reasons, and despite the fact that Australia has at least one third of the world’s uranium buried beneath its soil. We sell our uranium to other countries across the globe to generate safe nuclear power. and deny that safe non-polluting power to ourselves.

Over 70% of Australians are now recognising that well directed nuclear power plants can provide safe clean baseload power. I believe that independents who support clean baseload nuclear power for Australia will win seats off both Liberals and Labor at the next Federal election in 2022.

We should ask why Australia's spineless politicians resist clean baseload nuclear power.


Scott "Hawaii" Morrison and Opposition leader Anthony Albanese are both pledging net zero emissions of greenhouse gases under Coalition or Labor governments by 2050. That means no power from coal, oil, or gas, and the loss of hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs in industries that depend upon reasonably priced energy. So, for Australians without nuclear power, where will the baseload power come from for industry, businesses, hospitals, and homes when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine?

These pledges from Coalition and Labor leaders appear to mean that jet or piston engine planes will no longer fly in Australian skies in 2050 because these aircraft are heavy polluters of the atmosphere. Australians can say goodbye to cheap overseas travel in 2050. Ships are now mostly powered by greenhouse gas-emitting fuel, so ships in 2050 will have to be moved by wind on their sails and some solar power. Only wealthy Australians will be able to afford sea cruising. Diesel-powered trucks and buses are essential for carriage of goods and people, but they are heavy polluters of the atmosphere. It will be very difficult to provide buses and big trucks with solar power, and they will not run at night or on days without sun. When there is no wind or sun, it is likely that there will be insufficient electricity to power trains, trams and buses. Forget about travelling longer distances by horse-drawn vehicles. Horses emit greenhouse gases. If we cannot afford electric cars, we will have to ride bicycles, electric scooters, or walk to work. Have Scott "Hawaii" Morrison and Opposition leader Anthony Albanese given a moment’s thought to how impractical and utterly absurd their pledges are?

The compelling issue that Morrison and Albanese are choosing to ignore is how Australians can be provided with the cheap energy that abundant fossil fuels used to provide. Both men appear to be fearful of mentioning clean nuclear baseload power that could be derived from Australia's enormouse resource of uranium. Massive increases in energy costs are driving Australians out of business. Pensioners are freezing in winter because many cannot afford soaring energy prices as baseload coal-fired power plants are shut down by politicians whose substantial incomes ensure that they will never freeze.

Seventy percent of France's baseload energy needs are supplied by clean nuclear power, and President Macron has made it very clear that France will depend on a combination of baseload nuclear energy and renewables to reach a target of net zero emissions by 2050.

I assume that when talking of net zero emissions our political leaders are including carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane which are both classified as greenhouse gases. Do they realise that all humans and all animals that are mammals naturally emit these greenhouse gases? Those mammals include our pets (dogs and cats), horses, beef and dairy cattle, sheep, pigs, and chickens. Will all these animals need to be greatly reduced in numbers to secure the pledges from our political leaders of net zero emissions by 2050? If these pledges are genuine, they will surely deny us horse and dog racing, and greatly reduced availability of animal flesh of any kind on our tables, milk, and dogs and cats as pets. This is not fanciful. These denials of traditional lifestyles are being widely discussed across the world as necessary to reduce global warming which, in the absence of scientific proof of significant global warming over the last twenty years is now called "climate change". Leaders of the National Party at national and state levels should be discussing these realistic impacts on the lifestyles of their supporters.

Methane is a noxious gas but carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a noxious gas. It is life-giving. Without CO2, no plants would grow. Human life could not survive. All rain forests would disappear. No wheat crops or vegetables could be grown. Hundreds of millions of people would die of starvation if CO2 is dramatically reduced in the atmosphere by politicians who think like Scott "Hawaii" Morrison and Anthony Albanese. We should ask why children who march in our streets at the urging of some foolish teachers are being falsely led to believe that CO2 is a noxious gas?

The National Party of Australia is fortunate in having the Hon. Barnaby Joyce as a leader who appears to have the courage to question the realistic impact of net zero greenhouse emissions on traditional Australian lifestyles.

So without any baseload power from nuclear or fossil fuel sources, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison and Anthony Albanese will turn Australia back to the 18th century. When there is no wind or sunshine, we will light our homes with candles and huddle under blankets in winter. But at least in the 18th century, people had meat and milk on their tables.

To reach Scott "Hawaii" Morrison's 2050 target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions without clean baseload nuclear energy, Australians will probably have to give up or greatly reduce eating beef, lamb, pork, and chicken; and either adopt fully vegetarian or vegan lifestyles or consume only limited quantities of seafood. Large numbers of beef and dairy cattle, sheep, pigs, and chicken make a very substantial 14.5 percent* contribution to atmospheric pollution in the form of several greenhouse gases, including methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide. So those farmed animals numbering many millions will necessarily have to be significantly reduced in numbers from Australia if Morrison's target of net zero emissions by 2050 has any hope of being achieved without clean nuclear power. * United Nations figure - although some argue that the figure is closer to 18 percent.

This is not wild fantasy. Farmed animals are significant contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, and even a casual survey of the internet will disclose that abandonment of farmed animals as sources of human food is under serious discussion by those who believe our planet is facing the doom pronounced by "climate change" modellers.

Without baseload clean nuclear energy, Morrison's irrational planning is likely to produce an Australia in 2050 where people travel much as they did in the 18th century but without horses.

LEFT: Pedal-powered airship in 2050; LEFT NEXT: Luxury cruising in 2050 with wind and solar power; CENTRE: Heavy transport in 2050; NEXT: Office worker in 2050; RIGHT: Family travel in 2050.

Obssession with "climate change" as dooming human life to extinction is based upon questionable computer modelling and quasi-religious belief not hard scientific evidence

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a United Nations body. That should be enough to make sensible people wary of the Panel's doomsday predictions of calamity resulting from alleged human-produced global warming* that are based largely on computer modelling produced by people whose jobs and incomes depend heavily on keeping the world scared about global warming. * Now called "climate change" in the absence of significant global warming over the last twenty years.

The modellers of "climate change" are supported by hundreds of thousands of taxpayer-funded public servants and academics whose jobs would largely disappear if global warming was found to be significantly produced by changes over which we have no control, such as activity on the surface of the sun.

When global warming turned out to be insignificant over the last twenty years, those whose jobs and incomes depended on keeping the world scared switched their doomsday predictions from "global warming" to the vague term "climate change". That change in terminology conveniently ignored the fact that climate change, including freezing and sharp rises in the earth's temperature, have been occuring naturally for millions of years,

Nonsensical IPCC doomsday predictions have included claims that global warming would produce total inundation of the world's coastal cities by rising sea water by the year 2100, that the Himalayan snows would melt and disappear by 2030, that Antarctica would melt and disappear by 2050, and that low-lying Pacific islands would soon be totally covered by rising ocean levels. All of these claims have proved to be highly unlikely, but the IPCC presses on with its doomsday predictions based largely upon its own computer modelling and no hard scientific evidence. The IPCC has backed down on its prediction that the Himalayan snows would melt by 2030. Frozen Antarctica has not significantly diminished in size, and regular satellite surveys of the Pacific Ocean by NASA show no evidence that the many tiny low-lying islands that form Tuvalu and Kiribati have been reduced in size by rising sea level. Further proof that the IPCC is promoting nonsense on the claimed effects of climate changes produced by humans comes from Sydney Harbour where the sea level has been monitored since 1886 and has shown a long-term rate of sea level rise of only 0.65mm a year or 6.5 centimetres (2.5 inches) over a century.

While Western countries, including Australia, panic over "climate change" and take steps that will wreck their economies, the largest polluter of the atmosphere, namely, heavily industrialised Communist China, is laughing all the way to the bank as it takes over industries abandoned by other countries. With an economy second only in size to the United States, a capability to place satellites in space, and a massive military establishment possessing nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles and conventional strength capable of challenging the United States, Communist China is allowed to get away with the pretence that it is a developing nation and must therefore be allowed to strip the Western World of its industries and pollute the atmosphere freely until 2030.


Is Scott "Hawaii" Morrison's hydrogen powered Australia really one possible answer to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions in Australia by 2050 or is it a very dangerous proposal?

The Sun is the star at the centre of our solar system. About three quarters of the Sun's mass consists of hydrogen and that hydrogen provides a super-heated incandescent surface that projects heat to warm our planet Earth. So Scott"Hawaii" Morrison is telling us now that he wants this dangerously volatile gas hydrogen to fuel our cars, warm our homes, and power our industries. This is madness.

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison announced in a media release dated 20 September 2021 that hydrogen was his and Australia's answer to reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. He suggested:

"Hydrogen is a clean fuel of the future, and Australia will commercialise this technology...We are accelerating the development of our Australian hydrogen industry and it is our ambition to produce the cheapest clean hydrogen in the world, transforming our transport, energy, resources and manufacturing sectors."

On 26 September 2021, Morrison released a 126-page plan for Australia to spend up to $120 billions of taxpayers' monies to produce a hydrogen-based economy. He was unable to produce any scientific or economic support for this massive expenditure because no such support exists. This hydrogen proposal for Australia borders on a lunatic waste of public monies. This waste will impose appalling costs on ordinary Australians but will be welcomed by big business which will home in on massive taxpayer offereings.

Are the Morrison government advisers so stupid that they do not realise that the Americans have been trying without success since 2003 to convert the United States into a hydrogen-based economy that would include not only energy generation for cities and industry but also include cars, delivery vans, trucks, buses, trains, and aeroplanes all powered by hydrogen. it was President George W. Bush who announced in a State of the Union Address to Congress in 2003 that the United States would be powered by hydrogen in something like two decades.

Despite the fact that the United States is a technology giant that has not happened. In 2021, the US Energy Information Administration informs us that the major uses of hydrogen in the United States at this time are still limited to fuel for space rockets, and by American industry for the very limited uses of refining petroleum, treating metals, producing fertilizer, and processing foods. Hydrogen is not generally used in the United States to fuel cars, vans, trucks, trains, or aeroplanes because it highly volatile and likely to explode if not stored and handled with great care.

When announcing that "hydrogen (was) the clean fuel of the future", Morrison neglected to mention that hydrogen gas is not only a "clean fuel" but when converted for storage in tanks to liquid form by deep freezing or by massive compression it becomes very dangerous because of its highly volatile and explosive nature. Petrol is much safer than hydrogen as a fuel, and electric power from batteries is the safest of all.

Despite the failure of the American technology giant to find a way to use hydrogen safely for powering cities, industry, and all forms of transport, Morrison tells us that under his leadership the technology minnow that is Australia is purporting to waste colossal amounts of taxpayer monies pursuing what at this time is only a "pipe dream". He has announced that he will throw billions of taxpayer dollars at his ridiculous hydrogen economy "pipe dream". It is like casting blood into the sea. The sharks of big business will home in on this "blood" and will follow the tobacco industry by spending billions to persuade us that hydrogen is safe to use as fuel in a family car.

Why is hydrogen so dangerous as a source of energy?

Scott "hawaii" Morrison tells us that hydrogen fuel will "transform our transport, energy, resources, and manufacturing sectors. So we can assume by "transport", he is referring to cars, vans, trucks, and possibly buses, and trains. Some car manufacturers are already producing versions of hydrogen-powered cars to sell to the public so we are entitled to consider how safe are hydrogen-fuelled cars, and equally important, how safe are any places where hydrogen is stored in tanks as fuel.

Why is your hydrogen-powered family car like a bomb on wheels?

LEFT: The liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks on the Space Shuttle Challenger explode 73 seconds after take-off in 1968 obliterating the shuttle and killing all astronauts; RIGHT: A hydrogen-powered family car envisaged by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison for Australians will probably have to contain the same lethal liquid hydrogen tanks that destroyed Challenger in 1968. SEE MORE.

