Sixteen 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); RIGHT: 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.


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.

This treatment of serious failures of judgment by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison" was produced by his obstinate refusal since 2019 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 demeaning of Kokoda and dishonouring of Kokoda heroes by the management of the Australian War Memorial in the book "Kokoda beyond the Legend" (1917). See below at 4.

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.

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.

2. 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.

3. Can Australians respect in Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a prime minister who needlessly antagonised China over the source of the Wuhan coronavirus and damaged Australia's vital trade?

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 that originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan? The source is important to the free world because the the likely sources of the coronavirus in Wuhan is 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 communist China is so sensitive about this issue because President Xi closed the rest of China to the coronavirus but allowed it to be exported to the free world where it has devasted economies, and had infected over 100 million people and killed 2,405,432 at 14 February 2021.

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.

5. 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.


6. 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 ABC put a great deal of effort into seeing Cardinal Pell face charges of sexual abuse of chidren. In the case of the Victoria Police, we have learned that 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 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.

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

7. Scott "Hawaii" Morrison denied the presumption of Innocence to thousands of blameless Australians who risked their lives to 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.

8. 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 to 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 Liberal staff member accused of raping Brittany Higgins.

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 Liberal staffer 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 Liberal staff member 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 Liberal staffer 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 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.

9. 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 Liberal staffer has now almost certainly led to the staffer being denied a fair trial.

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 Liberal staff member accused of raping Brittany Higgins.

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 Liberal Party staffer is not just another appalling error of judgment by Prime Minister Morrison. It involves gross impropriety on the part of Morrison because it gives an appearance that the prime minister is taking the side of Brittany Higgins against the man accused by her of rape in 2019. It

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 7 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 Liberal staffer 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 presumption of innocence by Scott "Hawaii" Morrison, and it has the very real potential to prejudice the man accused of raping Brittany Higgins receiving a fair trial if the Federal Police can ever find the will to lay a rape charge.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Can Australians respect in Scott "Hawaii" Morrison a prime minister who with "Chairman" Dan Andrews has the blood of at least 800 Australians on his hands?

"The Good Companions" - Scott "Hawaii" Morrison and Clown Prince of Bunglers "Chairman" Dan Andrews, Socialist Left Premier of Victoria - with apologies to J. B. Priestly

That basis for that question should be clearly apparent to anyone who knows what the Australian Constitution actually says about Commonwealth responsibilities. Victoria's Socialist Left premier "Chairman" Dan Andrews made an appalling mess of quarantining arrivals from overseas infected with the Wuhan coronavirus. 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 2019 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.

As if determined to establish his credentials as Australia's premier buffoon, Daniel Andrews allows Aboriginal protesters and Leftist groups to march without masks in Melbourne streets with little interference from police but tells Victorians that he will not allow the traditional Anzac Day march in 2021 even if masks are worn. So at the middle of February 2021, people do not wear face masks while shopping in well-managed New South Wales while Victorian learn 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. Management of quarantine was delegated to him by Prime Minister Scott "Hawaii" Morrison.

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, 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 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. 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.

We need to be very clear that Scott "Hawaii" Morrison carries a heavy responsility for the deadly ravages produced in Australia in 2020 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.

13. 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 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. Instead of reading the riot act to these 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.

Something troubled me about these extraordinary behaviours of Scott "Hawaii" Morrison; and then I drew on the human psychology component of my postgraduate criminology studies 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. I am not for one moment suggesting that these very disturbing chacter traits mentioned here 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 , 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.

14. 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”.

The Melbourne Herald Sun of 21 May 2021 reports that members of the Australian Defence Force are now 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 is 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.


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 a presently non-existent French diesel-electric submarine design, Australian politicians appear to be happy to repeat the same mistakes that preceded the choice of the appallingly bad Collins-class design.


LEFT: Scott "Hawaii" Morrison signs $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; RIGHT: An artist's impression of the likely quality of French "attack" submarines being developed for Australia sometime between 2030 and 2050.

