Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

Australia's Religious Discrimination Bill - empowering discrimination by the privileged pious

By Ranting Panda, 28 November 2021

The Australian federal government recently unveiled its Religious Discrimination Bills. In summary, the Bills propose protection for people to discriminate if their religion gives them the excuse. As an example, the Bills allow certain organisations to fire or not hire people who are LGBTIQ+, or for schools to expel or not enrol LGBTIQ+ students (Elphick & Taylor 2021). The Bills can be viewed at https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/publications/religious-discrimination-bills-2021.

The object of the Bills is to recognise 'the freedom of all people to have or adopt a religion or belief of their choice, and freedom to manifest this religion or belief either individually or in community with others ...'(s 3, Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). This may seem fine in that people should be able to practice their religion or beliefs, however, religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. Well ... Christian religious belief is not persecuted in Australia. It's a different story for people of other faiths who have been persecuted, lambasted and demonised for their religious beliefs. This has particularly been the case for Muslims, who are often the target of horrendous vilification at the hands of right-wing media commentators, Christians and others, who feel empowered to act out their bigotry and xenophobia.

The Religious Discrimination Bills were proposed in the wake of the marriage equality plebiscite, when some Christians were called out for discrimination against and persecution of LGBTIQ+ people. The plebiscite was about equality, which is a bridge too far for many Christians. In a nutshell, a lot of Christians felt persecuted because they couldn't persecute others. The plebiscite resulted in marriage equality for LGBTIQ+ people, who were given the same rights to marry that everyone else takes for granted. Why did Christians feel persecuted? Because they wanted the right to discriminate against LGBTIQ+ people, based on a twisted interpretation of scripture. 

Marriage is not the only area they wanted to be able to discriminate. Christians wanted the right to force their values on others, such as in the area of abortion, and ironically, religious belief. After all, instead of simply loving their neighbour, they only have to love their neighbour who is Christian, not Muslim, not LGBTIQ+, or requiring an abortion. Funnily enough, the bible is very critical of divorcees. Up until the mid-20th century, divorcees were anathema to the church, but now the church is highly accepting of divorcees. There will also come a time when LGBTIQ+ Christians can attend church and be open about their sexuality, gender identification and relationships. 

The Bills make it legal for a religious school to require all staff AND students to be adherents of that religion 'if such a requirement is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of people of that religion' (s 7(1), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). How weak does your religion have to be, that your feelings may be hurt or your beliefs susceptible to injury by allowing someone not of that religion to work at the school? Similarly, s 9 of the Bill allows for religious hospitals, aged care providers, and disability services providers to discriminate based on faith. What value does it add if a Physics teacher is a Christian or not? Teaching English, Physics, Biology and so on, has nothing to do with the teacher's religious beliefs. Obviously, if the class is a religious education one, it may help for a teacher to be of that religion, but other subjects should not be even discussing religion, let alone requiring the teacher to adhere to that faith.  

The Bill does however, state that while people can make statements of belief that could be seen as discriminatory, they can't make those statements if they are malicious, threatening, intimidating, harassing, or vilifying others (s 12(2), s 15(3), Religious Discrimination Bill 2021). 

The Bill is part of a package of three Bills. One of those is the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, which amends various federal legislation, including several human rights laws, namely Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Marriage Act 1961, Racial Discrimination Act 1975, Charities Act 2013, Age Discrimination Act 2004, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. To be fair, some of the amendments reaffirm the universality of basic human rights. However, if enacted, these amendments would allow for such things as educational institutions being able to refuse to provide goods, services or make facilities available for LGBTIQ+ people. 

Not every Christian or Christian organisation agrees with the Religious Discrimination Bill. For instance, the Uniting Church in Australia released a media statement on the Bill, which included the comment, '... we maintain any permission given to individuals or religious organisations that allows them to discriminate on the basis of religious belief must be carefully balanced against the rights of people to be free from discrimination and live with dignity. It is our view that the Religious Discrimination Bill does not achieve that balance' (Uniting Church in Australia, 2021).

By contrast, on 3 December 2021, the Victorian Labor government passed the Equal Opportunity (Religious Exceptions) Amendment Bill 2021, which amends Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act (2010) to make it unlawful for schools and religious bodies to 'discriminate against an employee because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or other protected attribute'. In other words, they can't sack people for being LGBTIQ+ or discriminate in their hiring practices. Additionally, they can't refuse service on these grounds either. (AAP-SBS, 2021). If the Commonwealth's religious discrimination Bills are passed, they would override Victoria's much fairer legislation. 

The Commonwealth's discriminatory Bills come at an interesting time for people of faith. Most of the people who support the Bills are right-wing conservative Christians. For many years, these same people have been forcing their beliefs on others. It is one thing for people to have the right to practice their beliefs without harassment, it is entirely something else for those same people to force those beliefs on others. Yet, that is exactly what has been happening. They have forced women to have unwanted pregnancies, forced LGBTIQ+ people to hide their true sexuality and identity, forced LGBTIQ+ people to comply with the myopic view of marriage that many Christians have (i.e. marriage can only be between a man and a woman), forced other religions out of an area (such as campaigns that prevented construction of mosques), and attempted to tell other religions what they could eat or wear (such as campaigns against halal food and religious clothing, particularly burqas). 

It's not Christians in Australia who need protection against discrimination, it is the people who Christians discriminate against who need that protection. 

Unfortunately, far too many Christians live selfish lives. They wouldn't know what the Bible said if it bit them on their self-absorbed arses. The Bible is clear about sharing wealth with others, yet this is socialism in the minds of many of these Christians, who practically worship capitalism. The Bible says to care for others ... but again, socialism. Caring for the welfare of others is anathema to much of conservative Christianity. 

Coincidentally, it is right-wing conservative Christians who have been particularly vocal and active in anti-vaccination protests across the globe. Vaccinations help to protect the community, particularly those most vulnerable to respiratory conditions, but caring for others isn't high on the list of priorities of these Christians. They vociferously argue against being forced to be vaccinated, claiming it is a violation of their human rights. What privilege it must be to never have experienced human rights abuses, and then claim such abuse when asked to help the community. 