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison has done another olympic level backflip to talk about Australians turning to electric-powered vehicles

After coming back from the Glasgow climate talkfest, Prime MInister Morrison is now including a proposal for Australians to transfer voluntarily from petrol-powered to electric-powered vehicles to reach his totally unrealistic goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 without baseload clean nuclear power.

The prime minister appears to receive his advice on anything to do with "climate change" from people with a level of judgment approaching that of primary school students, although I am tempted to be generous and suggest that level of judgment is perhaps approaching Year 6.

The deadly fact for Scott "Hawaii" Morrison is that electric cars are not only very expensive but possess very short driving range compared to cars powered by petrol or hybrid petrol-electric cars. Take the Hyundai Ioniq electric for example. The base model costs about $50,000 and provides a driving range of only 300 kilometres before needing recharge. The Hyundai Ioniq hybrid petrol-electic base model costs about 35,700 and has a driving range of 1,200 kilometres. Morrison simply proves again that he is totally lacking sound judgment.

Perhaps the answer lies in encouragement of Australians to switch to hybrid petrol-electric vehicles when they replace their existing ones. Hybrid petrol-electric vehicles are already available and much cheaper than fully electric vehicles. Hopefully, electric cars with longer driving range and lower prices will be available vefore 2050.

The Australian government should encourage restoration of vehicle manufacture in Australia that was lost owing to the incompetence of Morrison. This encouragement should include the offering of powerful incentives to car makers to develop electric vehicles that cost less and have longer driving range, and to build them in Australia.


Despite what the climate doomsayers are constantly telling us about present-day global warming being solely caused by human activity, those of us who have actually studied history when it was a rigorous discipline (before the 1980s) know that over the past two thousand years our earth has undergone periods of significant warming that have little or no association with human activity.

Before the industrial revolution began in Great Britain in the late 18th century, the earth went through the Roman Warm Period (43 BC to 400 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950 AD to 1,250 AD). During the Roman Warm Period, England was warm enough for the Roman invaders to grow wine grapes as far north as Hadrian's Wall (the border with present-day Scotland). You cannot grow wine grapes there now. It is not warm enough.

The Medieval Warm Period coincides with Viking settlement of Greenland, Iceland and possibly North America. Farmsteads with dairy cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats were established by the Vikings in Iceland and along the southern coast of Greenland. Even England was able to compete economically with France in wine production

Industry as we know it in the 21st century, coal-fired electrical generation, and motorised forms of transport did not exist during these periods of very significant earth warming. In the absence of any significant warming from fossil fuels, some scientists now attribute these warming periods over the last two thousand years to sun activity or other possible causes. David Jones, head of climate monitoring and prediction services at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, has conceded that significant warming of the earth during the Roman and Medieval Warm periods could be explained by changes in solar activity rather than human activity. Climate doomsayers whose incomes depend on blaming human activity solely for warming of the earth do not want to hear about warming produced by changes in our sun because that is beyond human control

Marine Lieutenant Watkin Tench was a member of the First Fleet that landed at Botany Bay on 26 January 1788. In his published account of life at the new Sydney settlement*, he records a temperature of 109 degrees F (42.7 C) at Rose Hill which is located only 12 miles from the centre of Sydney; and he records that birds and fruit bats dropped dead from the sky during this late eighteenth century heatwave. There was no industry driven by fossil fuels and no motor transport in Sydney in 1788. * Narrative of the Expedition to Botany Bay and Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson.

Very little industry producing pollution existed in 1788 except in Britain’s cotton mills, and most air pollution was produced in Britain by heating of homes and businesses with coal and wood fires. There was no generation of electricity from burning coal or gas. There were no aircraft crossing the skies and expelling vast quantities of greenhouse gases in 1788.

Can someone who blames human greenhouse gas emissions for global warming please explain the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, and why the Port Jackson settlement experienced 40C plus temperatures in the 1780s when industrial activity did not exist in Australia? Russian climate scientists claim that their Antarctic ice core samples suggest that the world is actually on the cusp of another Ice Age.

So what is going on? I suspect that it may be the many billions of dollars invested world-wide in the global warming industry which prevent genuine comparisons with past eras of significant global warming when very little greenhouse gas was produced by human activity.

6. Can Australians respect in Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a prime minister who needlessly antagonised Communist China over the source of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) and damaged Australia's vital trade?

Communist China's President Xi Jinping (RIGHT) was happy to play Scott "Hawaii" Morrison for a fool and punish Australia's tradewith irrational embargoes and tariffs.

Why would the prime minister of a middle-sized power, such as Australia, which is massively dependent on trade with Communist China lead the world in calling for an investigation of the source of the deadly coronavirus (Covid-19) that originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan? The source is important to the free world because the likely sources of the coronavirus in Wuhan are either a so-called "wet market" or the Wuhan Institute of Virology which is linked to China's military. Think biological warfare, and we know why the Communist Chinese dictatorship is so sensitive about this issue because President Xi Jinping closed the rest of China to the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) but deliberately allowed it to be exported across the world where it has devasted economies, has infected 221,076,043 * people, and killed 4,574,435 * at 5 September 2021. * See: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

Why did our foolish prime minister Morrison not challenge China's President Xi for deliberately exporting the deadly Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) to the world while closing the rest of China to Wuhan. This call would have been solidly based upon unchallengeable evidence. Only a fool would have expected Communist dictator Xi to allow full and independent investigation of the source of the deadly Wuhan coronavirus.

The call for investigation of the source of the Wuhan coronavirus from Prime Minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison predictably angered the communist Chinese leader President Xi who retaliated by causing harsh and totally irrational restrictions to be imposed on Australia's trade with China. This result from a communist dictatorship should have been predicted by any leader who was not driven by a mad urge to "bestride"* the world stage as a miniature colossus. Why did our foolish prime minister not urge the United States to be the first to call for such an inquiry. President Trump would almost certainly have been happy to lead the call for an inquiry into the source of the Wuhan virus. * drawn from Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar".


LEFT: The book “Kokoda beyond the Legend” was published by the Australian War Memorial in 2017 to mark the 75th anniversary of the Kokoda fighting; RIGHT: Australian War Memorial director Brendan Nelson has ignored invitations to defend false and insulting claims in his book’s treatment of Kokoda.

Can Australians respect in Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a prime minister who tolerates the deliberate false demeaning of Kokoda and dishonouring of Kokoda heroes by the management of the Australian War Memorial in the book "Kokoda beyond the Legend"?

Can Australians respect a prime minister who tolerates the deliberate false smearing of Australia's Kokoda heroes as lesser soldiers than the Japanese whom they defeated on the Kokoda Track in 1942?

Since 2012, the Australian War Memorial has been publishing material, finally incorporated in a book with the insulting title "Kokoda beyond the Legend" (see below). The title is insulting because Robin Hood and King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table are the stuff of legend. Kokoda is historical fact, not legend. The book "Kokoda beyond the Legend" falsely diminishes the strategic importance of Kokoda to Australia in 1942 in two chapters and falsely suggests that our understanding of the magnificent Kokoda achievement is ridden with myths. Not content with false distortion of history, this Australian War Memorial book falsely presents Kokoda as not being part of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1942, and thereby, falsely denies Australian heroes, including Bruce Kingsbury VC and John French VC, the honour of dying on Australian soil in defence of land that was still part of Australia in 1942. In a third chapter of this appalling publication "Kokoda beyond the Legend", Australia's Kokoda heroes are falsely smeared as lesser fighters than the Japanese they defeated on the Kokoda Track.

On 17 October 2019, I sent to Prime Minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a full briefing concerning the apparent deliberate campaign by the Australian War Memorial since 2012 to diminish the importance of Kokoda to Australians and to smear Australia's Kokoda heroes as lesser fighters than the Japanese they defeated in bloody fighting on a part of Papua that we know as the Kokoda Track. Those Australian heroes fought, bled, and died on what was sovereign Australian soil in 1942, also known as the Kokoda Track, to repel a Japanese invasion of land that was still part of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1942.

Papua was still part of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1942 because ownership of Papua was transferred by Britain to Australia in 1902 and became part of the Commonwealth of Australia with the passing of the Papua Act 1905 (C'wealth). Papua remained a part of the Commonwealth of Australia until it received independence in 1975. The capital of Papua in 1942 was Port Moresby and its capture by Japanese troops crossing the Kokoda Track (Operation MO) was a strategic priority that was intended to anchor the total isolation of Australia from the United States in 1942 (Japan’s Operation FS). Those Australian heroes who fought, bled, and died on the Kokoda Track were defending Australia against a Japanese invasion of land that was still part of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1942. Kokoda should be of great importance to all Australians because the Japanese invasion of Papua on 21 July 1942 was the first invasion of the Commonwealth of Australia since Federation.

The prime minister has not bothered to reply to my briefing which was fully supported by sound historical evidence. If he had bothered to read it, he should have been convinced that the appalling treatment of Kokoda in the book "Kokoda beyond the Legend" was contradicted by readily available historical facts in the official Australian and Japanese histories of the Kokoda fighting in 1942. Subsequent attempts by me to obtain a response from the prime minister on 3 July 2020 and 1 March 2021 have also been ignored.

My repeated public exposures between 2012 and 2019 of these appalling false treatments of Kokoda history have produced no challenges from the director of the Australian War Memorial Brendan Nelson, the Memorial Council, or any of the historians whose demeaning treatments of Kokoda and Australia's Kokoda heroes have been publicly shown by me to be false. It should apparent, as a matter of common sense, that those connected with the publication of "Kokoda beyond the Legend" fear that a public challenge directed to me would produce exposure of the massive inadequacy of their knowledge of the Kokoda fighting in 1942.

This page is my response to the failure of the prime minister to make any reply to my briefing on the appalling treatment of Kokoda by the Australian War Memorial since 2012.

8. Can Australians respect in Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a prime minister who resisted a posthumous award of a Victora Cross to a young Australian sailor who sacrificed his life to save his shipmates?

LEFT: Dale Marsh's painting of Edward "Teddy Sheean" depicts the young wounded sailor firing at attacking Japanese aircraft. His torpedoed ship HMAS Armidale is sinking fast, and the captain has given the order to abandon ship. Japanese aircraft are strafing his shipmates who are already in the water, and "Teddy" Sheean ignores a waiting lifeboat and mans an Oerlikon gun to protect his shipmates. The seawater is already lapping at his body and is about to close over him as he is still firing. He died with his ship; RIGHT: RIGHT: This image depicts Prime Minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison scaling a massively raised level of self-gratification by enjoying himself with his family in Hawaii in late December 2019 at a time when his country was being ravaged by bushfires in three States, with nine people dead including two volunteer firefighters, more than 700 homes destroyed, and millions of hectares scorched.

Thinking about what I perceived to be disturbing aspects of the character of Prime Minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison, and especially the lack of empathy with the fallen heroes of Kokoda, I was also compelled to think about his initial refusal to support awarding a posthumous Victoria Cross to young sailor Edward "Teddy" Sheean who sacrificed himself in 1942 to defend his shipmates as the torpedoed HMAS Armidale was sinking and under fire from Japanese aircraft. I restate that I am not for one moment suggesting that Scott "Hawaii" Morrison has a narcissistic personality disorder, but I am troubled by the fact that many narcissists resent heroism displayed by others because their selfish obsesson with themselves would prevent them sacrificing their own lives as "Teddy" Sheean did for his shipmates. I believe that the time has come for Scott "Hawaii" Morrison to satisfy Australians that his appearances of selfish entitlement to take a holiday in Hawaii when his country was burning and his appearance of lacking empathy with Australia's terrible sacrifices in war are characteristics of a small number of politicians and without more disturbing causes.

