Search

"Treated as fools": Prime Minister hits out at supermarkets

On Thursday night the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) released an interim report on its supermarket inquiry, and found the price of a typical basket of groceries has increased by more than 20 per cent since 2019. The report found that low-income households spent more than a fifth of their income on food. While prices across all grocery products have increased, the most considerable hikes were in staples such as dairy products by 32 per cent, bread and cereal items by 28 per cent and meat and seafood prices have increased by a fifth. The price of fruit and vegetables has increased by 19 per cent between the March 2019 quarter to the June 2024 quarter. The ACCC released the interim report after examining whether supermarket giants were dudding suppliers and ripping off customers due to a lack of competition. In a statement on Friday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has condemned major supermarkets. “Customers don’t deserve to be treated as fools by the supermarkets. They deserve better than that,” he said. “This is an important piece of work and we will study it closely. “My government is taking a range of actions to make sure Australians are paying a fair price at the checkout and Australian suppliers are getting a fair price for their goods.” Assistant Minister for Competition Andrew Leigh said this was the most comprehensive inquiry they've had in 15 years. “Businesses need to do the right thing by Australians,” he said. “Greater competition is critical for lifting dynamism, productivity and wages growth, putting downward pressure on prices and delivering more choice for Australians dealing with cost-of-living pressures.” The report also found that due to "excessive" prices, many shoppers were buying less food and focusing on cheaper products to stay within their budgets. Others were eating less frequently and have smaller meals, or changing their shopping habits by comparing online prices before going in store. As a result, ACCC deputy chair Mick Keogh said Australians were “losing trust in the sale price claims by supermarkets”. “These difficulties reportedly arise from some of the pricing practices of some supermarkets, such as frequent specials, short-term lowered prices, bulk-buy promotions, member-only prices and bundled prices,” he said. In Australia, Woolworths and Coles contribute to 67 per cent of supermarket sales, with Aldi accounting for 9 per cent and IGA contributing 7 per cent. The ACCC will release their recommendations in their final report due in February 2025. This follows the ACCC launching <a href="https://o60.me/2ssagq" target="_blank" rel="noopener">legal action</a> against Coles and Woolworths over allegations of misleading customers with fake discount prices. Image: Daria Nipot / Shutterstock.com/ MICK TSIKAS/EPA-EFE/ Shutterstock Editorial

Money & Banking

Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s heartbreaking loss

Penny Wong has shared the devastating news of her mother's passing. The Australian Foreign Minister took to Instagram to pay tribute to her mother, Jane Chapman, who passed away on Sunday. "Yesterday my beloved mother, Jane Chapman, left us peacefully," she began her post. "Mum was a woman of exceptional intellect and penetrating insight, of mischievous wit and endless curiosity. “Most of all she was a woman of deep compassion and principle,” Wong said. “She gave expression to her compassion through her courage and determination for justice, qualities that have steeled me through all my life’s challenges. “Through her work, her choices, her courage and her deeds, she inspired and empowered me and so many others. "Mum loved me completely. And she loved her granddaughters Alexandra and Hannah beyond measure," she continued. "We will miss her terribly." She then thanked Tony Michele and the staff at Mary Potter Hospice for taking care of her mum and for their kindness. Parliamentary colleagues and the public shared their condolences in the comments. "My heart goes out to you. Nothing can prepare us for the loss of a parent. Jane was an incredible woman. Sending love to you and the family," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote. "Sorry for your loss Penny. Losing your mum is so incredibly hard," added TV personality and former Gogglebox star Yvie Jones. "Your mum was great. Staunch, fierce, funny. I and aĺl her yoga class friends will miss her," one person wrote. "Words are completely inadequate at a time like this. I am so very sorry for your loss Penny. I hope the love and support of friends and family can offer you some comfort," added another. Chapman married Chinese-Malay architect Francis Wong while he was studying in Adelaide on a scholarship and shared two children together Penny and Toby. When they divorced, Chapman moved back to South Australia with her children. In 2001, 10 days after his 30th birthday and on the same day Wong was elected to the senate, Toby took his own life. Francis Wong passed away in May 2023. Image: Instagram

Family & Pets

Prime Minister's extraordinary offer for "Bollard Man"

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has made an extraordinary offer to the hero dubbed "Bollard Man", who confronted Joel Cauchi on his rampage through Bondi Junction Westfield. Damien Guerot, a French national, was inside the eastern suburbs shopping centre when Cauchi began his stabbing spree which resulted in six lives lost. In CCTV footage of the terrifying incident that has made the rounds online, Mr Guerot could be seen fending off the knifeman with the use of a bollard he’d picked up off the ground. It’s understood he was preventing the attacker from reaching an area where dozens of children had been playing. He was immediately hailed as a hero on social media, where he became known as “Bollard Man”. As the community continues to reel from the incident, Mr Albanese thanked Guerot for his "extraordinary bravery" and encouraged him to become an Australian citizen. “I say this to Damien Guerot, who is dealing with his visa application, that you are welcome here,” he said. “You are welcome to stay for as long as you like, this is someone who we would welcome becoming an Australian citizen.” The prime minister said the actions of bystanders like Mr Guerot during the horrific Bondi Junction attack showed “the best of human character”. “It says a lot about the nature of humanity at a time when we are facing difficult issues, that someone who is not a citizen of this country stood bravely at the top of those escalators and stopped this perpetrator from getting onto another floor and potentially inflicting further carnage on citizens,” he said. Mr Guerot told <a href="https://7news.com.au/news/terrifying-moment-man-confronts-attacker-with-bollard-in-bondi-junction-shopping-centre-massacre-c-14307019" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7News</a> how he stared into Cauchi’s “empty eyes” as he confronted the killer. “We just saw him coming ... we were thinking, ‘We need to try to stop him’,” he said. Image credits: 7News

Legal

As Scott Morrison leaves parliament, where does he rank among Australian prime ministers?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> This week Scott Morrison, Australia’s 30th prime minister, will deliver his valedictory speech to the House of Representatives. As Morrison leaves parliament, it’s timely to ask where he is placed in the pantheon of Australia’s national leaders. Already there have been unflattering verdicts on Morrison’s prime-ministerial standing. For example, in her withering account of his leadership, veteran columnist and author <a href="https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/bulldozed-9781922585981">Niki Savva writes</a> that among detractors, “Morrison was regarded as the worst prime minister since Billy McMahon”. Moreover, according to Savva, following the August 2022 revelation of his commandeering of five ministries during the COVID pandemic, his reputation sunk still lower: “he was worse than McMahon. Worse even than Tony Abbott, who lasted a scant two years in the job”. <h2>How can we rank prime ministerial performance?</h2> How might we know how Morrison’s record stacks up against his prime-ministerial peers? One device for evaluating comparative leadership performance is expert rankings. Australia has had a slow take-up in this field, unlike the United States, where presidential rankings have a lineage stretching back three-quarters of a century and are a veritable scholarly cottage industry. In recent years, there have been forays into this territory in Australia, with three prime-ministerial rankings conducted by newspapers and two initiated by Monash University in 2010 and 2020. (I was the organiser of both of these Monash rankings.) These rankings have been largely consistent in their results. The experts, mostly political historians and political scientists, have judged the nation’s greatest prime minister to be its second world war leader, John Curtin. The other leaders in the top echelon are, in rough order, Bob Hawke, Ben Chifley, Alfred Deakin, Robert Menzies, Andrew Fisher, John Howard, Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam. At the other end of the scale, Billy McMahon, who is chiefly remembered for being defeated by Labor’s Whitlam at the December 1972 election, thereby bringing to a close the Liberal Party’s postwar ascendancy, has been consistently rated Australia’s prime-ministerial dunce. Even his biographer, Patrick Mullins, acknowledges that McMahon has become “a by-word for failure, silliness, ridicule”. However, in the most recent of the rankings, the Monash 2020 survey, McMahon had a close competitor for bottom place: Tony Abbott. Forty-four out of 66 respondents to that survey assessed Abbott’s prime ministership a failure. Other prime ministers to the rear of the field included Abbott’s contemporaries, Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull. Morrison was not included in the 2020 rankings because as the incumbent his prime ministership was incomplete, and so it was premature to evaluate his performance. Let us now, though, measure his record against the nine benchmarks that the experts were asked to consider in rating the nation’s leaders. <h2>So how does Morrison shape up?</h2> The first is “effectively managing cabinet”. To date, little has been disclosed about the integrity of cabinet processes under Morrison’s stewardship. Yet, whatever the merits of that management, his scandalous breach of the norms of cabinet government by <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-bell-report-on-morrisons-multi-ministries-provides-a-bad-character-reference-195368">secretly assuming several ministries</a> will irretrievably stain his reputation in this regard. Next is “maintaining support of Coalition/party”. That Morrison avoided being deposed by his party, which was the fate of his immediate predecessors (Rudd, Julia Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull), counts in his favour. As the ABC docuseries Nemesis shows, however, his prime ministership was marked by serious frictions both within the Liberal Party and between the Liberal and National coalition partners. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gLXdXUwGrJs?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> “Demonstrating personal integrity”. This was not one of Morrison’s strong suits. As Savva makes searingly evident, and Nemesis also highlights, Morrison earned a reputation for being economical with the truth (including hiding his acquisition of colleagues’ ministries), for evading accountability and shifting blame (“I don’t hold a hose, mate”), and for corrupted processes under his watch (an example being the <a href="https://theconversation.com/more-sports-rort-questions-for-morrison-after-bridget-mckenzie-speaks-out-133160">shameless pork-barrelling</a> of the community sport infrastructure program in the lead-up to the 2019 election). “Leaving a significant policy legacy”. Here Morrison is partly damned by his own words. In office, he insisted he was not concerned about his legacy, equating the idea with a vanity project. Indeed, an obsession with the theatre of politics and a corresponding lack of substance caused his prime ministership to come to be seen as bereft of purpose. On the other hand, management of the COVID pandemic, however mixed, accords a significance to his time in office. AUKUS stands as the other major legacy of Morrison’s prime ministership, entrenched as it has been by his successor, Anthony Albanese. The agreement promises to influence Australia’s defence capability until the middle of this century and beyond, although only time will tell whether it enhances the nation’s security or is a dangerous white elephant. “Relationship with the electorate”. Morrison’s record here is mixed. In his favour, he won an election (something McMahon couldn’t claim). Yet, by the time of the 2022 election, according to the Australian Election Study, he was the least popular major party leader in the history of that survey, which dates back to the 1980s. His public toxicity was a primary factor in the Coalition’s defeat, one of his Liberal colleagues comparing the depth of public sentiment against the prime minister in 2022 to “having a 10,000-tonne boulder attached to your leg”. “Communication effectiveness”. Styling himself as a Cronulla Sharks-supporting “daggy dad” from the suburbs, at least initially Morrison’s communication mode seemed to be well received in the community. He was relentlessly on message during the 2019 election campaign. But the shine rapidly wore off his persona following that victory, with growing doubts about his authenticity. Rather than persuade, his habit was to hector, and rather than empathise, he exuded smugness. A series of notorious tin-eared statements, which especially alienated women voters, came to define his image. By the end he was known as the “bulldozer-in-chief”. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yamdw5VeNtA?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> “Nurturing national unity”. An innovation of Morrison’s at the beginning of the pandemic was the national cabinet. Bringing together the prime minister and premiers, it worked effectively for a time, only for partisan interests over lockdowns to strain relations between Canberra and the states. Under pressure, Morrison also flirted with divisive culture-war politics, instances being his divisive Religious Discrimination Bill and his egregious handpicking of the anti-transgender Liberal candidate Katherine Deves to contest the 2022 election. “Defending and promoting Australia’s interests abroad”. The AUKUS pact has vehement critics, led by Morrison’s prime-ministerial peers Keating and Turnbull, who argue it jeopardises national sovereignty. There is no denying, however, that AUKUS was Morrison’s signature foreign policy enterprise. On the other hand, Australia’s reputation as a laggard on climate change under the Coalition hurt our international standing, not least among Pacific neighbours. The Morrison government’s belated commitment to a net zero carbon emissions by 2050 target was too little, too late. Bellicose rhetoric towards Beijing also led to a deterioration in relations with the nation’s major trading partner (as well as estranging Chinese-Australian voters). “Being able to manage turbulent times”. Here, again, Morrison’s record is at best mixed. In his favour is decisive early actions to ameliorate the COVID pandemic, headed by the JobKeeper program. As the pandemic progressed, however, his government was too often flat-footed, demonstrated by its dilatory approach to procuring vaccines. His response to natural disasters, most notably the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires, was another shortcoming, exemplified by his secret holiday to Hawaii in the midst of the crisis. Arguably, his prime ministership was doomed from that moment. <h2>And the verdict?</h2> Prime-ministerial reputations can take time to settle. The passing of years fleshes out historical knowledge as well as providing greater perspective on performance in office. For example, the fate of AUKUS will quite possibly affect Morrison’s standing well into the future. Even allowing for this, it seems safe to forecast that Morrison will be rated among the least distinguished of Australian prime ministers. His government’s relatively successful early management of the COVID pandemic and the legacy of AUKUS might spare him from falling below McMahon and Abbott at the bottom of the prime-ministerial heap. But avoiding that ignominy will probably be a close-run thing.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223003/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, Emeritus professor of politics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-scott-morrison-leaves-parliament-where-does-he-rank-among-australian-prime-ministers-223003">original article</a>.