They carry placards claiming 'my body, my choice', which is particularly ironic, considering that these same people have been actively campaigning against abortion, in which pro-abortionists argue 'my body, my choice'. For Christians, other people's bodies are only important when it is their own. Choice is only important for them, not for others who may want to make different choices. 

In fact, the involvement of Christians in anti-vaccination protests highlights that their only concern for human rights is when it is their own. They have never protested against the treatment of refugees, such as Australia's mandatory detention policy, but make a vaccine mandatory and they lose their collective minds. There's a big difference between getting a little prick that will save lives and help protect the community, to being locked up for years without charge for committing no crime while being denied the very basic rights to freedom that most of us take for granted. Yet, these so-called Christians are more concerned with being forced to protect the community, then actually doing something to protect the community. They are more concerned with being given life-saving medication, than caring about the persecution and torture of innocent people. First world problems, much!

(Moore & Risso, 2020)

Many right-wing conservative Christians are selfish. They have no concern for anyone else's rights but their own. No wonder they attend anti-vax rallies and also support the discriminatory Racial Discrimination Bills.

They claim to be pro-life when they oppose abortion, but show they are pro-disease and pro-death when they attend anti-vax rallies to stop people from being given life-saving vaccinations. They want Jesus to save them, but reject life-saving vaccinations. Perhaps Jesus sent the vaccination ... 

Then there are those completely deluded kool-aid drinkers who see mandatory Covid vaccinations as the Mark of the Beast articulated in the Book of Revelation, Chapter 13, verses 16-18. In case you're not familiar with that particular scripture, it states, 'It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. That number is 666'. The Covid-19 vaccination is apparently the Mark of the Beast. I kid you not. 

Mind you, those who claim this have been eagerly awaiting the anti-Christ because they believe that we are in the end-times prophesied in the Bible ... just like many others before them for the last 2,000 years or so. They have rattled off a plethora of candidates for the anti-Christ. This litany of superstars includes The Pope, Hitler, Henry Kissinger, Mikhail Gorbachev, and pretty much every American president since the founding of the US, except for Donald Trump, who these right-wing conservative Christians have practically lauded as being Christ incarnate. This hall of fame extends way back for millenia, and incudes Napoleon and the various Caesars. Every generation has claimed they are in the end-times, so pardon me if I'm a little sceptical that this generation is the last one before the Apocalypse ... but I digress ...

There is no reasoning with people who have this mentality. For them, everything is a conspiracy. If you quote fatalities from Covid, they will argue it is government propaganda. If you present evidence of the efficacy of vaccinations and that they save lives, these mental giants will quote some obscure and entirely fictional finding that they saw on YouTube or social media. If you criticise their selfishness in opposing the vaccine, they will argue that they are freedom fighters. Of course, they never argued for the freedom of refugees and asylum seekers who faced mandatory detention, even though the Bible considers refugees and asylum seekers as the 'least of these', and calls for their care and concern by Christians. Matthew 25:31-46 states that, 'whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me'.

In fact, this is the parable of the sheep & the goats, which states that the sheep are those who are concerned for others, while the goats are those who are only concerned for themselves. The parable goes on to explain that the goats will be sentenced to eternal punishment. Funnily enough, the selfish anti-vax Christians accuse pro-vaxxers of being sheep. Oh well, this would make the anti-vaxxers the goats in this parable ... I guess they better start cranking up their heaters & get used to fiery torment. They tend to also not believe in climate change, so perhaps their support for carbon emissions is their way of practicing for an overheated eternity in the fires of hell. Just sayin' ...

Through their support for the Racial Discrimination Bills, anti-vax protests, end-times conspiracy theories, the lies and bigoted fear-mongering of Donald Trump and Scott Morrison, locking up refugees and asylum seekers, or vilifying other races and religions, it is clear that many right-wing conservative Christians lack the ability to love their neighbour, lack grace and humility, lack wisdom, lack critical reasoning, yet abound in selfishness. They wallow in a persecution-complex, while having the freedom to persecute others.  

The Racial Discrimination Bills are not needed. It would be more accurate to rename them the Privilege Protection Bills. The last thing that Australia needs at this time is to further empower discrimination of others. If anything, the government should be providing greater support and strength to those who are truly discriminated against, persecuted and vilified, instead of empowering the privileged and sanctimonious Christian-class. Instead of these unnecessary and damaging Bills, the Australian government should be focussing on the important challenges facing Australia, including equality for all, climate change and Covid. 

References

AAP-SBS, 2021, Victoria has passed new laws that make it unlawful for schools to sack LGBTIQ+ staff, SBS News, 3 December, viewed 3 December 2021, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victoria-has-passed-new-laws-that-make-it-unlawful-for-schools-to-sack-lgbtiq-staff/45e09ac5-f7eb-411b-83cf-d6fc240a7ed7.

Elphick, L, & Taylor, A, 2021, Schools can still expel LGBTQ+ kids. The Religious Discrimination Bill only makes it worse, ABC News, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-26/religious-discrimination-bill-lgbtq-students-teachers-religion/100651222.

Moore, G, & Risso, A, 2020, Anti-vaccination and 5G protesters defy COVID restrictions, 7 News, 30 May, viewed 26 November 2021, https://7news.com.au/politics/anti-vaccination-and-5g-protesters-defy-covid-restrictions-c-1069448. 

Uniting Church in Australia, 2021, Religious Discrimination Bill must protect all, 26 November, viewed 26 November 2021, https://uniting.church/religious-discrimination-bill-must-protect-all-people/. 

Updated 4 December 2021

Critical Race Theory - the importance of truth-telling history to address racist systems

Critical Race Theory - the importance of truth-telling history to address racist systems

By Ranting Panda, 21 November 2021

Are you woke? You know, alert to the needs of others and, in particular, to the discrimination or persecution that others may be experiencing. Of course, if you're right-wing, you probably disparage those who are woke as being politically correct do-gooder snowflakes who are trying to take away your right to discriminate or persecute others. Many right-wingers will blurt out the old dog-whistle, 'Wake Up, Australia' ... or whatever their country of choice is. They want others to wake up but not be woke. 