In 2013, the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal rejected the award of a Victoria Cross posthumously to Teddy Sheean. That tribunal was chaired by a lawyer with experience in copyright law, and several members of the tribunal had no military experience, although one had experience in human resources (formerly known as personnel management) for what that may be worth when assessing military heroism. The three female members of the tribunal brought to the consideration of Teddy Sheean’s sacrifice of his life their experience as civilian lawyers and a psychologist. We are surely entitled to ask whether any of these people would even contemplate giving their life deliberately to save another person who was not a very close family member. My long experience in the criminal law and formal study of criminology have taught me that many people feel resentment when confronted with extraordinary heroism in the face of death because they recognise in themselves a likelihood of cowardice if faced with a similar threat to their own lives. We cannot ignore this common human failing when we address the extraordinary heroism of Teddy Sheaan.

I read the 2013 report as an experienced senior Crown prosecutor, former regular army officer who served with the Australian Army in Vietnam in 1968 and experienced during the massive communist Tet Offensive the sound of M109 155mm howitzers firing every ten minutes over my tent at the 1st Australian Task Force base at Nui Dat, co-author of a book on forensic science including ballistics (1985), and graduate military historian (University of Queensland).

I was not impressed with the quality of the 2013 tribunal’s report in regard to Teddy Sheean, although Scott "Hawaii" Morrison clung to it as authoritative when he and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds rejected a second inquiry by the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal in 2019 which unanimously recommended a posthumous award of a Victoria Cross to Teddy Sheean. Under political pressure, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison did a backflip worthy of Jim Hacker in the BBC political sitcom “Yes, Prime Minister” and announced on 10 June 2020 that he had "commissioned an expert panel" to provide advice as to whether the 2019 review by the tribunal "had any significant new evidence … compelling enough to support a recommendation by the Government that Sheean's Mention in Despatches be replaced by a Victoria Cross". Mr Morrison said “the panel (would) be chaired by former minister for defence and former director of the Australia War Memorial Dr Brendan Nelson AO, with former solicitor-general David Bennett AC QC, former secretary of the department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Dr Peter Shergold AC, and senior curator and historian at the NSW Anzac Memorial, Brad Manera.”

The appointment of Brendan Nelson to chair this so-called “expert panel” will surprise those Australians who are aware that Nelson permitted publication of the book “Kokoda beyond the Legend” in 2017 which falsely claimed in two chapters that Kokoda was not part of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1942, thereby effectively denying our dead Kokoda heroes, including Bruce Kingsbury VC and John French VC, the honour of fighting, bleeding, and dying to defend soil that was still part of Australia in 1942. Not content with that easily proven falsehood, this appalling Australian War Memorial publication falsely smeared Australian defenders of the Kokoda Track in another chapter as lesser fighters than the Japanese whom they defeated and drove back to their beachheads. Scott "Hawaii" Morrison was fully acquainted by me in 2019 with this totally unjustified denigration of Kokoda and the Australians who fought, bled, and died on Australian soil during the Kokoda fighting (see above). I received no response from him, and the appointment of the publisher of "Kokoda beyond the Legend" to chair the so-called "expert panel" reinforced my impression that in Scott "Hawaii" Morrison, Australians have a prime minister who appears to care very little about the sacrifices of Australians in war.

The other three members of the so-called “expert panel” appear to have academic, legal, and business experience, but I am not aware of any military experience that they may possess. In other words, it appears to me that this so-called “expert panel” is not really equipped to assess the level of heroism displayed by Teddy Sheean when he sacrificed his life to save his shipmates. I believe that appointment of this “expert panel” is nothing more than a cynical sham intended to disguise Mr Morrison’s real intention of allowing no award of a posthumous Victoria Cross to Teddy Sheean; and I believe that this appearance of sham is strengthened upon examination of the virtually insurmountable barrier that this prime minister has placed in front of the “expert panel” recommending an award, namely, when he said:

“…the Government's view and clear policy is that consideration of the awarding of a retrospective Victoria Cross would only occur in light of compelling new evidence or if there was evidence of significant maladministration."

Let me try to help the so-called “expert panel” by mentioning an aspect of the findings of the 2013 inquiry which I view as deeply flawed. That aspect of the 2013 report was the refusal of the tribunal members to accept, appreciate, and treat as proof of extraordinary heroism, the uncontradicted evidence from eyewitness shipmates that "Teddy" Sheean’s 20mm Oerlikon gun continued firing and producing upward spurts of seawater even after the gun's muzzle had sunk below the surface of the sea. It follows irresistibly that "Teddy" Sheean was still firing at the attacking Japanese aircraft even as he was drowning. He did not abandon the Oerlikon gun and swim to the surface. He died still fighting to save his shipmates. By rejecting this evidence from eyewitnesses as unlikely, the members of the 2013 tribunal denied to themselves appreciation that Sheaan was prepared to sacrifice his life in defence of his shipmates. As co-author with Chief Justice of Victoria John Phillips of a book on forensic science*, including ballistics, I believe that a military ordnance expert could have explained to the first tribunal that the upward spurts of seawater were consistent with the Oerlikon gun continuing to fire for a very short time even after its muzzle had sunk below the surface. This evidence that "Teddy" Shean was prepared to sacrifice his life to defend his shipmates was surely consistent with the extraordinary heroism that would justify an award of a Victoria Cross. The rejection by the 2013 tribunal of evidence that "Teddy" Sheean continued firing the Oerlikon gun, albeit briefly, after he and his gun had sunk beneath the surface of the sea should be treated as a failure by that tribunal to accept cogent evidence of extrordinary heroism.

I believe that it is clear that Scott "Hawaii" Morrison is a prime minister who cares nothing for the gallant sacrifices of Australians in war, and I feel that his mean-spirited failure to defend the honour of Australia’s Kokoda heroes against false denigration and to acknowledge appropriately the extraordinary heroism of "Teddy" Sheean deserves a wider audience. I will be sending my views on these important aspects of Australia’s military history to the Opposition Leader the Honourable Anthony Albanese MP, to members of Federal and State parliaments with military backgrounds, and to columnists and senior journalists who are likely to appreciate the need to honour the sacrifices made by Australians in war.


Despite the apparent purpose of the terms of reference of the "expert panel" appointed by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison being to override the recommendation by a Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal in 2019 to award a posthumous Victoria Cross to "Teddy" Sheean, the "expert panel" surprisingly overrode the primie minister's clear purpose and recommended the award of a posthumous Victoria Cross to "Teddy" Sheean. This leaves Prime MInister Morrison and Defence Minister Linda Reynolds with egg on their faces for opposing a very clearly deserved award. Her Majesty the Queen of Australia approved the award to "Teddy" Sheean on 12 August 2020.


9. Denial of the presumption of innocence by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison in 2018 almost certainly denied Cardinal George Pell (below) a fair trial.

Australia inherited from Britain the centuries-old recognition of the presumption of innocence as an important feature of the right of persons accused of crime to receive a fair trial. Scott "Hawaii" Morrison has demonstrated an intention to recognise the presumption of innocence only when it suits his political purposes and regardless of whether he is denying a fair trial to a person accused of serious crime. He demonstrated this appalling failure of a prime minister's duty to uphold the criminal justice system when he used a public statement by him to deny the presumption of innocence to Cardinal George Pell in 2018. The Cardinal had been charged with commission of sexual crimes against choir boys on two occasions in St Patrick's Cathedral in East Melbourne when the Cardinal had been Archbishop of Melbourne. These charges came to be called the "Cathedral charges".

The Victoria Police and the the Leftist collective that calls itself the ABC put a great deal of effort into seeing Cardinal Pell face charges of sexual abuse of children. In behaviour consistent with the scandals that have rocked Victoria Police over the last two decades and caused a serious collapse in its public standing, the police set up Operation Tethering in 2013 in an extraordinary effort to locate witnesses who would make allegations of sexual abuse against Cardinal Pell. Most of these allegations were so flimsy or ridiculous that they did not pass the magistrates court. The five surviving allegations were the equally ridiculous "Cathedral charges".

The prosecution case on the "Cathedral charges", as it was left to the jury, alleged that the offending occurred on two separate occasions, the first (four charges) on 15 or 22 December 1996 and the second (one charge) on 23 February 1997. The incidents were alleged to have occurred in and near the priests' sacristy at St Patrick's Cathedral, and immediately following the celebration of Sunday solemn Mass and while the Cathedral was still thronged with clergy, altar servers, about sixty adult and child members of the choir, and many members of the congregation. The victims of the alleged offending were two Cathedral choirboys aged 13 years at the time of the events. One of the choirboys died before the trial of Cardinal Pell after telling his mother that the allegations against the Cardinal were untrue.

Speaking as a person who held the statutory office of Prosecutor for the Queen in Victoria for fifteen years, I have publicly described the evidence purporting to support the "Cathedral charges" against the Cardinal as utterly implausible. The first of the "Cathedral charges" required then Archbishop Pell to defy the laws of physics and be in two places at the same time. Credible evidence placed Archbishop Pell with his master of ceremonies Monsignor Portelli at the front of the Cathedral saying farewell to members of the congregation at the time when the first four Cathedral charges were alleged to have occurred.

The second "Cathedral charge" alleged that then Archbishop Pell sexually asaulted a choirboy in the presence of a large number of people, including clergy, who had attended the Mass. None of this large number of alleged eyewitnesses was called by the prosecution to provide supporting corroboration for this fantastic allegation. This second "Cathedral charge was so ridiculous that it reflects poorly on the Victorian criminal justice system that it ever went before a jury. As Prosecutor for the Queen, I would have refused to sign the presentment containing any of the "Cathedral charges" against Cardinal Pell that went before juries in two trials in 2018.

Two weeks before the trial commenced that saw Cardinal George Pell convicted of wildly improbable sexual charges, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison made an extraordinary statement as prime minister to parliament on 22 October 2018 in the form of a "National Apology to Victims and Survivors of Institutional Child Sexual Abuse".  Instead of following the usual format of support for victims and survivors of sexual abuse, Morrison offered the extraordinary declaration "we believe you" without any qualification. That public declaration from Prime Minister Morrison effectively banished the centuries-old presumption of innocence from consideration when dealing with allegations of sexual crime. Being a public declaration by Prime Minister Morrison on a very controversial subject, his rejection of the presumption of innocence when dealing with accusations of sexual crime would be very likely to circulate widely across Australia and almost certainly become known to members of the jury that were to consider and determine the charges laid against Cardinal Pell. It follows that Scott "Hawaii" Morrison's public rejection of the presumption of innocence when dealing with charges of sexual crime almost certainly contributed to the denial of a fair trial to Cardinal Pell in December 2018, and almost certainly contributed to his conviction for alleged sexual crimes that were based on absurdly implausible evidence.

Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison cannot escape a reasonable conclusion that his public rejection of the presumption of innocence when dealing with accusations of sexual crime probably contributed to producing a grave miscarriage of justice in relation to the trial of Cardinal Pell.

Cardinal Pell was convicted of all five charges on 11 December 2018 and he appealed against all convictions to the Full Court of Victoria. The Chief Justice Anne Ferguson and President of the Court of Appeal Chris Maxwell both lacked any significant experience of the operation of a criminal justice system and rejected the Cardinal's appeal. Their judgments reflect that lack of criminal experience. The only member of the Court of Appeal with experience of the criminal justice system was Justice Mark Weinberg. In a powerful dissenting judgment, he upheld the Cardinal's appeal and found the five convictions to be not justified by the evidence placed before the jury.

The High Court of Australia on 7 April 2020 unanimously upheld the Cardinal's appeal and quashed the five convictions. The High Court adopted Justice Weinberg's view that the convictions could not stand, and effectively held that Court of Appeal Justices Ferguson and Maxwell had an inadequate appreciation of criminal law. Prominent legal commentator Chris Merritt, wrote in "The Australian" newspaper:

"The baseless conviction of Cardinal Pell is an international scandal that will rank alongside the jailing of Lindy Chamberlain for the murder of her baby, who was actually taken by a dingo."