Retirement Life

Anthony Albanese announces engagement

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced his engagement to partner Jodie Haydon on social media. Albanese shared a selfie with Haydon to X - formerly known as Twitter - on Thursday morning with the caption: "she said yes" followed by a red love heart emoji. The post has already received 1800 likes and many comments congratulating the couple on their happy news. “Love is a beautiful thing. I’m so happy for you both!” Foreign Affairs minister Penny Wong wrote in the comments. "Congratulations!" Labor frontbencher Clare O'Neil said. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> She said yes ❤️ <a href="https://t.co/aU1Mk2WInH">pic.twitter.com/aU1Mk2WInH</a> — Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1757884255643033715?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 14, 2024</a></blockquote> The pair reportedly met at a Melbourne event when he spotted her in the crowd, according to Women's Weekly. He said he asked if there were any South Sydney fans in the audience, to which “Jodie yelled out, ‘Up the Rabbitohs’”. He introduced himself to Haydon after leaving the stage, and the pair found that they had a lot in common. Albanese and Haydon have been dating since 2020. Prior to his relationship with Haydon, the Labor leader was married to Carmel Tebbutt for 19 years but the pair split in January 2019. They had been together for a total of 30 years and share one son, Nathan. Albanese was the first Australian prime minister to be sworn in as a divorcee, when he was elected into office in 2022. He is also the first Australian leader to get engaged while in office and potentially the first to get married while in office, if he survives the next election scheduled for before 2025. Image: X

Relationships

Woman charged after NT Chief Minister hit in the face with crepe

A 56-year-old woman is facing charges in connection with an alleged assault on Northern Territory Chief Minister Natasha Fyles, following an incident that occurred in her local electorate. The incident unfolded at Nightcliff Markets in Darwin at approximately 11:40am on Sunday September 24. According to law enforcement authorities, a member of the public reportedly thrust a crepe covered in cream into Fyles' face during the incident. Police confirmed on Monday morning September 25 that a 56-year-old woman has been charged with aggravated assault in relation to the incident. The accused has been granted bail and is scheduled to appear in court on October 10. It has since come to light that Chief Minister Fyles is a regular visitor to the Nightcliff Markets, often attending on Sundays. Nightcliff Markets manager, Ross Dudgeon, <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/northern-territory-news-chief-minister-natasha-fyles-allegedly-assaulted-at-nightcliff-markets/122ad004-153f-48e6-85d2-5cf66261dc0a" target="_blank" rel="noopener">spoke highly of her to 9News</a>, describing her as approachable and friendly. Dudgeon recounted that one of the stallholders had witnessed the incident, stating, "I had a report from one of the stallholders that they saw a woman pour something over Natasha Fyles' head." He mentioned that the incident occurred shortly after Ms Fyles had participated in an event celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Bendigo Bank. Dudgeon emphasised the friendly and welcoming atmosphere of the market, where Ms Fyles often enjoyed breakfast or a smoothie with her family on Sunday mornings. He has overseen the market for two decades, and said that it has always been community-oriented in nature. Darwin Lord Mayor Kon Vatskalis was also present at the event with Ms Fyles but had departed before the alleged assault took place. Reacting to the incident, Mayor Vatskalis expressed his shock, describing it as "disgusting". He further remarked that, in his 30 years in Darwin, he had never witnessed anything of this nature. "I just saw the very confronting video and I think this is disgusting," he said. "I have never seen anything like that in Darwin in the 30 years I've been here." This incident follows a previous incident in May of this year, during which Ms Fyles was reportedly followed and harassed by anti-fracking protesters while participating in a running competition in Central Australia. Images: 9News / Tiktok

Legal

Modern prime ministers have typically left parliament soon after defeat. So why doesn’t Scott Morrison?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> With each passing month, Scott Morrison is developing into a post-prime-ministership peculiarity. Well over a year since voters cast him from power, he remains limpet-like in the House of Representatives, defying speculation that he is ready to quit parliament and trigger a byelection in his New South Wales seat of Cook. Hanging around on the backbench is generally not the way of ousted national leaders in the modern political era. It is true that in bygone times former prime ministers did not scurry to leave parliament after losing office. The most spectacular example is Australia’s leader during the first world war, William Morris Hughes. Bumped from office in 1923, the “Little Digger”, as he was known, remained in the House for another three decades, relentlessly scheming for power. Only death in 1952 brought closure to his parliamentary career. Since the 1980s, however, the habit of former PMs has been to hastily abandon politics once the mantle of office has slipped their grasp. Malcolm Fraser established this modern pattern, triggering a byelection in his seat of Wannon two months after his Coalition government was defeated by the Bob Hawke-led Labor Party in March 1983. From that time there have been few exceptions to this norm. Deposed from office by Paul Keating in December 1991, Hawke was out of the parliament by February 1992, with his seat of Wills won by the independent, Phil Cleary. Keating, too, followed the trend. After his Labor government lost power to the John Howard-led Coalition in March 1996, Keating resigned from the House the following month. For Howard, the decision was taken out of his hands, as voters not only finished his prime ministership in November 2007 but terminated his more than three decades as the member for Bennelong. Howard’s slayer, Kevin Rudd, did buck the trend after he was overthrown by caucus colleagues in June 2010. Convinced of the righteousness of his resurrection and thirsting to avenge his usurper, Julia Gillard, he stayed on for another parliamentary term, wresting the prime ministership back in June 2013. However, when electors put an end to his second government three months later, Rudd swiftly exited politics. Meanwhile, Gillard had resigned as the member for Lalor only weeks after being dethroned by Rudd. Prone to eccentricity, Tony Abbott is the clearest exception to the rule of modern ex-PMs not dallying in parliament once their reign is over. Deposed by Malcolm Turnbull in September 2015, less than two years after becoming prime minister, Abbott lingered mostly aimlessly on the backbench for the rest of that term and the next. Recontesting his seat of Warringah again at the May 2019 election, he lost to the independent, Zali Steggall. In contrast to Abbott, Turnbull left parliament with almost unseemly haste once he was unseated from power. After being dumped from the leadership in favour of Morrison in August 2018, he tendered his resignation as the member for Wentworth within a week. In the ensuing byelection, his seat too went to an independent, Kerryn Phelps. How do we explain the modern pattern of former prime ministers sprinting to the exit door once their time in office is over? In earlier times, there was a role for ex-leaders as elder statesmen in parliament. The best example is the Great Depression-era PM, Labor’s James Scullin. Despite failing health, he remained in the House for nearly another two decades and served as a trusted confidant to John Curtin throughout the harrying days of the second world war. Modern former prime ministers can be a source of counsel to their successors, offering advice both welcome and unwelcome. But there is no appetite among colleagues for them to hang around in parliament fulfilling that function. The media are quick to portray them as an unhelpful distraction or curiosity, while opponents point-score off them. Better they are out of the way. Another reason modern former leaders are impatient to move on is that, with extended lifespans and expanded opportunities post-office (for example, book-writing deals, lecture circuits, ambassadorships, business ventures, NGO and think-tank appointments), ex-PMs can now enjoy a second wind once out of parliament in a way that was not so open to earlier predecessors. Politics is now less of a lifetime vocation. Why, then, is Morrison clinging on? We can discount his declarations that he is relishing being the member for Cook. Being a humble backbencher visits daily humiliation on him. Indeed, Morrison’s post-prime ministership has been most notable for his reputation being tarnished by revelations of his bizarre commandeering of several portfolios while PM, and by the adverse findings against him by the Robodebt Royal Commission. These scandals have undoubtedly complicated an early departure for Morrison because, in going, he would be seen to be retreating in disgrace. He needs time and space from the scandals for the semblance of a dignified escape. The opportunities Morrison had hoped for following politics have potentially also thinned because of his sullied reputation. Finally, there is the political calculation surrounding his exit for his party. Stay or go, Morrison is a headache for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. As long as the scandal-ravaged Morrison hangs around, he is damaging the Liberal brand. Yet a byelection in his electorate is also unwelcome. Though Cook is very safe on paper, the history of the seats of three former PMs going to independents over the past 30 years is intriguing and not to be lightly dismissed.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/212544/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/paul-strangio-1232">Paul Strangio</a>, Professor of Politics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065">Monash University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/modern-prime-ministers-have-typically-left-parliament-soon-after-defeat-so-why-doesnt-scott-morrison-212544">original article</a>.