Woke is often used in relation to racism, which seems to trigger those right-wingers who like to portray themselves as never being offended by anything. Yet, the moment that someone criticises one of their sacred cows they splutter and choke like an old hand-cranked car trying to start on a cold morning. Case in point is the removal or criticism of statues of prominent people from days gone by. Many of those people were slave-traders or slave owners, massacred innocent people, or committed other human rights abuses. The woke who raise these issues are accused of 'rewriting history'. The offended conservatives who make this accusation conveniently ignore or are ignorant of the fact that this isn't rewriting history, it is telling history as it was. Removal of a statue is acknowledging the real history, not rewriting history, not glossing over or sanitising it like naïve conservatives would like.

Confederate statues in the United States are treated as sacrosanct by many conservatives. Yet, these statues were not installed by the Confederacy during the American Civil War that raged between 1861 and 1865. They were installed during three critical periods in US history in which racism and slavery were revered. The first period was in the 1880s to 1890s, some 20 years after the civil war, in order to crush reconstruction efforts and continue the disenfranchisement of black people following the end of slavery. The second period was from the 1900s to 1920s, following the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, which saw a dramatic increase in lynching of black people and the establishment of Jim Crow laws that legitimised discrimination on racial grounds. The third period was in the 1950s and 1960s, which coincided with the centennial of the civil war and was used to counter the civil rights movement that was fighting for equal rights for black people who still suffered from racist laws and institutions in the US. This period celebrated white supremacy and installed further confederate statutes. 

The civil war was fought over the right to keep slaves. Conservatives don't like to hear that, so will often argue that any teaching otherwise is rewriting history. However, they are the ignorant ones who refuse to face facts. In defending confederate monuments, they are defending racism, slavery and murder. In 1931, sociologist and civil rights campaigner, W.E.B. Du Bois, commented that monuments to Confederate leaders should be inscribed with 'sacred to the memory of those who fought to Perpetuate Human Slavery'. (Palmer & Wessler, 2018).

This acknowledgement of history is an important element of Critical Race Theory. It challenges the sanitised version that has been taught in schools and which national pride is often based upon. It's obviously much easier to have pride in the nation if it was founded on a wholesome and benevolent settlement in which native populations welcomed colonial settlers with open arms, where everyone was invited to work in harmony for the betterment of a society based on love, equality and unity. Of course, the reality is that most colonisation was based on rape, massacre, subjugation, racism, and white supremacy, often in the name of the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour, whose teaching of 'love thy neighbour' seems to have been confined to the four walls of church buildings and never applied in the actual encounters with others who may have been of different cultures, beliefs or colour. 

So, what actually is Critical Race Theory (CRT)? It is the telling of history as it actually happened and it goes further to explain the origins and perpetuation of racism in society to identify solutions to dismantling racism. While some may like to think that everyone is treated equally, the fact is that there is still significant racism, and rather than being non-existent, it has been normalised. Australian politician, Pauline Hanson, is one who regularly spouts racist, and often highly inaccurate, vitriol against indigenous Australians and other minorities. It's no great surprise that Hanson put forward a motion in Australian parliament to reject CRT. Disturbingly, the motion succeeded (Anderson & Gatwiri, 2021).

CRT is not just a matter of studying history, but in studying the impacts of it in the context of structural and institutional racism. It originated in the 1960s and 1970s by scholars researching the cause and continuance of racial disparities in the areas of legal and criminal justice, education, employment, and wealth (Anderson & Gatwiri, 2021). Anderson & Gatwiri (2021), describe some of the principles of CRT as being:

• Race is a social construct, rather than a genetic one. That is, racial differences are based on social experiences, rather than biology.
• Systemic racism perpetuates white supremacy through practices of people and institutions, whether deliberately or not.
• People are not defined by one aspect of their identity, but instead by multiple, intersectional aspects, such as race, gender, religion, age, class, disability, nationality and so on. 
• CRT aims to educate people about discrimination and privilege, to question who benefits and who suffers from existing systems.

Many on the right-wing oppose CRT because they claim it is aimed at making white people hate themselves, or as historian Geoffrey Blainey once described this approach, as a 'black armband view of history'. CRT is not trying to demonise white people, which would be counter-intuitive to its purpose. It aims to address existing racist structures and practices, and identify ways to address them. 

It is also important to understand what CRT is not. After all, opponents of CRT will often make outlandish claims about what CRT is trying to achieve. Trump inaccurately described CRT as a '... Marxist doctrine holding that America is a wicked and racist nation, that even young children are complicit in oppression, and that our entire society must be radically transformed' (Karimi, 2021). The following list describes what CRT is not (Ketchell 2021). 

• CRT does not assert that 'one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex'.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, is inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or subconsciously.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of the individual's race or sex.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual's moral character is determined by the individual's race or sex'. 
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual, by virtue of the individual's race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
• CRT does not assert that 'an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or another form of psychological distress solely because of the individual's race or sex'. 

One of the many arguments put forward against Critical Race Theory, or for that matter, any attempt at addressing systemic racism, is that people of today are not to blame for the actions of people a century or more ago. However, if those systems are still in place, then they should be dismantled. This can be challenging for some people, particularly those who benefit from those systems. Just because one person has the privilege of not experiencing racism or discrimination, does not mean that others don't experience it. When indigenous people in Australia campaigned for land rights so they could restore their connection with their traditional lands, there were many conservatives who sincerely believed that indigenous people would be legally granted the right to throw them off the land and to take over people's dwellings. You know, just like white settlement did to indigenous people. This acknowledgement of massacres, slavery and displacement is not rewriting history, it is the correct telling of the history of Australia. Some of the racist laws in Australia have been removed, such as the policy of Terra Nullius that was used to displace indigenous Australians, the White Australia Policy that actively segregated and disenfranchised indigenous people, and many other laws and policies (Pearson & O'Loughlin, 2021). Racism continues in the way that policing is conducted, in recruitment practices of some employers, in the attitudes and casual racism of many non-indigenous Australians, as well as in the language used by certain politicians to further their racist agendas in order to secure conservative votes.  