Some comment with regard to the serious miscarriage of justice that almost certainly led to the unjust conviction of Cardinal Pell appears to be appropriate because I believe that the Cardinal's treatment was even worse than that suffered by LIndy Chamberlain, and I had a small role to play in defending her that has never been made public.

Chief Justice Ferguson was appointed by Labor Attorney-General Rob Hulls to the Supreme Court of Victoria from practice as a solicitor in insolvency and general commercial litigation. She came to the case of Cardinal Pell with no broad experience of the criminal justice system.

Justice Maxwell was a practising barrister with no broad experience of the criminal justice system when Labor Attorney-General Rob Hulls appointed him President of Victoria's Court of Appeal over the heads of very experienced Supreme Court judges. His appointment as President of the Court of Appeal caused considerable surprise and was widely attributed to his strong background in defending human rights. He came to the case of Cardinal Pell with no broad experience of the criminal justice system.

This lack of any depth of experience of the criminal justice system on the parts of Justices Ferguson and Maxwell becomes readily apparent to an experienced criminal lawyer when reading their judgments in the appeal of Cardinal Pell and when comparing them with the judgment of the third and dissenting Appeal Court Justice Mark Weinberg whose superb grasp of the grave errors afflicting the conviction of Cardinal Pell becomes readily apparent to a reader of his judgment. Before appointment to the Supreme Court of Victoria, Justice Weinberg had extensive experience of the functioning of the criminal justice system, and I remember him particularly as being one of the few defence lawyers who defeated me soundly in the criminal division of Victoria’s Court of Appeal.

The most fundamental error in the judgments of Justices Ferguson and Maxwell was their treating each piece of exculpatory evidence separately and asking themselves whether in the case of each piece of exculpatory evidence it was still possible that the alleged victim’s account could have been true. This fragmentary approach to the evidence was a fundamental error that could possibly be explained by their lack of broad experience of the criminal justice system.

An experienced appeal court criminal lawyer would see the error immediately, and the High Court made clear the error of Justices Ferguson and Maxwell in failing to consider whether the body of exculpatory evidence taken as a whole could produce a reasonable doubt that the alleged victim’s story was true and thus open a reasonable doubt as to the Cardinal’s guilt.

The fact that Cardinal Pell ever faced trial by jury on utterly implausible charges reflects poorly on the criminal justice system in Victoria. A large measure of blame for the probable miscarriage of justice that produced the five totally unjustified convictions of Cardinal Pell must rest on Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison's appalling public rejection of the centuries-old presumption of innocence from consideration when dealing with allegations of sexual crime. Cardinal Pell deserves an apology from Scott "Hawaii" Morrison, but sadly, he is unlikely to receive it from a politician of his character.

Commenting on the unanimous quashing of Cardinal Pell's convictions by the HIgh Court, Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews said: “I make no comment about today’s High Court decision”. * He then went on to make that comment by saying: “But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse: I see you. I hear you. I believe you.” * See"The Australian", 8 April 2020.

So we have the premier of Victoria joining with Scott "Hawaii" Morrison in rejecting the centuries-old right to the presumption of innocence of criminal charges until those charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Over the past two decades, it has become clear that the Victoria Police has become a wholly owned subsidiary of Victorian Labor governments. Every Victorian should feel disturbed that a fundamental human right to the presumption of innocence is being denied to them at both Federal and State government levels.

To anyone tempted to dismiss this comment as probably written by a Roman Catholic, I point out that I am a very Scottish Presbyterian.

10. Scott "Hawaii" Morrison denied the presumption of Innocence to thousands of blameless Australians who risked their lives for Australia in Afghanistan

LEFT: North Korea's "Dear Leader" Kim Jon Un; MIDDLE LEFT: Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison: MIDDLE RIGHT: Defence Minister Linda Reynolds: RIGHT: Chief of Defence General Angus Campbell.

North Korean dictator Kim Jon Un might find that he shares values with Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, and General Angus Campbell. Mr Kim must surely admire a leader who abandons his country to take a holiday in Hawaii when Australia is being ravaged by bushfires and Australians are dying in the flames.

He must also be impressed by a leader who refuses to defend against false smears and denigration the Kokoda heroes who died defending the first invasion of Australia as a real nation in 1942.

When released to the public in November 2020, the Brereton Report purported to have discovered "credible evidence" of thirty-nine murders by nineteen Australian soldiers fighting the Taliban and other hostile insurgents in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2016. The release of the Brereton Report was turned by Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds, and Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell into a witch hunt that defamed thousands of completely blameless men and women who had served Australia in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2016. Accepting the Brereton Report as if it actually provided "credible evidence" of war crimes, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison told Australians that the report exposed "brutal truths" of vile war crimes. It follows irresistibly from an inept prime minister's reference to "brutal truths" that he was denying to the nineteen soldiers accused by Major General Brereton of war crimes in Afghanistan the centuries-old presumption of innocence. He was also placing at grave risk any possibility of the nineteen achieving a fair trial in civilian courts before juries. Scott "Hawaii" Morrison gives the appearance that he would be comfortable with the sort of justice administered in North Korea.

Assuming guilt based on mere allegations, and without any need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law, General Campbell said the Brereton Report disclosed a "disgraceful and a profound betrayal of the Australian Defence Force’s professional standards and expectations". Again, without proof of guilt of any war crime beyond reasonable doubt, Campbell further announced that he would recommend stripping all personnel who have served in and with the special forces in Afghanistan of their meritorious unit citations. We expect to hear this sort of denial of basic human rights coming out of North Korea but not in Australia. Has this general never heard of the Geneva Conventions that forbid collective punishments in time of war? Has this general never heard of the centuries-old rule of natural justice inherited from England that grants a right to a fair hearing to persons subjected to punishment that denies their rights or interests? General Campbell's very questionable handling of the Brereton Report has embarrassed Australia and justifies him being moved to less demanding work than Chief of the Defence Force.

Having risked their lives for Australia under appalling conditions in Afghanistan, thousands of blameless men and women have been caught up in a witch hunt triggered by a foolish prime minister, and equally foolish minister and senior general who appeared to feel that mere allegations of war crimes in the Brereton Report, and that is all they are, justified the stripping of medals and meritorious unit citations from all who served in Afghanistan over nearly two decades. These three foolish leaders appear never to have heard of the centuries-old right of every Australian suspected of crime to a presumption of innocence until that presumption is overturned by a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt by a court of law.

The Brereton Report was produced by a judge who also happens to be an army reserve major-general without any apparent actual war service or investigative experience. After a four-year investigation, the major-general produced a report that did not, as it should, allege commissions of war crimes in Afghanistan but claimed to have found "credible evidence"of thirty-nine war crimes committed by nineteen serving Australian soldiers in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2016. I fail to understand how Major General Brereton thought he was authorised to find "credible evidence" of war crimes as distinct from finding evidence that he felt carried sufficient weight to justify investigation by experts and possibly leading to criminal trials before judges and juries.

The Brereton Report with its untested claims of "credible evidence" supporting some war crimes by a small number of Australian troops in Afghanistan should never have been released to the public until all allegations of war crimes had been tested in front of juries.

Anxious to establish his high priest of "woke" * credentials, Australia's Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison did not wait for the truth, or otherwise, of these war crime allegations to be tested by cross-examination or refuted by contradictory evidence in front of a judge and jury, he immediately, and foolishly, contacted the president of Afghanistan by telephone on 18 November 2020 to apologise for these alleged and unproven war crimes.

* "Woke" means alertness to sensitive social justice issues, and especially, the sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia, commonly attributed by bien-pensants to people without university degrees.

The president of Afghanistan released the following account of this telephoned apology by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison on 19 November 2020:

"In this telephone call, the Prime Minister of Australia expressed his deepest sorrow over the misconduct by some Australian troops in Afghanistan and assured the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan of the investigations and to ensuring justice."

The Afghan president's account of this telephoned apology by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison was widely reported in the Australian media on 19 November 2020. Our fawning, obsequious prime minister was effectively denying to any Australian who may be charged with a war crime in Afghanistan the centuries-old presumption of innocence of guilt.

This foolish behaviour by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison almost certainly contributed to publication by communist China's government of the appalling fake cartoon (below) that purports to depict an Australian soldier cutting the throat of an Afghan child and was published across the world on 30 November 2020.

This widely published fake Chinese government image purports to show an Australian soldier cutting the throat of an Afghan child. This published image has been blurred in the centre.

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison really knows how to honour Australians who risk their lives in defence of Australia.

Perhaps Scott "Hawaii" Morrison, Linda Reynolds, and Angus Campbell need to think about how many war veteran suicides may have been produced by their callous and baseless denials of the presumption of innocence to Australian war veterans.


In a promising development for Australian Defence Force members experiencing low morale produced by inadequate previous Defence MInister appointments, the new Defence Minister Peter Dutton drinks with the troops at Lavarack Barracks in Townsville.

New Defence Minister the Honourable Peter Dutton MP has announced that he is rejecting the appalling recommendation from the Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell that thousands of members of the ADF who have served in and with the special forces in Afghanistan since 2003 be stripped of their meritorious unit citations. General Campbell's outrageous recommendation would have stripped awards even from thousands of ADF members who had served honourably in Afghanistan. We have to wonder how many Afghanistan veterans have committed suicide as a result of this sort of appalling treatment by military "brass" who never faced real risk to life in Afghanistan. It is clearly time for General Campbell to be moved on to less demanding work than Chief of the Defence Force.

11. Scott "Hawaii" Morrison appears to be unaware that only a prime minister who is a blithering idiot would invite a victim of alleged rape to meet him privately before the case goes before a jury.

LEFT: Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison; MIDDLE: Brittany Higgins alleges that she was raped by a Liberal staff member in the parliamentary office of Defence Minister Senator Linda Reynolds in March 2019; RIGHT: Unidentified parliamentary colleague accused of raping Brittany Higgins in a minister's office.

Prime Minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison faces a serious risk of accusations of hypocrisy in his contradictory approach to allegations of sexual offences and sexual harrassment in Parliament House, and in particular, the allegation of rape levelled at an unidentified parliamentary colleague by Brittany Higgins and the allegation of historical rape levelled at Attorney General Christian Porter by an anonymous deceased woman.

I say nothing about the nature of the pending charge of rape against the unidentified parliamentary colleague arising from a complaint by Brittany Higgins because I know nothing of the facts, and consideration of supporting evidence will be the province of a jury if the case proceeds to trial.

In an apparent desperate bid to win female voter support, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison is now telling us that he proposes to address the rape allegation against an unidentified parliamentary colleague made by Brittany Higgins and claims of unhealthy attitudes, including sexual harrassment, towards female politicians and staffers in the Australian Parliament by introducing quotas for appointment of women as politicians and staffers. The absence of any logical connection between the introduction of quotas for female employment and allegations of rape and sexual harrassment in the Australian Parliament appears to be lost on this bumbling excuse for a prime minister.

In another attempt to take the heat off him and the Coalition Government, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison has initiated five parliamentary inquiries. The inquiries cover a broad range of issues, from how to improve the workplace culture for women at Parliament House to who knew what and when inside the Prime Minister's Office about the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins.

The answer to allegations of rape and sexual harrassment should be swift involvement of police or termination of employment, but not parliamentary inquiries that have a well-deserved reputation for being totally useless in producing meaningful results as well as involving denial of the presumption of innocence that can only be guaranteed in the law courts.

I have mentioned above that it is inappropriate for me to address the merits of an allegation of rape from Brittany Higgens, but as a former senior Crown prosecutor in three Australian jurisdictions over 25 years, I can say with confidence that only a prime minister who is a blithering idiot would invite a victim of alleged rape to meet him privately before the case goes before a jury. The likely consequences of that prime ministerial meeting for the unidentified public servant alleged to have committed rape are grave as I will explain.