Legal

New Zealand Prime Minister's heartbreaking family update

New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has announced his temporary withdrawal from political engagements to care for his 4-year-old daughter who is in hospital. Hipkins, who is mostly private about his personal life, opened up about his daughter's health battle for the first time in a post shared on Facebook. “I don’t normally talk publicly about my kids because I want them to grow up out of the public spotlight, but sometimes it’s unavoidable,” he said. “Both my kids have a blood condition called Von Willebrand Syndrome. It means that sometimes when they get bleeding noses or other health issues they need a bit of extra medical help to get sorted. “Today my four-year-old is in hospital for some needed treatment, so for the rest of the day while that is happening I’ll be working from the hospital while I’m focused on her.” <iframe style="border: none; overflow: hidden;" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fchrishipkinsmp%2Fposts%2Fpfbid021REVmAth3sr9crVCb7Na1PN42D5vskouAv5QrRf5DXWu7KUbTtq5R96gzq1G18d2l&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="381" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> He also thanked his colleagues for covering him over the next few days and extended his gratitude towards blood donors. "All going well I’ll be back at work soon, but thanks to my colleagues for covering a few engagements over the next couple of days that I’m going to have to miss. "Lots of New Zealanders rely on the generosity of those who give blood. Thank you to all those who help out people like my little girl," he concluded. Hipkins, who replaced Jacinda Ardern in January, had previously revealed that he and his wife had separated and lived apart for a year. At the time, he explained that they were living separately for "the best interest of our family," and he acknowledged the pressure of being a family member of a politician and prime minister. Image: Getty

Caring

Ex-Finnish Prime Minister’s rebrand after divorce and leaving office

The former Finnish Prime Minister is living her best life after filing for divorce and leaving her position in office. Sanna Marin, the youngest ever female world leader, has kicked off her single girl summer by attending a three-day music festival in Helsinki, leaning into her love of partying. The 37-year-old shared photos from her summer adventures on Instagram, flaunting her relaxed politics-free new life. “This summer I’ve had a proper summer vacation for the first time in a while,” Marin wrote on Instagram while sharing snaps of her fun-filled days. “It has included, among other things, being busy with [5-year-old daughter] Emma, sports, friends, good food, and unforgettable trips.” Most of her followers applauded the change in her lifestyle, and were happy she was taking some quality time for herself. “You look AMAZING. Thank you for showing the world that you can fill the chair as a president and dress as you like at the same time,” influencer Dr. Caecilie Johansen commented. “Pretty sure we would’ve achieved world peace already if most world leaders were as chill as Sanna,” wrote one. Another agreed, “A politician having fun and looking really cool. This gives a really good example to young people and you give Finland great PR.” Marin’s drastic lifestyle change comes after she officially left her post as Finland’s prime minister three weeks earlier, when the National Coalition Party’s Petteri Orpo took office. As well as being out of a job in politics, Marin is also going through divorce proceedings with her ex-husband of three years and partner for 19 years Markus Raikkonen. The pair announced their separation in May, and said they would still remain best friends and happy co-parents to their daughter Emma despite jointly filing for the separation. Image credits: Instagram / Getty Images

Beauty & Style

Between nostalgia and amnesia: the legacy of Julia Gillard as PM, 10 years after her ousting

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joshua-black-729708">Joshua Black</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> On June 26 2013, as she fronted the press gallery in Canberra after her removal as leader of the Labor Party, Julia Gillard was determined not to cry. In her prime ministerial <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0uhHuEw8LY">resignation speech</a>, she asked not for pity, but rather for a meaningful national conversation about gender and politics, specifically the politics of her demise. "It doesn’t explain everything; it doesn’t explain nothing. It explains some things. And it is for the nation to think in a sophisticated way about those shades of grey." Ten years after the fact, that conversation is ongoing. At times, it has been a progressive and sophisticated one. The events of recent weeks, including the puerile debate about Katy Gallagher’s <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/gallagher-faces-censure-motion-20230622-p5dirm.html">prior knowledge</a> of Brittany Higgins’ sexual assault allegations, and the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-15/peter-dutton-dumps-senator-david-van-from-liberal-party-room/102481814">allegations</a> against Senator David Van, remind us there is still a long way to go. However, it is worth pausing to reflect on what has happened to Gillard’s reputation over the decade. Why has it thrived? Is it all about gender? And if we have forgotten key aspects of the Gillard years, what does that partial amnesia say about us? <h2>From ‘Juliar’ to feminist icon</h2> For much of her premiership, Gillard was singularly unpopular among Australian voters. Her efforts to put a price on carbon (damned by critics as a broken promise not to introduce a carbon tax) proved electorally damaging, as did her failure to end the deadlock over asylum-seeker policy. <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/a-line-has-been-crossed-gillard-acts-on-thomson-and-slipper-20120429-1xsiz.html">Controversies</a> surrounding Labor MP Craig Thompson and Speaker Peter Slipper (selected for the role by Gillard) further undermined her standing. There was much sexism at play. Her critics incessantly argued this was a woman not to be trusted. Critics of carbon pricing infamously dubbed her “Juliar” on their angry placards. Her body was objectified in the public domain, and the shock jocks of commercial radio questioned the sexuality of her then partner. One commentator, the irascible Alan Jones, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsaVpepMyA8">even suggested</a> the prime minister ought to be “put in a chaff bag” and drowned at sea. The shocking thing is not that these things were said, but rather that they were accepted as legitimate contributions to public debate by the community at large. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533611/original/file-20230623-24-4cz05p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/533611/original/file-20230623-24-4cz05p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533611/original/file-20230623-24-4cz05p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533611/original/file-20230623-24-4cz05p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533611/original/file-20230623-24-4cz05p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533611/original/file-20230623-24-4cz05p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/533611/original/file-20230623-24-4cz05p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>The language used to criticised Gillard was often deeply sexist, and opposition politicians often did little to discourage it. Alan Porritt/AAP</figcaption></figure> Stories about Gillard’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/31/julia-gillard-did-not-commit-any-inquirys-counsel-assisting-says">alleged corruption</a> as a lawyer in Perth in the early 1990s also proved a distraction from the government’s agenda. Not until 2014 – in the witness box of a royal commission, no less – was Gillard finally able to clear her name. <h2>The misogyny speech</h2> The passage of time can make things seem as if they always were as they are now. But Gillard’s renowned <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihd7ofrwQX0">misogyny speech</a> was not an instant sensation in Australia. The context – a censure motion on the disgraced speaker Peter Slipper – was unpropitious, and when Gillard made her speech, the conservative press called her a hypocrite who now played the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/gillard-reveals-true-nature-in-playing-gender-card-20121010-27cnq.html">“gender card”</a> for political expediency. The speech’s global impact was immediate, but only after Gillard’s removal from power did it capture the hearts and minds of some Australians. New developments – the sexist attacks on US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016, the #MeToo movement beginning in 2017, and latterly the backlash against gendered discrimination and abuse in parliament house – gave it further acuity in the following years. <iframe title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ihd7ofrwQX0" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe> A decade after its muted reception in Canberra, the speech is circulated on TikTok, featured in stage productions, and in 2020 it was even voted Australia’s most <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2020/feb/07/julia-gillard-misogyny-speech-voted-most-unforgettable-moment-in-australian-tv-history">“unforgettable” television moment</a>. Though not always enamoured with the way it dominated her political legacy, Gillard ultimately leaned in to it, as the saying goes. She started a podcast called A Podcast of One’s Own (a clear nod to Virginia Woolf), published two books about women and leadership, and established the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at King’s College London, and latterly the Australian National University. <h2>Star status</h2> As prime minister, Gillard was regularly criticised for her “wooden” media appearances and her cautious approach to public engagement. It is ironic, then, that her transformation from untrustworthy politician to venerable feminist advocate depended on the media and celebrity industries. It began with a series of ticketed <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoCpHkPr8lE">public talks</a> in venues such as the Sydney Opera House with longstanding feminist advocate, author and historian Anne Summers. Gillard’s memoir, <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/my-story-9781760893330">My Story</a>, and a high-profile book tour followed in 2014. In her advocacy work as chair of the Global Partnership for Education she also rubbed shoulders with celebrities such as <a href="https://www.vogue.com.au/celebrity/interviews/rihanna-and-julia-gillard-the-unlikely-friendship-between-a-global-superstar-and-our-former-prime-minister/news-story/3263d3e95e6d9780c0535b8cfea8840d">Rihanna</a>. <h2>The policy legacy</h2> Several of the Rudd-Gillard government’s policy initiatives were unravelled by their successors. The <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-10/gillard-reveals-carbon-price-scheme/2788842">$23-per-tonne carbon price</a> was repealed by Tony Abbott’s government, as was the (clearly deficient) <a href="https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-03/FOI_2247.pdf">Minerals Resource Rent Tax</a>. The National Broadband Network, the rollout of which began under Gillard, was dramatically reimagined by Malcolm Turnbull as communications minister and then as prime minister. Some of the less-savoury aspects of Gillard policy legacy have been forgotten for more convenient reasons. Gillard herself has not often discussed her government’s revival of mandatory offshore processing for asylum seekers in Australia. The cutting of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-julia-gillard-forever-changed-australian-politics-especially-for-women-138528">single parents’ benefit</a>, on the very same day as Gillard’s misogyny speech, has earned perhaps not enough discussion. It is her <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-16/julia-gillard-same-sex-marriage-feminism-debate/102290962">failure to support</a> same-sex marriage as prime minister that now draws the most condemnation from pundits. But policy legacies have also played a huge part in the revival of Gillard’s public standing. The Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings was a hugely important initiative. It earned Gillard significant credit across the political spectrum when its findings proved so damning. The NDIS, largely overlooked in media coverage in favour of “carbon tax” and “deficit”, has become a sacred element in Australian social and welfare policy. The subsequent policy debate has not hinged on the design of the scheme, but rather how best to fund it. <h2>Between nostalgia and amnesia</h2> There is a dissonance in the way Australians talk about Gillard today. Her magnanimity is respected, her embrace of a life after politics admired. Above all else, Gillard’s status as Australia’s first woman prime minister and now a global women’s ambassador prevails. As a rule, she does not parade her views on contemporary politics before the public, except at a conceptual level. (Her memoir was perhaps the exception.) But when commentators refer to the decade of egos, ambitions and failed leaders, they are increasingly likely to elide her name entirely. It is a disservice to the historical record, and to Gillard herself. She was a fierce combatant in parliament, and endured a period of intense conflict within the Labor Party. Her victory over Kevin Rudd in February 2012 – one of their many spills and shadow contests – was larger than any ballot that Rudd, Abbott or Turnbull ever contested. People have been quick to wipe their hands clean of yesterday’s sexism in order to make Gillard yesterday’s heroine. But they ought to be careful that, in the process, they do not erase her from other political histories. To segregate her story as one of women’s leadership while neglecting it in wider histories of Australian politics and policy would, in its own way, be an act of sexism.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208283/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joshua-black-729708">Joshua Black</a>, PhD Candidate, School of History, National Centre of Biography, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/between-nostalgia-and-amnesia-the-legacy-of-julia-gillard-as-pm-10-years-after-her-ousting-208283">original article</a>.