Another argument by opponents of CRT is that people should stop living in the past. Hmm ... those same people usually make a big deal of commemorating Anzac Day, Remembrance Day or other national days of significance. It's not those who which to discuss history who are rewriting history, it's those who refuse to discuss it outside their myopic knowledge of the past. Discussions around Australia Day, usually result in conservatives white-washing history, refusing to acknowledge the past or wanting to understand why anyone is still upset with forced displacement or racism. When Yassmin Abdiel-Magheid dared to raise some less than savoury elements of Australia's military past on Anzac Day, she was literally driven from the country following threats of rape and death by conservatives who refuse to acknowledge that perhaps there have been some unsavoury events in Australia's military history. 

Australia may no longer have a White Australia Policy and terra nullius may have been over-ruled, however, that doesn't mean that racism no longer exists. Racism isn't only confined to indigenous people. For instance, the political discourse in Australia, and for that matter in the United States and many European countries, is full of xenophobic fear-mongering and racist dog-whistling. The danger of this is that it empowers casual and overt racism. For example, Australian senator, Mehreen Faruqi, has described the horrendous racist abuse that she has experienced in Australia, even though as a senator, she is working hard for the betterment of Australian society (Faruqi, 2021). Mehreen is Muslim and was born in Pakistan. She isn't the first or only overseas-born politician in Australian parliament. However, politicians such as Julia Gillard, Larissa Waters, Tony Abbot, and Mathias Cormann, have not suffered the racism that Mehreen suffered. Those politicians are white and born in western nations. Another Australian politician, Anne Aly, is a Muslim who was born in Egypt. She has also reported horrendous racism in Australia. She was called an 'ISIS whore', and threatened with being 'gassed in ovens like Holocaust victims' (Christmass 2021). 

Racism is not something that exists only in the past. It is very much alive in today's society. The first principle mentioned above, regarding race as being a social construct, is extremely important to understand. It considers that while geography does help shape a person's identity, it isn't the only thing. However, we often see racists judge people based on their nationality, colour or religion. They may label black people as lazy, Muslims as terrorists, or, as we saw with former President Donald Trump, label Mexicans as drug dealers, criminals and rapists. Trump got away with it because racism is normalised and accepted. 

A high-profile example of systemic racism was that of Kyle Rittenhouse, a then 17-year old boy who crossed state-lines to attack Black Lives Matter protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse was armed with an assault rifle, which he used to shoot protesters; killing two and severely injuring a third. A few days ago, Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges, including murder. Disturbingly, many conservatives supported Rittenhouse, seeing him as a patriot. Had it been a Muslim who fired shots, it would likely have been treated as terrorism. Meanwhile, there have been thousands of examples of black people who have been shot dead, simply for the crime of being black. Rittenhouse was white, affording him the privilege of benefiting from the systemic racism inherent in the criminal justice system of the US. Rittenhouse has been photographed with white supremacist group, the Proud Boys, giving the white power hand signal (Hayne, 2021). In the trial, the judge banned referring to Rittenhouse's victims as protesters, and stated that they were to be referred to as 'looters, arsonists, or rioters' (Hayne, 2021). This immediately validated Rittenhouse's actions as self-defence. If it was truly self-defence, if the protesters were truly the ones doing the attacking, then how come it was only Rittenhouse who fired on them? The judge was biased and did not afford an objective trial, even allowing Rittenhouse to select his own jury; a job usually left for a clerk of the court (Graham, 2021).

It is clear that systemic racism still exists in Australia, the United States, and other countries. It is important to acknowledge our racist history and the consequences of it, in order to stop the perpetuation of racism. It isn't just that certain individuals are racist, it is the systems that normalise that behaviour, and perpetuate racism and injustice throughout the criminal justice system, education and employment. 

References

Anderson, L, & Gatwiri, K, 2021, The Senate has voted to reject critical race theory from the national curriculum. What is it, and why does it matter?, Southern Cross University, 22 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.scu.edu.au/engage/news/latest-news/2021/the-senate-has-voted-to-reject-critical-race-theory-from-the-national-curriculum-what-is-it-and-why-does-it-matter.php. 

Christmass, P, 2021, Muslim PM Anne Aly details horrific stories of racism, sexism and death threats, 7 News, 19 March, viewed 21 November 2021, https://7news.com.au/politics/muslim-pm-anne-aly-details-horrific-stories-of-racism-sexism-and-death-threats-c-2388662. 

Faruqi, M, 2021, For eight years I’ve served Australia. The racist hate and disgusting abuse still crushes me, The Guardian, 30 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/30/for-eight-years-ive-served-australia-the-racist-hate-and-disgusting-abuse-still-crushes-me.

Graham, J, 2021, Was it fair to have Kyle Rittenhouse pick the numbers that determined his jury?, Deseret News, 17 November, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2021/11/17/22787727/kyle-rittenhouse-selected-his-own-jurors-in-a-lottery-is-that-fair-or-a-form-of-punishment-kenosha.

Hayne, J, 2021, Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty of killing two people at Black Lives Matter protest in Kenosha, ABC News, 20 November, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-20/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-protest-shooting-kenosha/100603512. 

Karimi, F, 2021, What critical race theory is -- and isn't, CNN, 10 May, viewed 21 November 2021, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/01/us/critical-race-theory-explainer-trnd/index.html.

Ketchell, M, 2021, Critical race theory: What it is and what it isn’t, The Conversation, 30 June, viewed 21 November 2021, https://theconversation.com/critical-race-theory-what-it-is-and-what-it-isnt-162752.

Palmer, B, & Wessler, SF, 2018, The costs of the confederacy, Smithsonian Mag, December, viewed 21 November 2021, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731/.