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison’s desperate bid to win over female voters by aligning himself with the allegation of rape levelled by Brittany Higgins against an unidentified parliamentary colleague has now almost certainly led to the staffer being denied a fair trial.

As if the foregoing material was not sufficient evidence that Scott "Hawaii" Morrison is unfit to be prime minister of Australia, we learned on 26 March 2021 that Morrison had invited Brittany Higgins to meet with him at any place of her choosing. Such a meeting after Brittany Higgins had indicated publicly that she would be pursuing her rape allegation against an unidentified parliamentary colleague is not just another appalling error of judgment by Prime Minister Morrison. It involves serious impropriety on the part of Morrison because it gives an appearance that the prime minister is taking the side of Brittany Higgins against the public servant accused by her of rape in 2019.

After denying the presumption of innocence of alleged war crimes to thousands of men and women who served Australia honourably against a brutal and ruthless enemy in Afghanistan between 2003 and 2016 (Item 9 above), this bumbling excuse for a prime minister chose to meet Brittany Higgins on 30 April 2021, and he was reported by ABC news to have announced publicly that “the system let her down over (her) rape allegation”.

This meeting with an alleged victim of rape before trial and public declaration that "the system let her down" were appalling errors of judgment by a man who holds the high office of prime minister because they produce an appearance that Scott “Hawaii” Morrison supports the Brittany Higgens allegation of rape against the unidentified parliamentary colleague when that should be the function of a jury if the rape allegation proceeds to trial.

The meeting with Brittany Higgins was another clear denial of the centuries-old presumption of innocence by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison, and I find it difficult to see how the unidentified parliamentary colleague can now receive a fair trial on the charge of raping Brittany Higgins.

As if this case was not already extraordinary, 7News reported on 13 April 2021 that Brittany Higgens had sold her "experiences inside Parliament House" to book publisher Penguin Random House Australia for an estimated $250,000 despite a trial for rape pending. The 7News report did not indicate whether those "experiences" included an account of the alleged rape in Parliament House, but I would be surprised if this reported book sale and the book contents do not receve mention in the pending rape trial.

12. Scott "Hawaii" Morrison amazingly rediscovers the missing presumption of innocence when dealing with a sexual allegation against senior parliamentary colleague Christian Porter (below).

While denying the presumption of innocence to Cardinal George Pell and thousands of blameless members of Australia's defence force who risked their lives in Afganistan, Prime Minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison was happy to rediscover and invoke the centuries-old presumption of innocence to protect Liberal colleague Attorney General Christian Porter from an accusation of historical rape dating back to 1988 when Porter was seventeen.

The attempt to protect Christian Porter from the consequences of an accusation of rape demonstrates the capacity of Scott "Hawaii" Morrison to recognise the presumption of innocence only when it suits his political purposes.

13. How will Scott “Hawaii” Morrison excuse the purchase of his “incredible” but flawed single-engined F-35 to the family of an Australian pilot lost over the sea?

At the opening of a new maintenance and repair hub for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (shown above) in New South Wales , Scott “Hawaii” Morrison described the controversial and relatively under-powered F-35 ground and sea level attack fighter acquired by Australia at a massive cost to taxpayers as “incredible” and a means for Australia to “maintain its sovereignty”. He may have to explain his use of this extravagant marketing language to the families of pilots who suffer "flame-out" from the F-35’s single engine while over sea and far from land.

The risk to aircraft from "flame-out", or loss of engine power, is not so great with multi-engine aircraft, and that is one important reason together with greater power that persuaded the United States, Russia, and China to choose twin-engined aircraft for the air superiority or combat role.

In any discussion of Australia’s defence preparedness, the imperial expansion and sophisticated military strength of the Communist China super power is the massive elephant in the room that Australia’s military chiefs appear reluctant to acknowledge. Australia’s political chiefs appear to be equally reluctant to acknowledge this looming threat when choosing very expensive fighter aircraft and submarine replacements that are potential duds.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (shown above) was chosen to replace the Australian F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18 Super Hornet multi-role fighters at a time when China was not seen as a significant possible military threat to Australia. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is what its name implies, namely, a fighter primarily designed to strike at ground and sea level targets.

The F-35 was initially and primarily designed to fit the requirement of the US Marine Corps for a VTOL* aircraft to replace its ageing Harrier VTOL ground attack aircraft. It was never conceived as being primarily an air-superiority fighter, so it cannot replace the capabilities of Australia’s Hornet fighters which are 4th generation air-superiority fighters. * VTOL = Vertical take-off and landing.

Former RAAF pilot Byron Bailey has made it very clear that the F-35 is a ground attack aircraft and seriously underpowered by comparison with 5th generation air-superiority fighters such as China’s Chengdu J-20 fighter, Russia’s Sukhoi PAK FA 20, and America’s F-22 Raptor. Tthese air superiority fighters all have stealth capability.

The Americans are already recognising the serious limitations of the F-35 and are planning to pair them in air combat with the F-22 Raptor.

When so much of Australia’s defence budget has been allocated to purchase of the F-35 strike fighter, it appeared unlikely that Australia's defence chiefs would ever admit its limited capabilities in air combat. So it was refreshing to read in "The Australian" of 12 February 2021 that Air Marshal Mel Hupfeld has claimed that it would be "foolish" to increase Australia's existing order of seventy-two F-35 fighters arguing "(Australia) might be better off waiting for a next-generation capability".

Australian pilots will probably die because of the cowardice of politicians in refusing to acknowledge the limited capabilities of the F-35 in air combat.

The glaring reality is that any threat to Australia is likely to come from a country possessing nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them on Australia’s cities by ballistic missiles. Australia has no defence against this deadly threat. In the unlikely event that Cambodia, Brunei, or Monaco declares war on Australia our underpowered F-35s and controversial French-designed makeshift diesel submarines might just manage to defend Australia.


Scott "Hawaii" Morrison and "Chairman" Dan Andrews have the deaths of at least 800 Australians on their hands?

"The Good Companions" - LEFT: Death from Wuhan Coronavirus (Covid-19) newly arrived in Australia courtesy Scott "Hawaii" Morrison; CENTRE: Scott "Hawaii" Morrison; and RIGHT: Clown Prince of Bunglers "Chairman" Dan Andrews, Socialist Left Premier of Victoria - with apologies to J. B. Priestly and courtesy Australia's best cartoonist Mark Knight and the Herald Sun.

Victoria's Socialist Left premier "Chairman" Dan Andrews made an appalling mess of quarantining arrivals from overseas infected with the Wuhan (China) coronavirus (also known as Covid-19), but it was incompetent handling of Commonwealth responsibility for quarantine under the Australian Constitution by Prime MInister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison that unleashed the coronavirus (Covid-19) across Australia with deadly consequences.

Andrews employed untrained hotel and nightclub bouncers to "enforce" quarantine in selected hotels. In return for shopping excursions away from quarantine hotels, some women in those quarantine hotels appear to have rewarded bouncers with sexual favours, and so the coronavirus escaped into the community and at least 800 mostly elderly Victorians died from the coronavirus. Thousands were infected as a result of the culpable neglect by the Victorian government to take sensible steps to enforce quarantine. Elderly people in nursing homes and hospitals died without saying goodbye to loved ones. Victoria was locked down for six months. Thousands of businesses were closed; many would never reopen.

An idiotic Andrews government rule even prevented husbands and wives shopping together for food and other necessaries. An equally ridiculous rule compelled masks to be worn in the open air as well as shops even if there was no risk of close contact. One woman who grew up in Communist East Germany under the constant scrutiny of the feared Secret Police (STASI), described life in Victoria under Premier Daniel Andrews in 2020 as worse than her life in Communist East Germany in the 1970s and 1980s. Daniel Andrews and his responsible ministers may yet have to answer for their culpable neglect of proper quarantine in the law courts if breaches of health and safety laws are pursued in class actions.

As if determined to establish his credentials as Australia's premier buffoon, Daniel Andrews allowed Aboriginal protesters and Leftist groups to march without masks in Melbourne streets in 2020 with little interference from police but told Victorians that he would not allow the traditional Anzac Day march in 2021 even if masks were worn. At the beginning of August 2021, Victorians are facing their sixth total lockdown since March 2020 and they are learning what socialism is really like under a bungling socialist premier like Andrews.

But wait a minute! We appear to be blaming the incompetent Daniel Andrews for bungling a quarantine that was not his legal responsibility to enforce. Commonwealth management of quarantine was hand-balled to Andrews and other State premiers by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison without the Commonwealth supervision required by the Australian Constitution.

The handling of the Wuhan coronavirus (also known as Covid-19) by Prime Minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison has been a fiasco since the pandemic first hit Australia in 2020.

The responsibility for protecting Australia against diseases arriving from overseas is placed squarely on the Australian government by Section 51(ix) of the Australian Constitution which states that the Australian Parliament has responsibility for "Quarantine". That provision of the Australian Constitution effectively placed responsibility for protecting Australia against deadly imported viruses, including the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19), on the shoulders of Scott "Hawaii" Morrison. The Quarantine Act 1908 and the Biosecurity Act (2015), together with the Australian Border Force, provided Scott "Hawaii" Morrison with the powers and means to protect Australia against the deadly Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) but he simply handballed that responsibility to the States and Territories without providing any form of effective oversight of how they managed and contained the spread of the virus.

Having abandoned his constitutional responsibility and power to protect Australia against a deadly imported virus, this weak and incompetent prime minister initiated the sick joke called a "National Cabinet" in March 2020 in response to the arrival in Australia of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19). It is not a "cabinet" in any meaningful sense of that word. It abolished the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), and is itself nothing more than an intergovernmental forum which talks but produces nothing that binds any participant in the forum.

Having failed through utter incompetence to protect Australians adequately against the imported Wuhan coronavirus ( Covid-19), Scott "Hawaii" Morrison then demonstrated appalling incompetence in his painfully slow provision of vaccination for Australians against the virus. Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution provided Scott "Hawaii" Morrison with the power to secure adequate supplies of vaccine to treat and stop the rapid spread of the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) across Australia. To give effect to this constitutional power, the National Immunisation Program (NIP) was set up by the Commonwealth and state and territory governments in 1997. This national program was intended to increase national immunisation coverage to reduce the number of cases of diseases that are preventable by vaccination in Australia.

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison has clearly bungled his responsibility under the National Immunisation Program, and his incompetent handling of this national crisis is very clearly demonstrated by reference to the United Kingdom. The population of the United Kingdom at the end of 2020 was 68 million. The BBC announced on 31 July 2021 that "47 million British citizens had had their first [Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19)] vaccination - nearly 90% of the adult population - and almost 39 million - around 74% of adults - had had both doses".

Turning to Australia, Morrison's shameful incompetence is clearly exposed by his sham National Cabinet's published admission on 30 July 2021 that: "only 18.2 per cent of Australians aged 16 years and over are fully vaccinated".

We need to be very clear that Scott "Hawaii" Morrison carries a heavy responsility for the deadly ravages produced in Australia in 2020 and 2021 by the Wuhan coronavirus. Premier of Western Australia Mark McGowan appears to be the first Australian premier to appreciate this fact and declare it to be so.

Surely, even a fool like Scott "Hawaii" Morrison will eventually realise that the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) is entering Australia from overseas and that no one should enter Australia unless proven to be free of the virus. This is not a denial of rights in a democracy. It is a balancing of rights between those wanting to enter Australia from overseas and the rights of those living in Australia not to be infected by a deadly virus coming from overseas.

15. Can Australians respect in Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a weak prime minister who makes a sick joke of Australian Federation with his ridiculous so-called "National Cabinet" and allows the States to thumb their noses at the guarantee of freedom of movement in Section 92 of the Australian Constitution?