Legal

Hell hath no fury like a former PM – but it wasn’t always so

In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5iCzCtPkxQ&t=269s">television interview</a> with Phillip Adams in 1999, Paul Keating remarked that he retained much influence on the international stage. "I still have most of the access […] throughout the world, in Asia in particular, that I had as prime minister." This was a calm and contented Keating, barely three years out of office but comfortable in the knowledge his voice continued to be heard in the right quarters. His <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2lQvFTmMxU">recent appearance</a> at the National Press Club to talk about the AUKUS pact between Australia, Britain and the United States (under the auspices of which Australia is purchasing up to five nuclear-powered submarines for the princely sum of $368 billion) was mostly devoid of that quality. Keating called it the “worst deal in all history” and lampooned Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as the only “payer” of the pact. He was especially critical of Foreign Minister Penny Wong: “Running around the Pacific with a lei around your neck, handing out money, which is what Penny does, is not foreign policy”. There were important and sage policy points on offer, but there was something a little unseemly about the polemic, and even more so about his complaint the prime minister’s office <a href="https://theconversation.com/paul-keating-lashes-albanese-government-over-aukus-calling-it-labors-biggest-failure-since-ww1-201866">hadn’t heeded his advice</a>. Those cognisant of Labor’s history might have been reminded of former NSW Premier Jack Lang, at whose feet Keating learned much of his politics in the 1960s and 1970s, and whose trenchant criticism of the party earned him many enemies over the decades. It is easy to assume this kind of intervention is the natural corollary of losing power, egotism and what former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans called “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-16/barnes-relevance-deprivation-syndrome-has-struck-politics/7250046">relevance deprivation syndrome</a>”. In fact, the spectre of a disgruntled former prime minister speaking out against their own party is a relatively recent one, a product of Australia’s modern, personalised political culture. <h2>Death and duty</h2> In the 20th century, several of Australia’s leaders died before they could enjoy any kind of retirement in which to disrupt their successors. Alfred Deakin’s health declined rapidly in the years after he left office, preventing him from making significant contributions to public life in the years afterwards. Joe Lyons and John Curtin both died in office, as did Ben Chifley, while serving as opposition leader. Harold Holt disappeared at Cheviot Beach in December 1967. The survivors, it has to be said, were put to <a href="https://theconversation.com/even-in-the-political-afterlife-morrison-departs-from-the-norm-187346">good public use</a> after leaving office. Edmund Barton served the remainder of his days on the High Court, while George Reid and Andrew Fisher both went to London to serve as Australian High Commissioner. The former even took a seat in the British House of Commons in the final years of his life. Stanley Melbourne Bruce, who lost government and his own seat at the 1929 federal election, was returned to parliament in 1931 and served as a minister in Joe Lyons’ government, before emulating Reid and Fisher by serving as High Commissioner in London and going to the House of Lords. Depression-era prime minister James Scullin remained an MP for a further 18 years after losing power in 1931, reputedly offering much wise counsel to Curtin and Chifley throughout the 1940s. Former prime ministers were once a little more reticent about sparring with their successors in public, especially when it came to sensitive policy matters. Fisher despaired when his successor, Billy Hughes, campaigned for military conscription in 1916. But the former prime minister used his office as High Commissioner to abstain from commenting on the referendum, which failed. Robert Menzies was so disappointed with his Liberal successors, according to <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/8040279">biographer Troy Bramston</a>, that he may not have even voted for the Liberal Party in 1972, preferring the Democratic Labor Party. But he would never have admitted this publicly. Instead, he used his post-prime ministerial public appearances to wax lyrical about the British Commonwealth and bemoan its declining relevance. Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser consulted Menzies periodically during the party elder’s final years. <h2>Statesmen on the loose?</h2> There is a longer history, though, of former prime ministerial interventions in debates about Australia’s strategic and defence policy. These were, after all, vital questions in the 20th century. When Bruce proposed in 1924 to build two new Commonwealth naval cruisers in Britain rather than Australia, his Nationalist predecessor Hughes was irate, and said so from the backbench. “Are we such spineless anaemic creatures”, he asked, “as to be incapable of bearing the great responsibilities which free government imposes upon us?” Hughes would play the role of provocateur again. In 1934, he published a short book called <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1825072">The Price of Peace</a>, in which he called for a more urgent approach to preparation for conflict in the Pacific. An updated version was reissued the following year under the title Australia and the War Today, but it was highly controversial. Hughes was now a minister in a government whose foreign policy toward aggressors depended on economic sanctions, which he had described in the book as “<a href="https://www.naa.gov.au/explore-collection/australias-prime-ministers/william-hughes/after-office">either an empty gesture or war</a>”. His resignation promptly followed. More recent interventions have taken defence policy and strategic complacency as their concern, too. A year before his death, Malcolm Fraser published a polemical book called Dangerous Allies (2014), in which he argued against Australia’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/book-review-dangerous-allies-by-malcolm-fraser-25995">bipartisan “strategic dependence”</a> on the United States. Speaking on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sGk68dzsPU&t=15s">daytime television</a>, he warned that Australia’s partnership with the US could see it implicated in “major conflict” in the Pacific. He was, in this respect, equally critical of both major parties for what he perceived as subservience to American strategic interests. The AUKUS pact, in its short life, has served as the launching pad for ex-leaders other than Keating to launch powerful attacks on successors. When Scott Morrison announced the initial agreement in 2021, his predecessor Malcolm Turnbull used a <a href="https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/address-to-the-national-press-club-september-2021">press club broadcast</a> to argue Morrison had “not acted in good faith” in reneging on the existing submarine deal with France that he, Turnbull, had signed in 2016. Morrison, Turnbull fulminated, had “deceived” France. Australian voters saw the French president and their own prime minister’s immediate predecessor calling the incumbent a liar. <h2>Fights, feuds and frustrated men</h2> In recent decades, Australians have become inured to bitter and emotional feuds between their former leaders. There are several reasons for this trend, including the increasingly personalised nature of politics since the 1970s, high rates of leadership attrition, and the thirst of media providers for easy news stories that hinge on personal animosity and Shakespearean intrigue. A former leader criticising their own party is deemed the height of newsworthiness. John Howard and Julia Gillard have uniquely resisted the temptation. Howard had some <a href="https://theconversation.com/john-howard-calls-for-a-sense-of-balance-but-can-he-help-the-liberal-party-find-it-189059">stern words for his Liberal successors</a> last year in a book called A Sense of Balance, but the book appeared after the Morrison government had been defeated. Gillard, for her part, has been almost unfailingly measured and dignified in her public pronouncements since 2013. For those who did return to the fray of policy combat, the personal and the political were inseparable. For much of the 1980s, Gough Whitlam was anguished by the way Hawke government ministers treated his legacy. As Jenny Hocking has shown in her <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Gough_Whitlam.html?id=QhuSmQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y">biography of Whitlam</a>, Hawke and Whitlam clashed repeatedly as the Labor Party walked away from big 1970s initiatives such as free tertiary education, an ambitious Aboriginal land rights agenda and much else. When treasurer Keating joked about the “chasm” between Whitlam’s policy aspirations and his actual achievements, Whitlam returned serve by calling him a “<a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/122414425?searchTerm=Whitlam%20Hawke%20Keating">smart-arse</a>”. Where race relations and national identity have been concerned, the fall-outs between Australian ex-PMs have been that much more embittered. A great defender of refugees and asylum seekers, <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/fraser-lambasts-howard-government-20040508-gdxt5o.html">Fraser spoke publicly</a> about his abhorrence of the Howard government’s approach to border protection and mandatory offshore detention. When Tony Abbott took the leadership of the Liberal Party in December 2009 promising to “stop the boats”, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-26/fraser-quits-liberal-party/841616">Fraser resigned his life membership</a> in protest. Keating’s attack on the Labor Party is not unprecedented for a former prime minister, but it isn’t historically commonplace either. There is no doubt his criticisms have been heard, but their influence remains to be seen. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-former-pm-but-it-wasnt-always-so-204196" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Legal