Pearson, L, & O'Loughlin, M, 2021, 10 things that you should know about systemic racism, Indigenous X, 2 February, viewed 21 November 2021, https://indigenousx.com.au/10-things-you-should-know-about-systemic-racism/. 

Jesus was a virtue-signaller not a vaccination, and science isn't black magic

Jesus was a virtue-signaller not a vaccination, and science isn't black magic

By Ranting Panda, 26 September 2021

Covid has brought to light some of the utter ignorance and arrogance of science-denying Luddite conservatives, many of whom are Christians claiming that they place their faith in God, not vaccines, masks, lockdowns, doctors or other medical professionals. They treat science as if it's hocus-pocus mysticism, while indulging in group-think cultism that glorifies anti-intellectualism. 

They seriously believe that God, not vaccines, will protect them from the virus, even though there have been more than 4.5 million deaths from Covid worldwide. In the United States, more than 850,000 people have died so far, many of those were Christians who had fallen for the racist and anti-science lies of the disgraced former President, Donald Trump, who was more concerned with racial vilification of China, than in actually taking the virus seriously. He was directly responsible for the genocidal scale of victims in the United States. Yet right-wing Christians practically worshipped him and continue to consider him to be a man of God. God knows what God they worship, but it's clearly not the Christian God. This shows just how degenerate conservative Christianity is ... how spiritually irrelevant it has become; steeped in superstition and stupidity.

Today's conservative Christians are incensed that their individual rights are being 'violated' by mandated vaccines, masks and lockdowns. They claim they are being persecuted. Meanwhile, they were nowhere to be seen when real persecution occurred of other people. These conservatives defended Trump and other conservative governments when they persecuted refugees, the world's most vulnerable people, by demonising them, locking them up in mandatory detention without charge, even though the refugees had broken no laws and had not been charged with any crimes. Conservative Christians defended and condoned this persecution. But the moment these cowards are asked to stay home and wear masks, they carry on as if they've been locked up on Manus Island for years on end. Clearly, 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you', is something they only pay lip service to. It shows that they have no concern for others and are only concerned with themselves. 

This has been magnified during Covid-19, when they have shown no concern for the community, for reducing the spread of the virus throughout their neighbourhoods, minimising the risk of infection by others. Instead, they are only interested in themselves. Jesus said to 'Love your neighbour'. In fact, Mark 12:33 says that loving your neighbour is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.

It isn't showing love to your neighbour if you don't care about your neighbour being infected by a deadly virus. The Bible tells Christians to not be selfish, but to be selfless. Philippians 2:3-4 says, 'Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others'. Throughout Covid, conservative Christians have shown that they are selfish, not selfless.

Recently, Pastor Keith Marshall published an article entitled 'What does your faith exempt you from'. Marshall boldly suggested that as a Christian he was exempt from putting his own needs above others, claiming freedom in Christ without responsibility for his actions, or refusing to protect the most vulnerable. This sounds positively socialist. Dare he suggest that Christians were called to put the needs of others ahead of their own need? 

Not surprisingly, this caused a lot of consternation among conservative Christians, who were obviously convicted of their selfishness by his words. To be frank, it was a little entertaining reading their comments, which showed just how deluded and degenerate conservative Christianity has become. So a few of their comments are republished here and are representative of much of the commentary about the article.

Many of the commentators claimed that they put their faith in God, not in vaccines or science. Apparently, because God gives us an immune system, there is no need for vaccines ... after all, history shows how well our immune systems have coped over the centuries. 

Of course, there was the claim repeated ad nauseum of one's body being a temple ... hmm ... one can be confident that the Bible was not banning life-saving medication being used in said 'Temple'. Instead, it was more talking about allowing the Holy Spirit to dwell within ... you know a spiritual kind of thing, so it's really this redacted commentator who is twisting the Lord's word.

Many, many commentators banged on about God creating them with an immune system sufficient for pandemics such as this ... sadly, there's millions of dead Covid victims whose testimony from the grave shows that the immune system needs a bit of a kick along.

Then there was this person who doesn't appear to be aware of the significantly higher infant mortality rate before vaccines, and the much shorter average life expectancy before modern medicine … it seems that God did need a helping hand after all. And yes, redacted commentator, the vaccine does help to prevent the spread of the virus as well as reduce the severity of it in those who do become infected. Unvaccinated people account for more than 98% of deaths from Covid (Johnson & Stobbe, 2021).  

There was this irate statement accusing Marshall of virtue-signalling ... but keep in mind that Jesus was a virtue-signaller ...

Conservatives love to throw insults around when people are actually trying to do the right thing by others. For instance, they'll call them do-gooders, virtue-signallers, or politically correct. Christians should actually be all these things. The Bible says that Christians are 'created in Christ to do good works' (Ephesians 2:10). It says to 'let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven' (Matthew 5:16). Political correctness is simply about treating others with respect. You know that thing mentioned earlier about 'do unto others as you'd have them do unto you', well, that's political correctness Bible style. 

Many conservative Christians treat the sharing of wealth as though it's socialism ... oh wait ... I guess it is. But then, the Bible does describe how the people redistributed their wealth 'to each as anyone had need' (Acts 4:32-35). One would think the scripture was written by Karl Marx, 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his need'. Conservative Christians will often argue that the Parable of the Talents is evidence of capitalism being God's chosen economic system. This parable is described in Matthew 25:14-30 and likens the Kingdom of Heaven to a farmer who entrusts his servants with some of his property. He gives them differing amounts 'to each according to his ability' ... already it's sounding like something from Marx. The parable then talks of the servant who received five talents, making another five talents. The one who had two talents, made another two talents. The one who received one talent, buried it in the ground because he feared the farmer. Not surprisingly, the farmer wasn't happy. The talents were distributed according to each servant's ability, so the one who received one, had the ability to be more productive. Firstly, this is a parable about the Kingdom of Heaven, not an economic model. Interesting that the Kingdom of Heaven requires people to do good with what they have. Who'd have thought, huh? Do-gooders in Heaven, ala Ephesians 2:10 and Matthew 5:16!