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison

With the exception of very sensible New South Wales premier Gladys Berejiklian who is not included in this criticism, the bizarre so-called "National Cabinet" set up by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison as his acknowledgement to Federation in 1901 and primary answer to management and containment of the imported deadly Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) appears to be comprised of obstructive, selfish, incompetent, utterly insensitive, and blindly parochial State premiers. Their appalling behaviours as Australia has suffered from the ravages of the Wuhan coronavirus beggars description. Even when coronavirus transmission is at very low levels, often only a handful across Australia on any given day, they close their States to Australians wanting to enter from other States and Territories. They undermined, and continue to undermine the Australian economy, inflicting enormous damage on commercial activity, and especially, their tourism industries. They thumb their noses at Federation. They thumb their noses at Section 92 of the Australian Constitution which requires freedom of movement between States and Territories for all Australians except when very grave situations justify restrictions. That very grave situation only occurred in Victoria throughout 2020 because of the incompetent handling of the Wuhan coronavirus by Premier Dan Andrews.

Our weak and incompetent Scott "Hawaii" Morrison sat back and did nothing to stop this human and economic sabotage from some State premiers. His creation of a "National Cabinet" is a sham and exposed as nothing but a marketing ploy by a dishonest prime minister who knows that a real cabinet under the Westminster system of government binds its members.This so-called National Cabinet is nothing but a forum that binds no one. Instead of reading the riot act to these irresponsible State premiers and reminding them of the terms of Section 92 of the Australian Constitution and the power of the Commonwealth to withhold taxpayer funding from recalcitrant States, he facilitated the undermining of Australia's economy by making Jobkeeper grants available to the most recalcitrant premiers who had no sound medical justifications for keeping their borders closed to Australians living in other States and Territories.

16. Will the madness never end? High Priest of Woke Scott "Hawaii" Morrison allows the Australian Defence Force to ban use of terms “wife” and “husband”.

LEFT: Australia's High Priest of Woke Scott "Hawaii" Morrison; RIGHT: Serving ADF members march in uniform in support of homosexual rights.

In 1992, Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating accepted that surveys across the Western world, including Australia, had indicated that as many as two in every hundred Australians were homosexual and he overruled the ban on homosexuals serving in the military. Since 1992, Australian admirals, generals, and air marshals have made it very clear that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) sees the promotion of homosexual rights as one of its primary functions.

Since 2010, the ADF has allowed openly transgender Australians to serve in the ADFand has approved Australian taxpayers meeting the cost of gender transition during military service.

In 2012, the ADF approved members marching in uniform in the 2013 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (see above) despite the support of homosexual rights being a key political aspect of the Mardi Gras, and the strict legal ban on the military engaging in political activism while in uniform.

In 2018, the Royal Australian Navy encouraged sailors to paint their fingernails pink to show their support for “equality”. Columnist Rita Panahi was moved by this nonsense to write in the Herald Sun of 31 July 2018:

"If there is one workplace that should be immune from the madness of victimhood culture and the influence of the activist class it’s the armed forces...It’s bad enough that Australian Defence Force personnel, charged with protecting the country, are subjected to absurd quotas and discriminatory recruitment practices*, but now they’re being encouraged to paint their fingernail pink to show their support for “equality”. * First class male applicants have been rejected by the ADF to meet strict female recruitment quotas.

The madness continues. Melbourne Herald Sun of 21 May 2021 reported that members of the Australian Defence Force would be required to be sensitive to the needs of LGBTQI members of the Force, i.e. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, or Intersex.

To avoid causing offence to LGBTQI members of the Australian Defence Force, Australia’s High Priest of Woke Scott “Hawaii” Morrison was allowing ADF members to be required to avoid the terms “wife” or “husband”, and refer only to “partners”.

The nonsense does not end there. To avoid causing offence to LGBTQI members of the Australian Defence Force, members must also ask all colleagues, including subordinates, “what is your preferred pronoun?”

“They” or “ze” replace if desired by an LGBTQI defence force member the traditional pronouns “she” or “he”.

“Hir” (pronounced "here") replaces if desired by an LGBTQI member “her”, “him”, “his’, or “they”.

While not treated yet as punishable military crimes, failure to observe these trendy gender usages are certain to affect military careers.

The Defence People Group Communication Plan prepared for International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia , Interphobia and Transphobia this week suggested Australian Defence Force members wear rainbow colours and host morning tea parties to acknowledge the day. The plan condemned terms such as “wife and “husband” as outdated and likely to be offensive to LGBTQI members of the Australian Defence Force.

The Defence Plan had a front-page picture of a rainbow cake and told ADF members: “Words and phrases such as ‘partner’ , ‘parents’ , ‘relationship’ , and ‘in a relationship’ are examples of LGBTQI- inclusive language.”

In response to the proposal, former military officer Bernard Gaynor said: “Our generals and military leaders have become an absolute joke.” He could have included Scott “Hawaii” Morrison as the leading clown for permitting this continuing degradation of the Australian Defence Force as a fighting force.


LEFT: Scott "Hawaii" Morrison signs an A$100 billion French submarine contract in the presence of Australian Defence Minister Christopher Pyne and French Armed Forces MInister Florence Parly; MIDDLE: Scott "Hawaii" Morrison in holiday mode during Australia's deadly 2019 bushfires.

Doomed by bad design, excessive noise underwater, and shoddy construction, Australia's existing Collins-class submarines appear to represent lethal sea-going coffins in combat with enemy attack submarines comparable to the Russian Akula-class and China's upgraded stealthy Shang II-class (Type 093A) submarines. In choosing to convert a French nuclear-powered attack submarine into a hybrid French diesel-electric submarine design that only exists as a concept, Australian politicians appeared to be happy to repeat the same mistakes involved in the choice of the disastrous Collins-class hybrid design. Fortunately for Australia, the bizarre French submarine proposal has been scrapped; but it raises a serious question whether the deeply troubled Collins-class submarines can effectively defend Australia's vast sea approaches over coming decades.


The Australian government decision to purchase from France hybrid submarines that had been converted from nuclear power to diesel-electric was utterly bizarre. There can be no certainty that the massive and very costly redesign of a French nuclear-powered submarine would have produced a hybrid that was any better than the appalling hybrid Collins-class disasters.

We are entitled to wonder whether only a seemingly mentally disturbed politician could have signed a contract for supply of twelve redesigned French diesel-electric submarines when (1) a design does not exist even on paper at this time; (2) the price is horrendous at A$90 billion and likely to blow out massively; (3) having surrendered quickly to the advancing German army in 1940 and turned their fleet over to the Nazis, the French have no relevant experience of submarine warfare; and (4) The first French hybrid diesel-electric submarine would not have been delivered before 2030 and the last in 2050 when it could well be obsolete and unfit for operational service. The French must have laughed all the way to the bank when Scott “Hawaii” Morrison signed this ridiculous "pie in the sky" contract.

The Australian understanding that the French deal would produce thousands of jobs in Australia was quickly contradicted by the chief of French submarine builder DCNS Herve Guillou who announced that the French-Australia submarine deal “would create around 4,000 French jobs, benefitting shipyards and industrial sites in Lorient, Brest, Nantes, and Cherbourg.” See: Reuters, 26 April 2016.

Robert Gottliebsen

Robert Gottliebsen
Award-winning columnist Robert Gottliebsen has described the French submarine contract in "The Australian" newspaper as "disastrous for Australia". READ MORE.

The Australian government decision to purchase from France hybrid submarines that had been converted from nuclear power to diesel-electric was utterly bizarre. It demonstrated that the Australian government had learned nothing from the derivative Collins-class submarine fiasco.

The submarine contract with France was so absurd that Australians should feel obliged to ponder whether someone who was behind this purchase cared little for the adequacy of Australia’s defence but was driven by a secret ambition to secure a benefit such as the plum job of Australian ambassador to UNESCO which is situated in beautiful Paris.

The Australian government announced on 17 September 2021 that it would acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines from the United States or Britain to replace its six Collins-class submarines and discontinue the purchase of a French hybrid diesel-electric submarine.

The French government responded with an utterly juvenile temper tantrum that included withdrawal of the French ambassador to Australia. The French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian effectively threw his rattle out of the cot when he denounced Australia in these words:

“There has been lying, duplicity, a major breach of trust and contempt. This will not do.”

The submarine deal was purely commercial and the French will receive massive financial compensation for cancellation of the deal that was always afflicted by the very real possibility that hybridising a French nuclear-powered submarine to create an effective diesel-electric submarine might not work. That happened with the Collins-class submarines and we don’t need a repeat of that debacle.

The petulant French response to Australia’s perfectly legal cancellation of the contract for a hybrid diesel-electric submarine that existed only as a concept and lacked even a basic design reflects the widely held view of the French as possessing a massively exaggerated sense of self-importance that has France clinging to fly specks on the world map as a semblance of an empire that disappeared long ago.

It should compel questioning by Australians why Scott “Hawaii” Morrison was so foolish as to engage with the French in a contract to buy submarines that only existed as a concept and lacked even a basic design.

The failure by Australian governments to appreciate the absurdity of choosing a non-existent French hybrid submarine to replace the deeply flawed Collins-class submarines is matched by an apparent total failure to appreciate historical facts that should have persuaded Australia that placing its defence in French hands was seriously unwise.

Politicians who suggest that France is an ally of Australia are speaking nonsense. No formal or informal alliance has ever existed between France and Australia except indirectly through Britain and before Australia achieved independence from Britain.The closest Britain has ever come to a formal defensive alliance with France was the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Pact (NATO) in 1949, and the insufferably arrogant, Anglophobic, and rude* French President Charles de Gaulle withdrew France from the pact in 1966. * Winston Churchill’s description.

When President de Gaulle called US Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the Elysee Palace and told him abruptly that he was pulling France out of NATO and wanted all American troops out of France, Rusk replied:

“Does that include the 180,000 who are buried here ?"

In the silence that followed, you could have heard a pin drop.

The French have never even been a natural ally of Australia. The French have been fighting the British since 1066 when the Duke of Normandy crossed the Channel and conquered England. The seemingly endless warfare between France and Britain appeared to end with Napoleon’s defeat at the Battle of Waterloo by an army led by Britain’s Duke of Wellington in 1815. The French have never forgiven Britain for that crushing defeat at Waterloo which crushed French self-esteem and produced the loss of a great deal of a conquered French empire and the treasures looted from conquered countries by French armies. That lack of forgiveness The Spanish are equally unlikely to ever forget Napoleon’s brutal conquest of Spain in the Peninsular War (1807-1814) when French troops were encouraged to crush Spanish resistance to invasion of their country with slaughter, rape, and looting that has parallels to be found in the savage Japanese Rape of Nanking in 1937 and the appalling behaviour of the Nazi SS in World War II.

Although having no formal defensive alliances with France, Britain fought to save France from German invasion in World War I and World War II. Australians fought at Gallipoli, and on the Western Front solely because Britain was doing so and because Australia was then a British colony.

Despite never had any formal or informal alliances with France, nearly 50,000 Australians lie buried in war graves in France and Belgium, and French lack of any gratitude to Australia for that sacrifice can be gauged by the petulant outburst from the French Foreign Minister.

Notwithstanding vital British support for France in two world wars, the French have always viewed Britain and its former colonies with scarcely disguised hostility embodied in hostile references to England as “perfidious Albion”. This French denigration of Britain has a centuries-old history that reaches into the twentieth century. World War II French general and later President Charles de Gaulle made no attempt to hide his deep hostility towards the English and their far flung empire that included Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

In the Cold War, French President Charles de Gaulle rejected close ties with Britain and the United States despite their heavy involvement in freeing his country from Nazi occupation at massive cost in lives. De Gaulle elected instead for a close friendship with Germany that was cemented by the Elysee Treaty of 1963. De Gaulle twice vetoed Britain's entry into the European Economic Community (Common Market); took France out of NATO in 1966; criticised the involvement of the United States and Australia in the war in Vietnam where France had been defeated by the Viet Cong supported by North Vietnam, China, and the Soviet Union; and in 1967, as punishment, de Gaulle banned the sale of parts and ammunition for Australia’s French-bought Mirage III jet fighters. De Gaulle’s denial of parts and ammunition for Australia’s French-bought Mirage III fighters effectively prevented the fighters supporting Australian troops in the Vietnam War.