Jacinda Ardern delivers emotional farewell speech

Jacinda Ardern stepped down from her position as New Zealand’s prime minister and delivered her final speech in parliament on Wednesday. In her final address to the country, Ardern reflected on the “privilege and responsibility” that comes with being prime minister, and shared both her political achievements and battles she faced during her career. “It was a cross between a sense of duty to steer a moving freight train... and being hit by one,” she described her first entry into politics. “And that's probably because my internal reluctance to lead was matched only by a huge sense of responsibility,” she added. She then shared the reasons why she got into politics in the first place, before reflecting on the events that have defined her legacy. “The reasons I came here … they’re all there in my maiden speech – climate change, child poverty, inequality. I am, after all, a conviction-based politician,” she said. In her speech, she also asked the parliament to “please take the politics out of climate change,” and mentioned that it is a “crisis” that is upon us. Ardern proceeded to reflect on her time as prime minister, where she faced many challenges including navigating natural disasters, the pandemic, and the Christchurch massacre, which had left her “bereft”. She added that during these series of events she found herself “in people’s lives during their most grief-stricken or traumatic moments.” Ardern’s voice was thick with emotion as she recalled meeting the survivors of the mosque terror attacks. “Having sadly seen our nation in horrific moments of grief, I've concluded that countries don't move on from tragedy, rather they become part of your psyche,” she said. Ardern ended her speech with the hope that leaders shouldn’t be afraid to be kind and sensitive, as they can also be hallmarks of good leadership. “I cannot determine what will define my time in this place, but I do hope I've demonstrated something else entirely - that you can be anxious, sensitive, kind and wear your heart on your sleeve,” she said. Ardern left to thunderous applause and a standing ovation, as members of the parliament sang traditional Māori songs. Image: Getty

Retirement Life

Minister steps in to stop deportation of family with Down syndrome son

A Perth family who were on the brink of deportation because of their son’s Down syndrome have been granted permanent residency after an intervention from Immigration Minister Andrew Giles. Last month, the family from India were told to leave because their 10-year-old son’s condition was viewed as a “burden” on the taxpayers. Parent’s Krishna Aneesh and Aneesh Kollikkara begged the Immigration Minister to intervene, as their bridging visa was set to expire on March 15 and they had exhausted all other legal options. The family had been living in Australia for seven years, and on Wednesday they received the happy news through a letter from Giles. The letter read: "[The minister] has personally considered your case and has decided to exercise his public interest power in your case to substitute the decision of the [Administrative Appeals] Tribunal”. Aneesh and her husband spoke to reporters after the decision came out, and said they were “over the moon” when they found out. "I literally went into tears we can stay here we can live in this community we can provide a very good environment for our kids,” she said. Both parents work in highly-skilled industries, with Aneesh as a cyber security expert and Kollikkara working in telecommunications. People with Disability Australia treasurer Suresh Rajan, the family representative, said that their contribution to the society was taken into consideration in the intervention. "That public interest criteria goes to the fact that Krishna and Aneesh are performing work in critical industries and the public wants them here," he said. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Letter received from Minister Giles office granting Permanent Residency to Krishna and Aneesh. Hallelujah! <a href="https://t.co/iYnWHrAZ0C">pic.twitter.com/iYnWHrAZ0C</a> — Suresh Rajan (@SureshRajan6) <a href="https://twitter.com/SureshRajan6/status/1633340769493999617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 8, 2023</a></blockquote> Rajan also shared the development on the family’s case on Twitter. “Letter received from Minister Giles’ office granting permanent residency to Krishna and Aneesh. Hallelujah,” he captioned with a picture of the family. Image: Twitter

Caring

Jacinda Ardern’s resignation: gender and the toll of strong, compassionate leadership

“Uneasy is the head that wears the crown”, wrote Shakespeare, way back in the 1500s. It’s not a new idea that top-level leadership jobs are intensely <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984316300923">stressful</a> and pose a heavy toll. Extended periods of stress are known to put people at <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397">risk of burnout</a>. Yet probably few of us can ever grasp just how unrelentingly demanding and difficult leading a country actually is. Especially in times of crisis and with our modern media and online environment, every statement and every move a leader makes is subject to extensive scrutiny and commentary. Increasingly, a troubling feature of the commentary about New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been its abusive, violent, sexist and misogynistic tenor. While she has not focused on this as a reason for her decision to <a href="https://theconversation.com/arderns-resignation-as-new-zealand-prime-minister-is-a-game-changer-for-the-2023-election-198149">resign yesterday</a>, being targeted in this way, and knowing <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2022/03/where-is-clarke-gayford-jacinda-ardern-laughs-off-conspiracy-theories-reveals-the-answer.html">her partner</a> and even <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/482761/the-hatred-and-vitriol-jacinda-ardern-endured-would-affect-anybody">her child</a> were also targeted, must surely have made an already difficult job so much more challenging. <h2>Crises, kindness and courageous decisions</h2> Crises have long been understood as the most intensive tests of a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984322000649">leader’s skill and character</a>. They involve making weighty decisions, at times about matters that quite literally have life and death implications. Decisions have to be made at speed, but often with insufficient information to confidently predict the consequences of the choices made. Ardern’s premiership has thrown crisis after crisis her way. And time and time again, she has displayed a strength of character and <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003099109-10/leading-crisis-adaptive-leadership-jacinda-ardern-deidre-le-fevre">considerable leadership skills</a> in responding to them. Her handling of the Christchurch terror attacks won <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/03/18/new-zealands-prime-minister-wins-worldwide-praise-her-response-mosque-shootings/">global admiration</a> for her composure, compassion and decisive resolve to ensure such heinous acts could not be repeated here. Her response to the <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/white-island-eruption-how-good-is-ardern-world-praises-pm-for-disaster-response/4S5BZ6NCOWXN4R63HDIEV4KXVM/">Whakaari White Island eruption</a> garnered similar praise, showing yet again her intuitive grasp that a leader offering support to those caught up in such a distressing event actually makes a difference. That Ardern has sought to combine compassion and kindness with the courage to make tough decisions is a key feature of <a href="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/978-1-80262-157-020221003/full/html">her style</a>. <h2>Unrealistic expectations of a leader</h2> Throughout the pandemic, Arden has repeatedly proved her willingness to make courageous decisions. Combined with her prowess at <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1742715020929151">mobilising the public’s understanding</a> and support for the government’s COVID response, this was critical to the success of the elimination strategy. Many <a href="https://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2022/03/21/two-years-since-nz-first-locked-down-expert-reaction/">lives and livelihoods have been saved</a> due to her leadership. When Delta and then Omicron emerged, Ardern <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-jacinda-arderns-clumsy-leadership-response-to-delta-could-still-be-the-right-approach-169926">sought to continually adapt</a> the government’s policies to a changing context. While tenacity and resilience may number among her many strengths, dogmatism is not one of her weaknesses. Of course not all decisions <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300763211/ombudsmans-criticism-of-miq-virtual-lobby-doesnt-go-far-enough">proved to be optimal</a> – expecting them to be so would be wildly unrealistic. Some of her decisions have sparked a <a href="https://thespinoff.co.nz/summer-2022/04-01-2023/the-day-the-grounds-of-parliament-burned-2">strong negative response</a>. But it’s <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Differently-About-Leadership-Critical/dp/1784716782">foolish to expect perfection from leaders</a>, and the job unavoidably means making tough calls not everyone will agree with. <h2>Rise in sexist and mysogynistic abuse</h2> No leader is omnipotent, especially in a democracy and in a globally interconnected world. The latest crisis Ardern has been grappling with – the cost of living – is in large measure <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/21/economy/central-banks-inflation-global/index.html">driven by global forces</a> far beyond the control of any New Zealand prime minister. New Zealand’s situation is <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/129353834/think-inflation-is-biting-spare-a-thought-for-turkey">better than many other countries</a>, but unfortunately for Ardern this holds little sway for some people. The reality, then, is that her growing unpopularity has in part been rooted in people having unrealistic expectations of what leaders can and can’t actually do, and needing someone to blame. But there’s also no getting away from the fact that far too much of the criticism directed at her has been coloured by sexist and misogynistic attitudes. There’s a continuum in how this is expressed. It starts with one C word – <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/122658284/shes-not-a-doll-so-dont-call-the-prime-minister-cindy">Cindy</a> – which is a sexist attempt to belittle her authority and status as an adult woman who is the elected leader of our country. It ends with the other C word. Research by the <a href="https://thedisinfoproject.org/2022/11/29/dangerous-speech-misogyny-and-democracy/">Disinformation Project</a> shows its usage is enmeshed within a wider discourse that denigrates other aspects of her identity as a woman and extends to <a href="https://twitter.com/justinsight/status/1616144565433663488">fantasising about her rape and death</a>. This kind of behaviour is simply inexcusable. It should be to New Zealand’s eternal shame that Ardern has been subjected to this. It cannot be justified by arguing her policies have been controversial and she “deserves” this abuse: that line of reasoning simply replicates the defence long used by rapists and domestic abusers. Ardern is New Zealand’s third woman prime minister. The <a href="https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=277628">glass ceiling</a> for that role is well and truly broken. We now also have <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/477290/women-will-have-equal-share-of-seats-in-parliament-with-soraya-peke-mason-s-swearing-in">equal representation of women</a> within parliament. But the sexist and misogynistic nature of so much of the criticism and abuse directed at Ardern also shows we are a very long way from having equal treatment of women in leadership. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/jacinda-arderns-resignation-gender-and-the-toll-of-strong-compassionate-leadership-198152" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Retirement Life