 BUT ... if one wants to use the parable of the talents as an economic exemplar, then it merely shows that workers should be productive, which is necessary regardless of the economic model; socialism requires productivity, capitalism requires productivity, feudalism requires productivity ... you get the idea. In other words, 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need', which does enable equitable redistribution of wealth and for people to do good works to help each other. 

Yet, many conservative Christians throw insults such as 'social justice warriors' (or SJW) at those who help the less privileged. By their standards, Jesus was the ultimate SJW. He was a do-gooder and a commo. Christ's teachings have a very strong socialist bias. He was about helping the poor and needy, about sharing wealth and showing love to the 'least of these', that is those who most need it, who have been shunned and ostracised by society. Christ did not preach a gospel of selfishness and accumulating wealth, or that one should be only concerned for themselves, or only care for other Christians. How often do we see Christians pray for other Christians, such as in Afghanistan or Iraq, but don't pray for Muslims persecuted in those same countries. Conservative Christians have lost the way.

Jesus was a virtue-signaller ... he hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, drunkards, and sinners. By today's conservative Christian standards, this would mean that he was virtue-signalling to those who lived these lives rather than rebuking them and hanging out with the religious conservatives who didn't take kindly to his politically correct, do-gooder ways. For that matter, his harsh criticism of the selfish, egotistical religious folks, not to mention his temper tanty in the temple, was virtue-signalling to sinners who avoided the temple or criticised the profiteering priests and pious 'parishioners' of the day.  

Not all commentators pulled lemon-sucking, lip-pursing face when they read Pastor Marshall's article. Some pointed out the darker history of Christianity over the centuries, replete with warring in the name of God, subjugation in the name of God, enslavement in the name of God, abuse in the name of God, and killing in the name of God.

As a point of interest, observant readers would notice that the post highlighting some of Christianity's less than savoury accomplishments, received all of two 'likes', whereas those that criticised Pastor Marshall, received hundreds and even thousands of positive reactions. Wow! Way for conservative Christianity to shine!

Some seemed to make the rather tenuous assumption that being anti-vax was an indication of their love for God. 'How do they arrive at that?', you may wonder. To be frank, I've got nothing. But apparently, putting God first, means it's ok to be anti-vax, anti-mask, anti-lockdown, thus risking harm to their neighbours. 

This tweet explains why it is not ok for anyone, Christian or not, to be so self-centred. 

There's been a disturbing trend towards anti-intellectualism by many conservatives, not just Christians. They treat education as a if it's part of a broader socialist agenda to usher in an era of leftist intellectualism. They treat science as if it's black magic. So here we are ... people believing that God is some sort of wizard waving a magic wand to protect them from Covid-19, while thousands who eschew the vaccine die painful deaths from the virus.

Of course, there may well be people who truly cannot take the vaccine because of allergy or some other health issue. However, those people who can take it, but consciously choose not to, are selfish and have no concern for the welfare of others. Across the globe, the vast majority of deaths from Covid are among the unvaccinated. Lockdowns will eventually end as the vaccinated population reaches a certain point, but this won't end the virus. Instead, it will leave the unvaccinated vulnerable to the more serious effects of the virus, and sadly many of the anti-vaxxers will succumb to Covid because of their own ignorance and arrogance.  

Anti-lockdown protesters - selfish, ignorant, deluded and dangerous

Anti-lockdown protesters - selfish, ignorant, deluded and dangerous

By Ranting Panda, 25 July 2021

As Covid cases surge to record levels, thousands of people marched in cities across Australia to protest lockdowns, vaccinations, social distancing, and mask wearing. Some of the protests became violent, allegedly attacking police and a police horse. The protesters claimed that they were defending human rights and freedom of choice. You know, the choice to become infected by a deadly disease ... the choice to infect others with a deadly disease that threatens the entire world. These protesters have never before believed in freedom of choice. For instance, most of them oppose women having the freedom to chose what to do with their own bodies. Most of the protesters have not cared at all about the human rights and freedom of refugees and asylum seekers who have been locked down for more than eight years when they haven't committed any crimes. None of the anti-lockdown protesters have called for the release of these innocent people. None of the anti-lockdown protesters have protested against deaths in custody of Australia's indigenous population. They clearly don't care for the lives, freedoms or human rights of indigenous people. 

The protesters claim that the lockdowns and forced mask wearing are violations of their human rights. However, they've never concerned themselves when other people's human rights have been infringed. Typical of the selfishness of many conservatives, it isn't a problem until it affects them. Freedom of movement is a fundamental human right in Australia, but it has been legally restricted by lockdowns. This is one of the human rights that the protesters are upset about. However, the right to life is also a fundamental human right. At the moment, Covid is a danger that poses a direct threat to the health and wellbeing of all Australians. Therefore, the freedom of movement can be legally curbed in order to protect human life. The Queensland Human Rights Commission has published a fact sheet about the limitation of rights during Covid. Among other things, it states, 'Human rights can only be restricted to achieve an important and legitimate purpose. Protecting the lives and health of people during the COVID-19 pandemic is such a purpose'.  

In years gone by, many of these protesters argued that human rights were just political correctness gone mad. Conservative shock jocks stoked the bigotry and fear behind these claims. They declared human rights to be part of a neo-Marxist agenda to introduce socialism by stealth. After years of abusing humanitarians, these anti-lockdown nutters are suddenly portraying themselves as humanitarians, as defenders of the greater good. They reek of hypocrisy. In years past, they've accused human rights defenders of being do-gooder woke snowflakes. Yet who's a little snowflake? The anti-lockdown protesters have folded after only a few weeks of lockdowns, while asylum seekers have had to put up with being locked down or imprisoned for more than eight years. The anti-lockdown protesters are weak. 

The anti-lockdown protesters are only interested in themselves, not in the rights, health or safety of others. They are exceptionally selfish. They are deluded. In fact, they are anti-intellectual, opposing the advice of scientists and other experts in the fields of medicine, law, and human rights. They believe they are saving society through their anti-intellectual delusions, when they are the ones who are the biggest threat to it. 