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. Historey 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 cheap purchases rather than effective defence, and craven admirals fearful of not receiving their Orders of Australia if they exhibit spine by pressing for a submarine that an island continent needs for defence against powerful, fast, and silent 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 Royal Navy 4th Submarine Flotilla was based in Sydney to provide Australian warships with anti-submarine training. This 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, 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.

Australia elected to continue defending its 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 rack from Britain or 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 successful Type 209 which would be sold to thirteen navies around the world) was the best design offered, the Dutch Walrus class was rated as 'fair', while Swedish Kockum and British Vickers proposals were considered 'marginal' contenders. However, none of the tenders completely matched the desired 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.

The Dutch and British contenders were ultimately rejected as being too expensive to manufacture in Australia. In May 1987 the Hawke government accepted the Kockum tender, but the submarine would be fitted with the American Rockwell combat system. 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. In choosing the Kockum submarine, the Hawke government ignored two disturbing aspects (1) Sweden had no experience in operating submarines in war because Sweden had not fought in a war for 200 years; and (2) the small Västergötland-class submarines were designed to operate in the comparatively shallow Baltic Sea rather than in deep oceans.

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.

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 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).

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.

The most crucial 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 and so win government votes by supporting that State’s shipbuilding industry.

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 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 require "hotbunking" because of the slender design of 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" 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 submarine 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 these 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 the Collins-class submarines.

A Collins-class submarine sounds like an underwater "rock concert"

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 has persisted despite operating machinery on the Collins-class submarines being isolated from the hull and points to serious hull design error.

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 change the shape of the hull with 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 have been reported as describing the Collins-class submarines as 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 came into service in 2004, the Australian Navy has often had only two submarines seaworthy. 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.

Minister for Defence Peter Dutton 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 even $6 billion could convert six sea-going coffins for Australian crews into serviceable attack submarines.

France has never been a close ally of Australia and a poor choice to build our submarines

The Collins-class will be replaced by the Attack-class submarine (SEA 1000) that is scheduled, according to the 2016 Defence White Paper, to begin entering service in the early 2030s with construction extending to 2050.[1] The Future Submarine Program will be based on the Shortfin Barracuda, a conventionally-powered variant of a nuclear attack submarine designed by French company DCNS; twelve submarines will be acquired, all built in Australia.[3][4]

Only an idiot politician would have signed a contact for supply of twelve French diesel-electric submarines when (1) a design does not exist even on paper at this time; (2) the price is horrendous 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 submarine will not be 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 the ridiculous contract.

The French have never been allies of Australia in any meaningful sense. The Australian continent was supposed to become a huge French colony, but Louis XIV’s plan for such a colony was defeated by the arrival of Britain’s First Fleet one week before the arrival of the ships of French admiral Jean-Francois de Galaup, Compte de Laperouse, at Botany Bay. The French have never forgiven Napoleon’s defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, and the loss of his massive French empire, for which they still blame Britain and Britains former dominions.

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 fro Nazi occupation. De Gaulle elected instead for a close friendship with Germany that was cemented by the Elysee Treaty of 1963.; twice vetoed British entry into the European Economic Community; took France out of NATO; 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.

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 Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour on 10 July 1985, killing photographer Fernando Pereira. The French treated the French intelligence agents as heroes upon their release from prison.

Australians need to ask themselves why we would trust the French with our security by buying from them a submarine which only exists as a concept and is horrendously expensive compared to the proven Japanese diesel-electic Soryu-class diesel-electric submarine.

* in 2004 the company became ASC Pty Ltd.

NB - Japan offered Sōryū-class submarines to Australia as replacements for the Royal Australian Navy's Collins-class submarines, as part of the Collins-class submarine replacement project.[10] On 9 April 2014, then-Australian Minister for DefenceDavid Johnston, described the Sōryū class as “extremely impressive”[11] while discussing Australia's future submarine options. On 26 April 2016, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced that the Australian contract had been awarded to the French-designed Shortfin Barracuda.[12]

The Japanese Soryu-class AIP diesel-electic attack-class submarine is regarded as one of the top ten best attack submaines. Source?

16. 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.