Chris Hipkins announced as next Prime Minister of New Zealand

Labour MP Chris Hipkins has been elected as New Zealand’s next prime minister after a caucus meeting in Wellington on Sunday. Hipkins was the sole nominee, and the 64-person vote - considered to be largely a formality - was unanimous. “As a team we will continue to provide strong, stable and focused leadership that New Zealanders expect from us,” Hipkins told reporters in a conference after the vote. He went on to announce that his government would turn their attention to a key election concern - helping families that were struggling through difficult economic times, in the wake of rising inflation and housing affordability concerns. On this, he noted, “you shouldn't have to be on a six-figure salary to buy a new house.” Hipkins has helped to steer the country through crises before, having played a crucial role in New Zealand’s COVID-19 response after being appointed as health minister in 2020, work that established him as a household name in New Zealand. He was first elected to parliament in 2008, and as of 2020 was Minister of Education, Minister for the Public Service, and COVID-19 Response Minister. However, to many around him he is known instead as “Chippy”. Hipkins has strong ties within his party, and was seen walking to Sunday’s vote with “very good friend” Jacinda Ardern. He praised her leadership, and like many before him, noted the inspiration she provided for women and girls everywhere. Australia’s own PM Anthony Albanese took to Twitter to congratulate Chris, and to share that he looks forward “to working with him as Prime Minister.” <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> A warm discussion this morning with incoming NZ Labour Leader Chris Hipkins. I congratulate him and look forward to working with him as Prime Minister. 🇦🇺🇳🇿 — Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1616585939052265472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 20, 2023</a></blockquote> Treasurer of Australia Jim Chalmers echoed Albanese’s sentiments, telling Sky News Australia, “Chris Hipkins is someone of immense experience and depth and intelligence. He’s a very worthy successor to prime minister Ardern.” Labour MP Carmel Sepuloni was voted in as incoming deputy by the caucus. Sepuloni, who has Samoan and Tongan heritage through her mother, was said by Hipkins to become the first Pasifika person to become deputy prime minister. In a six part thread to Twitter, Sepuloni shared her gratitude for and commitment to her new role, as well as her enthusiasm at working alongside Hipkins, writing, “It’s hard to fathom the working class girl from Waitara can become the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. I’m incredibly humbled that Chris Hipkins and my colleagues have put their faith in me to take up this important role. “I also acknowledge the significance of this for our Pacific community. I am proudly Samoan, Tongan and New Zealand European and represent generations of New Zealanders with mixed heritage.” <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/THREAD?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#THREAD</a>: 1/6 It’s hard to fathom the working class girl from Waitara can become the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. I’m incredibly humbled that <a href="https://twitter.com/chrishipkins?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@chrishipkins</a> and my colleagues have put their faith in me to take up this important role. ⬇️ <a href="https://t.co/uGPCCZDpM4">pic.twitter.com/uGPCCZDpM4</a> — Carmel Sepuloni (@CarmelSepuloni) <a href="https://twitter.com/CarmelSepuloni/status/1617011240731283456?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 22, 2023</a></blockquote> Hipkins’ full Cabinet has not yet been announced, but he has stated that he intends to keep former deputy prime minister, Grant Robertson, on in the role of finance minister. It is expected that Hipkins will be sworn in as the country’s 41st prime minister on Wednesday. Image: Getty Images

News

“It’s time”: Jacinda Ardern announces shock resignation

New Zealand’s prime minister Jacinda Ardern has announced she will be stepping down from her position. Ardern confessed that she “no longer had enough in the tank to do it [her role] justice”, and confirmed a national election for October 14th. While her term will conclude no later than February 7th, she will continue on as an MP until the election. Jacinda has served as the 40th prime minister of New Zealand since 2017, when she made history by becoming the world’s youngest female head of government at 37 years old, and is a member of the Labour Party. Of her decision to resign, she stated, “I’m leaving, because with such a privileged role comes responsibility. The responsibility to know when you are the right person to lead and also when you are not.” “I don’t want to leave the impression that the adversity you face in politics is the reason that people exit. Yes, it does have an impact. We are humans after all, but that was not the basis of my decision,” she went on to explain. She noted that she has her family’s support, and looks forward to spending more time with them. Jacinda and her partner, Clarke Gayford, welcomed their first child, Neve, in 2018. In her address, she told them, “to Neve: mum is looking forward to being there when you start school this year. And to Clarke – let’s finally get married.” Her announcement comes in a tight election year for the Labour party, but she is confident in their victory, and stressed that the polls were not the driving force behind her decision, “I’m not leaving because I believe we can’t win the election, but because I believe we can and will, and we need a fresh set of shoulders for that challenge.” Australia’s prime minister, Anthony Albanese, took to Twitter to share his respect for Jacinda after the news broke, writing, “Jacinda Ardern has shown the world how to lead with intellect and strength … Jacinda has been a fierce advocate for New Zealand, an inspiration to so many and a great friend to me.” <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Jacinda Ardern has shown the world how to lead with intellect and strength. She has demonstrated that empathy and insight are powerful leadership qualities. Jacinda has been a fierce advocate for New Zealand, an inspiration to so many and a great friend to me. <a href="https://t.co/QJ64mNCJMI">pic.twitter.com/QJ64mNCJMI</a> — Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1615871202580639744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 19, 2023</a></blockquote> Albanese went on to add that he looks forward “to working with the next Prime Minister of New Zealand,” and that he wishes Jacinda and her family well in this next chapter of their lives. He cited her “powerful leadership qualities” in her empathy and her insight, both demonstrated by Jacinda herself when she admitted that she has always worked with and relied on her team, and has not led on her own. She asked only that people remember her “as someone who always tried to be kind.” “I hope I leave New Zealanders with a belief that you can be kind, but strong, empathetic but decisive, optimistic but focused. And that you can be your own kind of leader – one who knows when it’s time to go,” she added. Ardern has faced many challenges over her five and a half years in the role - from natural disasters to an international pandemic. Of the experience, she reflected, “it’s one thing to lead your country through peace time, it’s another to lead them through crisis. I had the privilege of being alongside NZ in a crisis and they placed their faith in me.” Images: Getty Images