They claim they have a right to their opinions. This they are correct about. Human rights includes freedom of belief and freedom of expression. However, it's one thing to have an opinion, it's entirely something else to believe those opinions are the same as scientific facts. They will claim that they are being criticised for questioning the science. This isn't true. They are being criticised for their lack of critical thinking. If they followed up their questioning by finding reliable sources of information on which they could then make informed decisions, then it would be acceptable. That would be critical thinking. However, their anti-intellectualism means that they eschew academic research and knowledge in favour of the lies, distortions, hyperbole and conspiracy theories of other anti-intellectuals. 

These protesters sincerely believe that they know more than the epidemiologists, virologists and other scientists. One of their particularly ridiculous beliefs is that Covid vaccines kill more people than the Covid virus. That's if they even believe the virus exists. Many treat it like it's a glorified cold. There is no convincing these people that they are wrong. They have been presented with scientific, peer-reviewed evidence, yet they'll believe the rubbish that spews forth from the mouths of conservative shock jocks and YouTubers. They believe memes over science. Their idea of critical thinking is actually just confirmation bias. They will hunt down some obscure, fringe-dweller who believes the same absurd nonsense as them and then claim that said nonsense is proven fact which cannot be disputed by science. They are exceptionally gullible.

Sir Isaac Newton stated, 'I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people'. Newton may as well have been talking about the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxxer, anti-intellectual, 'freedom fighting' fools.

Predictably, some of the protesters are conservative Christians who believe that vaccinations are tantamount to taking the 'mark of the beast', as articulated in the Bible. It would be funny if it weren't so serious. While there are political and religious leaders who align themselves with these fringe beliefs, there will be the easily-led who follow them to death and destruction. It isn't just a matter of these protesters having their opinions. These opinions are dangerous and will cost lives. We saw what happened in the United States when a 'leader', namely former President Donald Trump, treated the virus as a joke. His ignorance cost more than 400,000 lives because his followers lacked the critical thinking skills to challenge his clearly deranged opinions, even though scientists across the world warned of the danger of taking his statements seriously. The same people who defended Trump and accepted or denied the deaths of 400,000 people, now claim they're concerned with human rights ... so they can perpetuate the same actions that led to those deaths. 

It isn't helped by Australia's own prime minister who has not taken the virus seriously either, resulting in hundreds of people dying in aged care homes that he is responsible for. His failure to create dedicated quarantine facilities has caused the virus to spread because he demanded the state governments use hotels to quarantine international travellers. Hotels are not built to contain a pandemic. This has all been exacerbated by Morrison's failure to adequately manage the roll-out of vaccinations, while declaring 'it's not a race'.

The irony of these anti-lockdown protests, is that they are going to cause the lockdowns to continue because they have amplified the risk of the virus spreading. Additionally, refusing to be vaccinated or to wear masks will continue to expose the community to elevated threats of Covid. 

Many of these protesters claim they are pro-life and value human rights, but they only care for themselves and have no concern for the lives of others.

Morrison's inept pandemic response has cost lives and livelihoods

 Morrison's inept pandemic response has cost lives and livelihoods

By Ranting Panda, 28 June 2021

Australia has been very fortunate in the limited impact that COVID-19 has had on it compared to many other countries. Since the first Australian case was reported in 2020, there have been 910 deaths to date (Department of Health, 2021c). While this is 910 deaths too many, it is relatively few deaths compared to many other countries, including Italy, India, Indonesia, and the United States.

Much of Australia's success in limiting the impact of COVID, has not been from its federal government, but because of the swift and decisive action taken by its state governments. In fact, the federal government was directly responsible for the spread of the virus in Australia, as well as for most of the deaths. There are five key areas that the incompetence and inaction of Australia's federal government worsened the situation:

• Ruby Princess cruise ship
• Aged Care
• Quarantine
• Contact tracing
• Vaccine roll-out.

Ruby Princess cruise ship

On 8 March 2020, the Ruby Princess cruise ship departed Circular Quay, Sydney, for an 11-day cruise to New Zealand and return. The passengers were not notified that there had been 158 cases of people from the previous voyage with coronavirus-like symptoms (Mao 2020).

The ship returned to Sydney on 19 March 2020. The federal government controls international borders and had deemed the voyage to be a 'low-risk' because its route had only taken it to New Zealand (Mao 2020). Following the federal government's guidelines for international passengers deemed low-risk, New South Wales Health officials allowed the passengers to disembark without testing. Even though these were returning international travellers, neither the federal government or the New South Wales government bothered to quarantine the passengers or keep track of where the passengers went. 

One day later, three of the passengers were diagnosed with COVID-19. Within five days, more than 133 of the passengers were found with COVID, many of whom had travelled interstate and mingled with the general community. 

The federal government could have prevented the ship from docking. Prior to the Ruby Princess, the Morrison government had banned international cruise ships from docking in Australia. However, it exempted four ships from this ban; the Ruby Princess was one of them (Mao 2020). 

The Commonwealth Department of Health required the passengers to self-isolate for 14 days after arrival in Sydney, and had published a fact-sheet explaining how to do this. However, Australian Border Force incorrectly advised passengers that the 14 days commenced from the date they departed Sydney, which was 11 days earlier than it should have started. This meant that passengers thought they only had to self-isolate for three days after arrival in Sydney (Special Commission of Inquiry into the Ruby Princess, 2020, item 2.16). 

In all, more than 700 passengers from the Ruby Princess tested positive for COVID, infecting thousands across Australia because of the federal government allowing it to dock, failing to quarantine passengers, and allowing passengers to travel unmonitored throughout the country. This monumental failure by the Morrison government could be considered ground-zero for the unchecked spread of COVID-19 throughout the nation.