We also need to remember that France has not acted as a friend of Australia in the past over nuclear weapon testing. De Gaulle initiated testing of French nuclear weapons in the Pacific Ocean at Moruroa Atoll in 1966 despite protests from Australia and other Asia-Pacific countries. The French conducted 193 nuclear tests in the Pacific between 1966 and 1996, and treated opposition from Australia and other Asia-Pacific countries to French nuclear testing in French Polynesia with contempt.

Greenpeace and other organisations sent protest boats into the nuclear test zones, and in response, French intelligence agents sank the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 1985, killing photographer Fernando Pereira. France initially denied responsibility, but two French agents were captured by New Zealand police and pleaded guilty to charges that included manslaughter of the crew member. The two convicted French agents were sentenced to ten years in prison which New Zealand agreed could be served on the island of Hao in French Polynesia. The agents spent a little over two years in very comfortable detention on Hao before being freed by the French government in flagrant breach of the detention agreement with New Zealand. The French treated their freed intelligence agents as heroes upon their release from detention. The French have never apologised for this disgraceful episode.

Canada has also suffered from unwanted and seriously inappropriate French interference. During an official visit to Canada under the pretext of attending Expo 67, President de Gaulle addressed a large crowd at the Montreal City hall in Quebec State with the words: Vive Montréal ! Vive le Québec !" ("Long live Montreal, Long live Quebec!") and then added, followed by loud applause, "Vive le Québec libre !" ("Long live free Quebec!”). This was viewed by the Canadian government as a grossly inappropriate encouragement of Quebec separatism from Canada. Canada’s anger was communicated to de Gaulle who cut short his visit and returned to France on the following say. The interference in Canadian politics was not impromptu. De Gaulle admitted that he arrived in Canada intending to encourage Quebec separatism

This storm in a teacup is really about easily injured French self-importance and Australia needs to remind the French that thousands of Australians lie buried in French war graves and continue working with the United States and Britain who are proven allies.


Being an island continent with vast sea approaches separating it from the other continents, and with an insatiable appetite for imports following the politically engineed collapse of most of Australia's industry from the 1970s, Australians could reasonably expect defence of those vast sea approaches by Australia's navy to be a high priority for Australia's political leaders and admirals. History suggests otherwise.

Australia has a remarkably chequered history when it comes to employment of submarines to patrol those sea approaches and protect its people. Much of that chequered history can be laid at the feet of of unprincipled politicians driven to buy votes rather than protect Australia’s defence needs, public servants who are more interested in career advancement than effective defence of their country, and craven admirals fearful of not receiving their glittering Orders of Australia if they exhibit spine by pressing for a submarine that an island continent needs for defence against powerful, fast, and stealthy enemy nuclear submarines.

Australia first employed submarines in World War I, and both British-built E-class submarines AE1 and AE2 were sunk on war service. Australia purchased 6 J-class submarines and a tender from Britain in 1919, but the build quality was so poor that they spent most of their time at Geelong in dock and under repair. All six were decommissioned and subsequently scuttled. A third attempt to acquire an adequate submarine service for Australia occurred in 1927 with the purchase of the British-built boats HMAS Oxley and HMAS Otway. The Great Depression left Australia unable to afford to maintain a submarine service, and Oxley and Otway were transferred back to the Royal Navy in 1931.

When World War II began in 1939 Australia had no submarine service to defend its sea approaches and relied almost totally on American and British submarines to defend it from Japanese attacks. These Allied submarines operated out of Fremantle and Brisbane. From 1949 to 1969, the very small diesel-electric Royal Navy 4th Submarine Flotilla was based in Sydney to provide Australian warships with anti-submarine training. The British loan of these diesel-electric submarines to Australia was terminated after Britain had acquired a sufficient number of nuclear-powered submarines to view World War II era diesel-electric submarines as approaching obsolescence and unfit for any purpose except scrapping or sale to its former colonies or Third-World countries.

The world’s major powers turned to nuclear-powered submarines because of major combat disadvantages affecting diesel-electric submarines in the 1950s, including frequent need to surface to recharge batteries exposed diesel-electric submarines to air and surface attack, and reliance upon diesel refuelling reduced significantly the time that diesel-electric submarines could operate at sea. Despite advances in diesel-electric submarine technology, nuclear-powered submarines are faster, have much longer range, and can spend much longer at sea and underwater than diesel-electric submarines.


The HMAS Rankin (left) is a Collins-class so-called "attack" submarine, and its far less than sleek lines compared to the sleek and fast Russian Akula-class attack submarine (right), reflect its very troubled history from initial poor design to deeply flawed sea operations.

Australia elected to continue defending its vast sea approaches with diesel-electric submarines (to be designated Collins-class) rather than nuclear-powered because it lacked any nuclear power industry and because of public opposition to nuclear power of any kind. Lacking any experience in building submarines, Australia sought tenders for construction of six Collins-class submarines to be built in South Australia. Purchase of a proven attack submarine "off the shelf" from Germany was never considered, although the cost would have been far less than the final cost of the completed Collins-class boats.

Seven of the world’s diesel-electric submarine builders tendered for the Collins-class submarine project which required that the submarines be built in Australia by a consortium with at least 50 per cent Australian ownership. The Australian review board concluded that the German Type 2000 (an enlarged version of the already proven Type 209) was the best design offered, the Dutch Walrus class was rated as 'fair', while the Swedish Kockum and British Vickers proposals were considered 'marginal' contenders. However, none of the tenders completely matched the desired Royal Australian Navy (RAN) specifications, and the two proposals selected would have to be redesigned during the funded study. The Dutch and British contenders were ultimately rejected as being too expensive to manufacture in Australia.

In May 1987 the Hawke labor government announced that the contract to design and build a new generation of Australian diesel-electric submarines to be designated Collins-class as replacements for the RAN’s obsolescent British Oberon-class submarines had been awarded to the small Swedish shipbuilder Kockum. The tendered cost of the six Collins-class submarines to be developed from Kockum’s small Västergötland-class submarines was expected to be A$3.9 billion in 1987 dollars.

On the face of it, the choice of Kockum was seriously bizarre. Neutral Sweden had not engaged in warfare for just over two hundred years, and had no experience of submarine warfare. Even more bizarre was the choice of Kockum's Västergötland-class submarine to be the basis for development of Australia's Collins-class submarines which would have a displacement of about 3,100 tonnes when surfaced. The Swedish Västergötland-class submarine was small (about 1,070 tonnes surfaced) and designed to operate not in deep oceans such as the Pacific or Indian but in the comparatively shallow and almost totally landlocked Baltic Sea with an average depth of only 55 metres (180 ft) and maximum depth of 459 m (1,506 ft). The Collins-class submarines would operate in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The average depth of the Pacific Ocean is 4,280 m (14,040 feet). The average depth of the Indian Ocean is 3,741 m (12,274 feet).

A telling aspect of the bizarre choice of Kockum is the fact that Kockum has only been able to sell its submarines to Austalia.

Serious doubts that Australia had the ship-building capability to build submarines were proven correct at every stage of the design, construction, sea trials, and operation of the Collins-class submarines which proved to be operational duds largely because of poor design and shoddy build resulting from inappropriate political considerations compromising battle effectiveness.

Two of those inappropriate political considerations were:

1. Effectiveness as an attack submarine would be compromised in favour of ensuring that the submarine choice would be built in South Australia despite Australia having no experience in designing and building submarines.

2. Effectiveness as an attack submarine would be compromised in favour of ensuring that the submarine's build features would provide privacy and comfortable accommodation for female sailors.

The decision to build the Collins-class submarines in South Australia was intended to win votes for the government by supporting that State's shipbuilding industry.

The bloated configuration of Collins-class "attack" submarines was heavily shaped by the political requirement that the boats provide comfort and privacy for female sailors. Feminists objected to female sailors having to share use of a bunk with male sailors despite the fact that this practice called "hotbunking"* has been a regular practice in more slender attack submarines for many years because of very limited crew space. Even the very latest American Virginia-class nuclear attack submarines (7,900 tonnes) require "hotbunking" because the slender design of fast attack submarines strictly limits crew space. Lack of crew space on attack submarines of traditional slender design would also require female and male crew members to use the same showers and lavatories. Politically correct politicians and admirals could not allow female sailors to suffer this indignity and loss of privacy, so the Collins-class submarines had to be bloated in design to satisfy the comfort and privacy needs of female sailors. * "Hotbunking" requires crew members to share use of the same bunk but not at the same time.

As might be expected when political considerations were allowed to compromise battle effectiveness, the history of the Collins-class submarines from conceptualisation to operations at sea has been an appalling fiasco.

The six Collins-class submarines became the subject of many well publicised serious technical problems throughout the design, construction, sea trials, and operational stages. Engine breakdowns during sea trials, excessive noise underwater, and problems with the combat system have been recurring issues across the entire class. Raising a periscope while moving could create sufficient drag and turbulence to shake the submarine severely. Many of these problems have been attributed to poor design, and especially, the submarines being a massively enlarged and untested design based upon the small Swedish Västergötland-class submarine that was designed to operate off the coast of Sweden rather than in the deep Indian and Pacific Oceans.

The serious technical problems dogging the design and construction of the Collins-class submarines led to the official McIntosh-Prescott Report in 1999 which acknowledged that some of the publicised problems had been or were in the process of being fixed, but asserted that “the propulsion system, combat system, and excessive underwater noise were ongoing problems across the class”. The report claimed that continuing problems with the submarines included “poor design and manufacture; and inappropriate design requirements”.

A confidential Defence Materiel Organisation report in 2012 raised questions whether the Collins-class submarines could remain operational to their expected end of service life between 2024 and 2030. In “The Australian" newspaper of 25 September 2013, Cameron Stewart wrote:

“ (The report) warns of grave challenges including periscopes that suck in water, unreliable diesel engines, faulty generators and sonars, and obsolete internal and external communication systems that could jeopardise the ability of submarines to talk to other navy vessels, including international allies. And it warns that the submarines' cooling systems are overloaded, making the vessels too hot for the crew and machinery.

It also says the future failure of some hatches and tunnel doors is 'probable' and poses a 'very high risk' to the submarines reaching their life expectancy. Major radiated noise from the submarines is getting worse and is now so loud that the DMO says it is having an operational impact on the submarines amid fears they will be detected by foreign navies.”

We cannot expect the politicians and navy "brass" who produced the deeply flawed Collins-class submarines to ever admit their responsibility. These people are probably incapable of ever admitting a mistake that might affect their career advancement or an award of a glittering Order of Australia.

A requirement for the Collins-class submarines to be quiet and efficient hunter-killer submarines clearly fell behind the aforementioned political considerations. One can reasonably conclude that the politicians, admirals, and feminists who placed electoral advantage and female comfort and privacy ahead of fighting efficiency in war were very aware that they would not have to risk their lives in a Collins-class submarine at war.

We will lose any war against a powerful enemy if we allow equipping our defence forces to be ruled by political vote buying, political correctness, or Feminism's "queer politics".


Acoustic stealth is one of the most prized attributes of modern submarines. Excessive noise emitted by a submarine when operating underwater seriously compromises its ability to remain hidden from enemy surface warships and hunter-killer submarines. One of the most lethal problems that has dogged the Collins-class submarines has been excessive noise emitted when the boats are operating underwater. This very serious problem points to serious hull design error and has persisted despite operating machinery on the Collins-class submarines being isolated from the hull.