News

The "forgettables": 5 Australian prime ministers you may not know much about

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joshua-black-729708">Joshua Black</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> The idea of a “forgotten prime minister” may seem laughable. For Australian historians, it is the governed rather than the governors who need rescuing “from the enormous condescension of posterity” as the English historian E. P. Thompson famously put it. Our First Nations histories especially were for too long silenced and concealed in what the anthropologist Bill Stanner called a “cult of forgetfulness practised on a national scale”. Prime ministers, on the other hand, are stitched into the tapestry of national history thanks to extensive newspaper coverage, the dogged pursuits of political biographers, and the quest of archivists and librarians to collect their personal papers. Deceased leaders’ names adorn buildings and streets, federal electorates, and dedicated research centres, and in Harold Holt’s case, a memorial swimming pool. But some, of course, are better known than others. So which prime ministers, if any, can be considered “forgotten” by contemporary Australia? And what does that act of forgetting reveal about our political culture? Commemorative rituals and <a href="https://essentialvision.com.au/tag/john-curtin">opinion surveys</a> suggest that some have very much receded from memory. Here are a few prime ministers who deserve to be a little better known. <h2>Edmund Barton 1901-03</h2> <figure class="align-right "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501811/original/file-20221219-16-gd6rzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501811/original/file-20221219-16-gd6rzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501811/original/file-20221219-16-gd6rzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501811/original/file-20221219-16-gd6rzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501811/original/file-20221219-16-gd6rzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501811/original/file-20221219-16-gd6rzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501811/original/file-20221219-16-gd6rzd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Edmund Barton, Australia’s first prime minister. National Archives of Australia</figcaption></figure> Barton was a hugely significant figure in his day. A leading advocate of federation, he was summoned by the <a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/hopetoun-seventh-earl-of-6730">Governor-General Lord Hopetoun</a> (after a false start) to form the first Commonwealth government. Between 1901 and 1903, Barton’s government, with the dynamic Alfred Deakin as its attorney-general, established some of the national institutions we now take for granted, such as the public service and the High Court. Barton and Deakin’s deeply racial vision of a White Australia was also enacted in legislation in these years. Australia’s first prime minister (known to detractors as Tosspot Toby) helped to establish the machinery of federal government out of nothing. But this earned him no special place in Australian collective memory. Resigning in 1903, he spent the remainder of his life as a reticent statesman and High Court judge. <h2>George Reid 1904-05</h2> <figure class="align-left "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501812/original/file-20221219-12-k2osuc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501812/original/file-20221219-12-k2osuc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501812/original/file-20221219-12-k2osuc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501812/original/file-20221219-12-k2osuc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=779&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501812/original/file-20221219-12-k2osuc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501812/original/file-20221219-12-k2osuc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501812/original/file-20221219-12-k2osuc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=979&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>George Reid, a political enemy of Barton’s, held office from 1904-05. Museum of Australian Democracy</figcaption></figure> Reid was a political opponent of Barton’s. The defining issue of the early Commonwealth was tariff policy, and all other matters – industrial development, employment, and individual liberty – were refracted through the “tariff question”. Reid, a former New South Wales premier who had earned the moniker “Yes-No Reid” for his prevarications during the earlier federation debates, was a devout advocate for and leader of the Free Trade movement. Reid was summoned to form a government in August 1904. Hamstrung by his lack of a parliamentary majority, he remarkably passed the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/education/australias-prime-ministers-george-reid/13856906">Conciliation and Arbitration Bill</a>. This was core business for the early Commonwealth, and two previous ministries had failed to secure it. But Reid’s attempts to settle the tariff question with Deakin’s Protectionists failed, and his ministry was defeated in parliament in July 1905. <h2>Joseph Cook 1913-14</h2> <figure class="align-right "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501813/original/file-20221219-16-k4lphv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501813/original/file-20221219-16-k4lphv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501813/original/file-20221219-16-k4lphv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501813/original/file-20221219-16-k4lphv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501813/original/file-20221219-16-k4lphv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501813/original/file-20221219-16-k4lphv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501813/original/file-20221219-16-k4lphv.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Joseph Cook, together with Reid, was instrumental in establishing the two-party system that continues today. National Archives of Australia</figcaption></figure> Out of office, Reid and his Free Trade colleague Joseph Cook played a crucial role in making the two-party system that endures today. Whatever their differences with Deakin and the protectionists, Reid and Cook (himself a former Labor MP in New South Wales) saw the rising Australian Labor Party as the real enemy. Reid travelled the country establishing anti-socialist leagues and building the groundwork for a united anti-Labor Party. When the tariff schedule was finally settled in 1908, and the mutual animosity between Deakin and Reid seemed the only barrier to a Liberal fusion, the latter sacrificed himself and resigned so that the former could join forces with Cook on his own terms. In 1913, Cook led the new Commonwealth Liberal Party to a federal election, winning by the narrowest of margins. He oversaw the opening weeks of the Great War the following year, committing 20,000 Australian troops and the Australian Navy to Britain, but soon lost power in <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter13/Double_dissolutions#:%7E:text=The%201914%20double%20dissolution&text=Elections%20were%20held%20on%205,in%20question%20was%20not%20reintroduced.">Australia’s first double dissolution election</a>. <h2>Stanley Melbourne Bruce 1923-29</h2> After the war, the task of national leadership fell to Stanley Bruce, a young businessman and ex-serviceman from Melbourne. In 1923, as leader of the non-Labor forces (now reconstituted as the Nationalist Party), Bruce formed government with Earle Page’s Country Party (forerunner of today’s rural National Party). In doing so, Frank Bongiorno has recently explained, Bruce and Page ‘inaugurated the Coalition tradition on the conservative side of Australian federal politics’. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501814/original/file-20221219-12-fzk3nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501814/original/file-20221219-12-fzk3nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501814/original/file-20221219-12-fzk3nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501814/original/file-20221219-12-fzk3nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501814/original/file-20221219-12-fzk3nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501814/original/file-20221219-12-fzk3nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501814/original/file-20221219-12-fzk3nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=599&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Stanley Melbourne Bruce (pictured with his wife Ethel) had the task of leading the country after the first world war. National Archives of Australia</figcaption></figure> Bruce’s government was ambitious for Australia in the “roaring ‘20s”. He envisioned a future underscored by British migrants, British money and imperial markets. In power for six years, he presided over the creation of the Loans Council and the federal parliament’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Parliament_House,_Canberra">move from Melbourne</a> to Canberra in 1927. But like others before him, he came unstuck on the issue of centralised arbitration. His attempt to abolish the federal arbitration court (with a view to restraining wage growth) saw his government defeated and his own seat lost in the 1929 election. <h2>Arthur Fadden 1941</h2> <figure class="align-left "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501815/original/file-20221219-22-gd6rzd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501815/original/file-20221219-22-gd6rzd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501815/original/file-20221219-22-gd6rzd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501815/original/file-20221219-22-gd6rzd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=785&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501815/original/file-20221219-22-gd6rzd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=986&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501815/original/file-20221219-22-gd6rzd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=986&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501815/original/file-20221219-22-gd6rzd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=986&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Arthur Fadden was chosen to lead his party after Robert Menzies resigned. National Archives of Australia</figcaption></figure> In the early 1930s, conservatives once again reorganised in the form of the United Australia Party, and dominated politics for the ensuing decade. But by 1941, after two years of wartime leadership, the young leader Robert Menzies appeared to falter. His colleagues disliked his brisk manner and the public lacked confidence in his government’s war efforts. A hung parliament after the 1940 election, in which two Independents held the balance, confirmed this. With his position untenable, <a href="https://www.naa.gov.au/explore-collection/australias-prime-ministers/robert-menzies/during-office">Menzies resigned in August 1941</a> and the coalition unanimously chose Fadden, the Country Party leader, to replace him. “Affable Artie” was a widely respected figure and apparently the only one who could hold together a decade-old government too consumed by infighting to meet the demands of the moment. His premiership lasted just 40 days, at which point the Independents offered John Curtin and Labor their support. The sole Country Party leader to become prime minister on a non-caretaker basis, Fadden was one of a small handful of men to lead the nation in a global war. <h2>Australia and Its Forgettables</h2> Why is it that these five prime ministers are largely absent from national memory? Four factors seem particularly significant. First, contemporary Australian political discourse offers only a shallow sense of history. Political reporting rarely reaches for historical depth, and when it does, the second world war tends to be the outer limit. Moreover, when Australians are asked to <a href="https://essentialvision.com.au/tag/john-curtin">rank their prime ministers</a> and select a “best PM”, they rarely reach beyond living memory. The federation generation, overshadowed by the first world war, fare especially poorly. In the 1990s, with the centenary of federation fast approaching, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/pops/Papers_on_Parliament_67/The_Australian_Prime_Ministership">surveys</a> revealed that Australians knew less about its federal founders than they did about America’s 'founding fathers’. What kind of country, the civics experts implored, could <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6niKTWMx4_c">forget the name of its first prime minister</a>? Tosspot Toby was no match for Simpson and his donkey. Second, Australians prefer to think of their political history in terms of heroes and villains (often embodied by the same individuals). Those binary roles require gregariousness, dynamism, some controversy, and the occasional serving of larrikinism. “Tall poppy syndrome” notwithstanding, partisan heroes like Menzies and Gough Whitlam, or infamous rats such as Billy Hughes, make for easy storytelling. The forgettables are more often reserved, restrained or even polite characters. The Primitive Methodist Joseph Cook was “<a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/cook-sir-joseph-5763">[s]olemn and humourless</a>”. The patrician Bruce was judged “<a href="https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/bruce-stanley-melbourne-5400">too aloof and reserved to be an Australian</a>”. And Frank Forde, in his old age, maintained that all of his colleagues and opponents had been <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2239262?lookfor=Francis%20Forde%20%7bformat:Audio%7d&offset=1&max=1">“outstanding” and “capable men”</a> for whom he had only “friendly feeling”. This is not exactly the stuff of masculine political legend. Alfred Deakin has tended to absorb the historical limelight and cast long shadows over his contemporaries, not least because he furnished historians and biographers with rich personal papers. (Barton scrupulously destroyed most of his). But as <a href="https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/4704220">Sean Scalmer has argued</a>, we ought not to overlook the influence of Deakin’s contemporaries in the making of Australian politics as we know it. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501817/original/file-20221219-20-9hooph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501817/original/file-20221219-20-9hooph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501817/original/file-20221219-20-9hooph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501817/original/file-20221219-20-9hooph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501817/original/file-20221219-20-9hooph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501817/original/file-20221219-20-9hooph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501817/original/file-20221219-20-9hooph.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Alfred Deakin (front row, second from right) has tended to cast a long shadow over his contemporaries. <a class="source" href="https://deakinslettersmorningpost.parliamentarylibrary.gov.au/letters/1903?page=1">Australian Parliamentary Library</a></figcaption></figure> Third, prime ministers are rendered immemorable if they were judged to be temporary, or presiding over some kind of interregnum. Australians have valorised the longevity and stability of Menzies and Howard, or the sense of epochal change that accompanied Whitlam and Hawke. Men like Reid, Cook and Fadden seem transitory in comparison. Fourth, public memory has often depended on the sponsorship of major parties and their affiliated scribes and institutes. The corollary is that those who preceded the two-party system are harder to commemorate. Labor has been excellent at proselytising its great leaders and their great reforms, and demonising the rats and renegades. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, has struggled to memorialise its antecedents and influences (Deakin perhaps excepted). Menzies and Howard predominate in the collective Liberal psyche, and Liberal forerunners from Barton to Bruce rarely get a look-in.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196360/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/joshua-black-729708">Joshua Black</a>, PhD Candidate, School of History, National Centre of Biography, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-forgettables-5-australian-prime-ministers-you-may-not-know-much-about-196360">original article</a>.

Retirement Life

Does Australia need new laws to combat right-wing extremism?

At the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH2IUKaWXKw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Press Club</a>, Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil flagged that Labor would propose <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/08/clare-oneill-warns-counter-terror-laws-may-need-to-change-to-better-handle-rightwing-extremism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">changes to Australia’s counter-terrorism laws</a>. She cited an increase in diverse threats beyond religious fundamentalism, a trend towards lone-actor, low-sophistication attacks, and more <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/asio-chief-flags-alarming-increase-in-children-lured-to-extremism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">younger people being radicalised</a>. Specifically, she referred to the threat of right-wing extremism, which in 2021 was <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7269257/ideologically-motivated-terror-now-taking-up-half-of-asio-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">approaching 50% of ASIO’s caseload</a>. She did not suggest the laws will be “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/dec/08/clare-oneill-warns-counter-terror-laws-may-need-to-change-to-better-handle-rightwing-extremism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">overhauled</a>”. However, O'Neil hinted that changes to criminal law could target specific ways that extreme right-wing groups organise themselves compared to groups such as al-Qaeda or Islamic State. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, Australia has enacted at least 96 counter-terrorism laws, amounting to <a href="https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/4287735/02-Hardy-and-Williams-34.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more than 5,500 pages of legislation</a>. So do we need any more laws, or changes to existing laws, to combat right-wing terrorism? <h2>Australia’s counter-terrorism laws</h2> Australia has the <a href="https://theconversation.com/before-9-11-australia-had-no-counter-terrorism-laws-now-we-have-92-but-are-we-safer-166273" target="_blank" rel="noopener">largest collection of counter-terrorism laws</a> in the world. This reflects a strong belief in legality: that powers and offences should be written into the statute books and not be left to arbitrary executive power. But it also shows how readily Australian governments have responded to evolving threats with ever-increasing powers. Our counter-terrorism laws contain countless criminal offences and powers of surveillance, interrogation and detention. As an example, a <a href="https://theconversation.com/control-orders-for-kids-wont-make-us-any-safer-49074" target="_blank" rel="noopener">control order</a> can require a child as young as 14 to obey a curfew and wear an electronic monitoring bracelet to protect the public from a terrorist act or prevent support for terrorism. Most of the offences and powers rely on a broad statutory definition of terrorism. A “terrorist act” means harmful conduct or a threat that aims to: (1) advance a political, religious or ideological cause; and (2) intimidate a government or section of the public. Importantly, this definition is ideologically neutral – as are all the laws. They do not mention Islamist or right-wing terrorism. The laws apply equally to these and other terror threats, no matter the ideology. A white supremacist who prepares or commits a terrorist act faces life imprisonment in the same way as a religious fundamentalist. <h2>What changes might be made?</h2> We won’t know the details of Labor’s proposed changes until next year. The government might ask parliament to tweak the definition of a “terrorist organisation” in Division 102 of the federal <a href="http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Criminal Code</a>. A terrorist organisation is one that is directly or indirectly preparing a terrorist act (or that advocates a terrorist act). Various offences stem from this definition. It is a crime, for example, to recruit for a terrorist organisation or be a member of one. The Australian government maintains a <a href="https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/what-australia-is-doing/terrorist-organisations/listed-terrorist-organisations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">list of proscribed (banned) terrorist organisations</a>. Of the 29 currently listed, only three adhere to far-right ideology. This reflects a longer history of Islamist terrorism, though Australia has also <a href="https://www.themandarin.com.au/176216-australia-catching-up-with-proscription-of-far-right-groups/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lagged our closest allies</a> in banning right-wing extremist groups. Some features of these groups can make banning them difficult. Their membership structures, ideological demands and support for violence can be less clear compared to groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State, which have committed and encouraged terrorist acts all around the world. Right-wing extremist groups <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/05/far-right-and-anti-racism-groups-face-off-in-melbourne-flashpoint" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hold divisive rallies</a>, <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-far-right-are-capable-recruiters-and-have-found-fertile-ground-thanks-to-covid-20210921-p58tn7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">exploit protests</a>, spread racist sentiment and encourage hatred against minorities – but most of these acts do not constitute terrorism. Expanding the definition of a terrorist organisation could capture right-wing extremist groups that are dangerous to society but do not obviously engage in or support terrorist acts. Another possibility is that Labor could seek to ban Nazi and other hate symbols that such groups commonly use. New legislation in Victoria, which comes into force at the end of this month, makes it an <a href="https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-06/591323bs1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">offence</a> punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment to publicly display the Nazi swastika (Hakenkreuz). The state offence will not apply to the <a href="https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbols/search" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hundreds of hate symbols used by right-wing extremists</a>, but it sends an important message that neo-Nazi ideology holds no place in Australian society. It provides a legal mechanism to counter threats of right-wing extremism in a way that the federal counter-terrorism laws currently do not. <h2>Are changes needed?</h2> Australia’s counter-terrorism laws are already extensive and apply to all types of terrorism, so no obvious strategic gaps need to be filled. If a criminal offence or power is needed to combat terrorism, Australia already has it and more. Minor changes to Division 102 could target specific features of right-wing extremism compared to Islamist terrorism. Federal laws could supplement emerging state laws by outlawing hateful symbols used by right-wing extremists and other terrorist groups. However, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-28/banned-neo-nazi-groups-set-sights-on-australia/100030072" target="_blank" rel="noopener">more right-wing groups</a> could be proscribed under the laws as they currently stand. Decisive action to ban internationally recognised right-wing extremist groups, combined with a national inquiry into hate crime law and its <a href="https://tacklinghate.org/blogs/new-research-defining-and-identifying-hate-motives-bias-indicators-for-the-australian-context/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reporting</a>, would send a strong message. Australia’s extensive counter-terrorism laws need not be further expanded. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-australia-need-new-laws-to-combat-right-wing-extremism-196219" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: Twitter

Legal

The new UK Prime Minister is richer than King Charles

The new UK Prime Minister and his wife are richer than the royal family, making waves after featuring on the 2022 Rich List. Rishi Sunak and his wife Akshata Murty, who come from wealthy families and backgrounds, have an estimated fortune of £730 million ($A1.3 billion), according to the <a title="www.thetimes.co.uk" href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-akshata-murty-net-worth-sunday-times-rich-list-86ls8n09h">Sunday Times </a><a title="www.thetimes.co.uk" href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-akshata-murty-net-worth-sunday-times-rich-list-86ls8n09h">2022 Rich List</a>. The list placed them as the 222nd richest people in Britain. In comparison, the same list placed Queen Elizabeth II’s fortune at £370m ($A660m) before her death. King Charles III and Camilla, Queen Consort’s wealth is estimated to be between £300m ($A536m) and £350m ($A626m), according to The Guardian. Mr Sunak formerly worked as a hedge fund manager, while Ms Murty is the daughter of a tech giant who is known as one of the richest men in India. She has a A$1.2 billion stake in her father's company, while also working as a fashion designer, and invests in start-ups through her private investment firm. The couple, both 42, met when they were studying at Stanford University and have two daughters together. They have a property portfolio of four homes worth an estimated £15m ($A26.7m), including a penthouse in Los Angeles. Mr Sunak won’t only be one, if not the, richest UK prime ministers in history, he will also be the first prime minister of colour and the youngest person to take office in more than 200 years. He takes over from Liz Truss, who he lost the leadership race to in September. She <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/news/news/revolving-door-of-chaos-uk-pm-quits-after-44-days-in-office" target="_blank" rel="noopener">resigned last week</a> after 44 days in office. Image credits: Getty Images

Money & Banking

"I can't unsee it": PM shocked by generous package

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was shocked when he came face-to-face with another man’s "generous package" on live television. The Labor leader appeared on a Telethon segment on the Seven Network to raise money for sick children. He was then joined on stage by 76-year-old John Bradley who was dressed in a neon green mankini - similar to the one made famous by Borat. Mr Bradley, who was egged on by his son-in-law to wear the mankini in front of the prime minister, walked over to Mr Albanese and handed him a $10,000 cheque. The cheque was accepted by Mr Albanese who then jokingly used it to cover Mr Bradley’s private parts. “I would have thought that next year, you could get more money for Telethon by promising to have no one in a mankini,” Mr Albanese said. “And I’d suggest that would be an appropriate response. I myself thought that the Telethon pyjamas that young Emily and young Ari encouraged me to wear as a top, were enough. “I saw it — I can’t unsee it.” Mr Bradley’s son-in-law donated $15,000 after going ahead with the bet. Overall, a huge $6 million was raised for sick children. Image: Channel 7

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

"Treated as fools": Prime Minister hits out at supermarkets

Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s heartbreaking loss

Prime Minister's extraordinary offer for "Bollard Man"

As Scott Morrison leaves parliament, where does he rank among Australian prime ministers?

Anthony Albanese announces engagement

Woman charged after NT Chief Minister hit in the face with crepe

Modern prime ministers have typically left parliament soon after defeat. So why doesn’t Scott Morrison?

New Zealand Prime Minister's heartbreaking family update

Ex-Finnish Prime Minister’s rebrand after divorce and leaving office

Between nostalgia and amnesia: the legacy of Julia Gillard as PM, 10 years after her ousting

Hell hath no fury like a former PM – but it wasn’t always so

Jacinda Ardern delivers emotional farewell speech

Minister steps in to stop deportation of family with Down syndrome son

Jacinda Ardern’s resignation: gender and the toll of strong, compassionate leadership

Chris Hipkins announced as next Prime Minister of New Zealand

“It’s time”: Jacinda Ardern announces shock resignation

The "forgettables": 5 Australian prime ministers you may not know much about

Does Australia need new laws to combat right-wing extremism?

The new UK Prime Minister is richer than King Charles

"I can't unsee it": PM shocked by generous package

Our Partners