Noise testing during 1996 and 1997 disclosed that the noise made by the Collins-class submarines moving underwater (hydrodynamic noise) at high speed was excessive and likely to expose the submarines to successful attack by enemy warships and attack submarines. Water flow over the propellors (cavitation) was another serious source of underwater noise. These problems were attributed to poor design and attempts have been made to smoothe the shape of the hull by attaching fibreglass cladding.

This serious threat to the survival of any Collins-class submarine in war is well known to potential enemies and has been widely publicised.

International online news magazine "The Diplomat" reported on 16 February 2019:

“Military submarines base most of their defences on stealth: With water carrying noise better than air, engineers around the world put a lot of work into making the moving parts of the ship as quiet as possible. With few or no possible counter-measures available in case the ship is fired at, the best chance of survival for a submarine is simply keeping the enemy from knowing it is there in the first place. The main sources of noise are generally the engine and the propeller (which causes cavitation). On both accounts, the performance of the Swedish (Collins-class) subs was poor, leading to much Australian embarrassment.”

US naval sources are reported as describing the Collins-class submarines making “about as much noise as a rock concert” when operating underwater:

“The (Australian) navy has complained that the submarines are too noisy, that their computerized combat systems do not work as designed, their diesel engines are not reliable and their propellers are showing fatigue cracks. One newspaper in October (1999), quoting sources who had seen a report on the vessels by the U.S. Navy's undersea warfare center, said they "make about as much noise as a rock concert under water.” * "The New York Times" 20 March 1999

Because of the serious technical problems that have continued to dog the Collins-class submarines after the last boat HMAS Rankin came into service in 2003, the Australian Navy has often had only two submarines sufficiently seaworthy to leave dockyard. The rest were undergoing maintenance. Public perception that the submarines were duds has led to the Navy only being able to fill crew places by offering substantial financial inducements.

The continuing technical problems with the Collins-class submarines are so bad that they are more expensive to maintain than the latest American Ohio-class nuclear missile submarines. It was reported in 2012 by Australian National University engineer Hamza Bendemra that the Collins-class submarines are so poorly designed and built that each one costs annually $105 million to operate compared with $50 million for the five times larger American Ohio-class nuclear missile submarine.

Having learned nothing from the Collins-class submarine fiasco, Scott "Hawaii" Morrison has decided to risk repeating that fiasco by choosing as Australia's next submarine fleet tweve diesel-electric remakes of the French nuclear Shortfin Barracuda submarine. No one can guarantee that this French remake will produce for Australia an effective attack submarine of the kind in use by the American, Russian, and Communist Chinese navies. The French conceptual remake is scheduled, according to the 2016 Defence White Paper, to begin entering service with the Royal Australian Navy in the "early 2030s" with construction extending to 2050 when the last submarine will probably be obsolete.


With Communist China's military and economic aggression casting a deepening shadow over the South Pacific, we are clearly entitled to ask the Morrison Coalition Government in Canberra how Australia will be able to defend its vast sea approaches between 2021 and the possible arrival in the 2030s of presently non-existent French diesel-electric remakes of a nuclear-powered submarine? The obvious answer is for the Australian government to attempt to acquire nuclear-powered submarines off the shelf from the United States if the Americans are prepared to lease their older Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (with American crew support) to Australia until Collins-class replacements are available in sufficient numbers. The American Los Angeles-class attack submarine has been replaced by the new Virginia-class attack submarine but it is still better than the Chinese nuclear-powered submarines.

The Royal Australian Navy wanted to replace the defective Collins-class submarines with nuclear-powered boats but the Abbott Coalition Government foolishly rejected that request, and so we have been left with an untested hybrid French submarine that may be deadly for Australian crews

Minister for Defence Peter Dutton (see image above under 7) has confirmed that approximately $6 billion would be invested in a life-of-type extension (LOTE) for all six of the Royal Australian Navy’s Collins-Class submarines. It is difficult to see how expending $6 billion on the six Collins-class submarines is anything but a clear waste of taxpayers' money. The deeply troubled Collins-class submarines are clearly unfit for service in war and should be scrapped as quickly as possible. Even $6 billion could not convert the Collins-class submarines into anything but noisy and unreliable sea-going steel coffins for Australian crews in time of war against attack submarines as lethal as those produced by Russia (Akula-class) and China (the upgraded stealthy Shang II-class).

With nuclear-powered attack submarines having been rejected by the Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison Coalition Governments, early consideration should be given to "off-the-shelf" acquisition of at least four existing diesel-electic attack submarines of proven design. That proven design already exists in the Japanese Soryu-class diesel-electric attack submarine which is listed by "Military Today" as one of the ten best attack submarines in the world and which was under consideration for acquisition by the Abbott government. The acquisition of Soryu-class submarines for Australia was dumped with no adequate explanation by the Turnbull government.

The Japanese Soryu-class diesel-electric submarine is widely acknowledged as one of the ten best attack submarines in the world.


Communist China has already raised the threat of nuclear missile retaliation if Australia supports the United States in defending any Asian country facing imminent attack by the Communist Chinese dictatorship. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the best diesel-electric submarines will not be able to defend Australia against nuclear ballistic missile attack, so Australia must look again to its strongest ally the United States which defended Australia against a powerful Japanese military attack in 1942 and lost three of its six large fleet carriers fighting the Japanese navy across the northern sea approaches to Australia. The presence of American naval and military bases in Australia would provide a powerful deterrent to hostile attack.

It is very likely that the United States would respond favourably to an invitation to establish shared military bases in Western and Northern Australia, and the precedent was set when the Julia Gillard Labor government in 2011 invited American Marines to train regularly in Northern Australia. That US Marine training called Marine Rotational Force - Darwin continues in Australia to the present-day.

18. Can Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry trust in Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a prime minister who refuses to deny that he will implement the Aboriginal Uluru Statement of 2017 that demands recognition by referendum of Aboriginal "First Nations" sovereignty, that is to say, ownership over the whole of Australia?

Scott "Hawaii" Morrison and Uluru Statement

Woke high priest Scott "Hawaii" Morrison (above) is leading a charge that threatens the livestyles and property ownership of the 97 percent of Australians who do not have Aboriginal ancestry by implementing the Uluru Statement (above).

The Aboriginal Uluru Statement denies that the sovereignty of hundreds of Aboriginal tribes, now described by Aboriginal descendants as "First Nations", over the whole of Australia was extinguished by British settlement in 1788 or by Federation in 1901. The Uluru Statement calls for "substantive constitutional change and structural reform" to recognise "ancient (Aboriginal) sovereignty" over the whole of Australia. Recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty over Australia actually means constitutional change that will produce Aboriginal ownership of the whole of Australia. Implementation of the Aboriginal Uluru Statement of 2017 (as expanded and refined by the Referendum Council in its Final Report ) would produce disintegration of Australia into hundreds of sovereign Aboriginal "First Nation" enclaves, and could raise serious issues of property ownership for the 97 percent of Australians who lack any Aboriginal ancestry.

The Uluru Statement actually suggests that this recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty over the whole of Australia would be qualified by it co-existing with the Crown; but the Crown has alienated its ownership of the freehold property on which millions of Australian homes and businesses are located. So implementation of Aboriginal sovereignty over the whole of Australia by constitutional change, as demanded by the Uluru Statement, would mean that Aboriginal "First Nations" would own all freehold land across Australia including the homes and businesses built on that freehold land.

Thoughtful Australians need to ask themselves what the High Court of Australia, which turned Australian property law on its head by inventing the concept of Native Title in Mabo v. Queensland (1992), would make of any constitutional changes demanded by Australian Aborigines in the Uluru Statement.

So a crucial first step in this massive change to the lifestyles of the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry is recognition by the Australian government that the many hundreds of Aboriginal tribes inhabiting Australia when the First Fleet arrived in Port Jackson in 1788 were "First Nations". Scott "Hawaii" Morrison generously acceded to this Aboriginal demand on New Year's Day 2021. After telling Australians that he had changed their National Anthem without first consulting them, the prime minister went on to acknowledge his government's recognition that the hundreds of Aboriginal tribes inhabiting Australia in 1788 were no longer to be called "First People" or "First Australians, but henceforth would be accepted by his government as having the status of Aboriginal "First Nations".

Australians who are familiar with the terms of the Uluru Statement could reasonably draw a conclusion from Scott "Hawaii" Morrison's acknowledgment of Aboriginal "First Nations" that he was foreshadowing implementation of part or all of the very controversial Aboriginal Uluru Statement. Morrison has already indicated his support for an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament that is a major demand in the Uluru Statement together with a demand for substantial reparations to be paid to Aboriginal Australians by the 97 percent of Australians who lack any Aboriginal ancestry. A close analysis of the Uluru Statement, as expanded and refined by the Referendum Council set up by Malcolm Turnbull, reveals that the Voice to Parliament is really intended to produce many cosy and well paid jobs for Australians claiming Aboriginal ancestry and opportunities for taxpayer-funded junkets around Australia and overseas. So the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament is effectively intended to rip off the millions of Australians who lack Aboriginal ancestry and work hard to pay the mortgage or rent, and to put food on the table for their families. Scott "Hawaii" Morrison must know this but does not want to reveal the truth to the 97 percent of non-Aboriginal Australians who will bear the cost of the so-called Voice to Parliament.

Australian taxpayers already contribute over 30 billion dollars every year at Federal and State levels solely to support and enhance the well-being of Australian Aborigines. This massive sum is in addition to the welfare benefits that every Australian already enjoys, including Aborigines. Aboriginal Australians are now demanding massive financial compensation when the Uluru Statement is implemented. In an address to the Australian Catholic University on 24 February 2021, Northern Territory treaty commissioner Professor Michael Dodson (see image below) appeared to be making it very clear to the 97 percent of Australians who have no Aboriginal ancestry that the minimum figure of $30,000,000,000 already sourced from Australian taxpayers and allocated every year by Federal and State governments solely for the benefit of Australian Aborigines is not enough. British colonisation of Australia “injured and harmed” Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander societies he said “and just recompense is owed” by the 97 percent of Australian taxpayers who lack any Aboriginal ancestry.

These outrageous claims raised in the Uluru Statement, and expanded and refined by Malcolm Turnbull's Referendum Council, rest for their success on the fostering of a sense of guilt in the 97 percent of Australians who lack Aboriginal ancestry for the displacement of Aborigines from their hunting grounds by peaceful British settlers landing at Sydney in 1788.

Why is this happening almost two hundred and fifty years after those British settlers landed peacefully on the shore of Port Jackson in 1788?

A large part of the answer appears to be the existence of an Aboriginal industry that employs thousands of Australians, many of them non-Aboriginal, and whose comfortable and well paid jobs depend upon maintaining Aboriginal disadvantage indefinitely. If we had a prime minister with any sense he would be calling on highly respected Aboriginal woman Jacinta Price (see image below) for answers to continuing Aboriginal disadvantage, and I suspect that she would tell him that one crucial answer would be ensuring that all Australian Aborigines who want education and paid work receive it, instead of allowing Aboriginal dependence on welfare to continue indefinitely. As a qualified criminologist, as well as a lawyer and historian, I can assert with confidence that paid work produces a tie to community and reduces crime and social problems. Welfare payments do not produce any such tie.

Jacinta Nampijinpa Price is deputy mayor of Alice Springs and a Warlpiri/Celtic woman.

Immediately following the prime minister's announcement that he had unilaterally changed the wording of Australia's national anthem, an Aboriginal academic announced on television that the changed wording of the National Anthem, and the prime minister's recognition that the many hundreds of Aboriginal tribes living in Australia in 1788 were "First Nations", was "a first step" towards national implementation of the Aboriginal Uluru Statement.

Our weak excuse for a prime minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison is dodging acknowledgment that these measures demanded in the Uluru Statement will hurt the 97 percent of Australians who lack Aboriginal ancestry.