Aged Care

The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety published its final report in March 2021. It noted that 'Access to aged care is controlled by the Commonwealth Government' (Vol 2, p 191). 'Funding for aged care is insufficient, insecure and subject to the fiscal priorities and wide-ranging responsibilities of the Australian Government. This affects access to, and the quality and safety of, care' (Vol 2, p 188). Since 2015-16, Australian government expenditure on aged care for people aged over 70, has decreased as a percentage of GDP per capita (Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021, Vol 2, p 191). The Royal Commission found that since the mid-1980s, the decline in spending by the Commonwealth Government is even more noticeable for people aged over 80 (Vol 2, p 191).  

Morrison's failure to address shortfalls in Commonwealth-funded aged care facilities resulted in 685 deaths across Australia. Of these, 655 were in Victoria, 28 in New South Wales, one in Queensland, and one in Tasmania (Department of Health, 2021b). While some commentators tried to blame state premiers for the deaths in their state, specifically Premier Dan Andrews in Victoria, these facilities were the responsibility of the Commonwealth government, with the state governments having no control over them. 

On 1 October 2020, the Royal Commission published an interim report that made several recommendations regarding addressing COVID-19 in aged care facilities. The Commonwealth government implemented all recommendations. Recommendation 4 of this report recommended that the 'Australian Government should establish a national aged care plan for COVID-19 through the National Cabinet in consultation with the aged care sector' (Vol 5, p 172). It is almost inconceivable that the Australian government failed to do this when the pandemic commenced more than six months earlier, particularly considering it was already known that the elderly were most susceptible. As dozens and dozens of people died in aged care, the federal government still failed to establish a plan for addressing COVID-19 in aged care facilities until a Royal Commission recommended it.

The Australian government's failure to act on aged care cost the lives of 685 elderly people. 

Quarantine

Section 51 of the Australian Constitution gives the federal government its legislative powers. This is where the Commonwealth government gets its power to control international migration. This same section also gives the Commonwealth government responsibility for quarantine. It makes sense that if the Commonwealth government is bringing people into the country, then the Commonwealth government should be responsible for quarantining them. But not the Morrison government. While the federal government was happy to continue bringing people into the country from overseas, it abdicated its responsibility for quarantine. Mind you, it was more than happy to detain asylum seekers and refugees in remote detention facilities for years at a time, even though they had not committed any crimes. But I digress. Instead, the Commonwealth government placed the burden of quarantine on the state governments, who were not prepared for this. Morrison washed his hands of quarantine, even as the states requested he help to create dedicated quarantine facilities. The state governments had to act immediately to help process the numbers of international travellers that the federal government was bringing into the country. The state governments did this by quickly repurposing hotels into quarantine centres. 

Hotels are not suitable for quarantine for several reasons, not least of which is they have central air-conditioning which facilitates the spread of airborne viruses. In Victoria, this was brought to prominence when its hotel quarantine program failed spectacularly, resulting in the loss of hundreds of lives and a State of Disaster being declared, plunging Victoria into a prolonged lockdown. 

On 13 March 2020, the Commonwealth government established a National Cabinet to ensure a consistent approach to addressing COVID-19 throughout Australia. The National Cabinet acknowledged that much of the spread of COVID was due to international arrivals. On 27 March 2020, the National Cabinet implemented a 14-day mandatory quarantine period for international arrivals, without establishing quarantine facilities. It left this to the state governments, who then scrambled to establish hotel quarantine programs. Based on this, Victoria's Hotel Quarantine Program was established over one weekend in March 2020. The program was implemented within 36 hours of it being conceived, which placed considerable strain on Victoria's health resources, exacerbated by there being no warning of its implementation and no blueprint for its operation (Victorian Government, 2020, p 18). 

A decision was made to use private security to guard the hotels, although it wasn't clear who made the decision. It was not one made by any Victorian minister. Victoria Police admitted that their preference was for private security to provide the first tier of security arrangements, with Police to be used as a back-up (Victoria Government, 2020, pp 20-21). Whoever made the decision, didn't follow appropriate procurement guidelines and awarded the contract to a company who had not been awarded the State Purchase Contract for security. Additionally, that company then sub-contracted to other security service providers. There was no risk assessment in awarding the contract and the scope of the contract was ill-defined. An Inquiry into Victoria's tragic Hotel Quarantine Program, found that the security guards were not the appropriate mechanism for protecting the hotels and monitoring persons in quarantine, because private security firms tend to have a highly-casualised workforce. The Inquiry found that engaging an organisation with a more structured, fully salaried workforce would have been more effective, such as Victoria Police (Victorian Government, 2020, p 24).

The Inquiry further observed, 'Both the State and Commonwealth governments were aware, prior to 2020, of the possibility of a pandemic and its potentially devastating consequences. However, none of the existing Commonwealth or State pandemic plans, contained plans for mandatory, mass quarantine. Indeed, the concept of hotel quarantine was considered problematic and, thus, no plans for mandatory quarantine existed in the Commonwealth's overarching plans for dealing with pandemic influenza. Prior pandemic planning was directed at minimising transmission (for example, via voluntary isolation or quarantine at home) and not an elimination strategy' (Victorian Government, 2020, p 15). 

The Quarantine Hotel Programme in each state was necessary because of the volume of international arrivals the federal government allowed into Australia, and who then spread throughout the country. 

It's not like the Commonwealth government didn't have time to prepare for a pandemic. There was, after all, one in 2003, when the bird flu (H5N1) spread throughout much of Asia, and again in 2009, with swine flu (H1N1). In 2011, a review was conducted of the federal government's response to the swine flu pandemic. The 2011 Review of Australia’s Health Sector Response to the (H1N1) Pandemic 2009 included recommendations for national quarantine facilities. Specifically, one of the recommendations stated, 'The roles and responsibilities of all governments for the management of people in quarantine, both at home and in other accommodation, during a pandemic should be clarified. A set of nationally consistent principles could form the basis for jurisdictions to develop operating guidelines, including plans for accommodating potentially infected people in future pandemics and better systems to support people in quarantine' (Victorian Government, 2021, pp 87, 91). Ten years on and this recommendation has not been acted on by the federal government. 

The Victorian government did bungle the hotel quarantine in mid-2020 through engaging private security firms and not managing the containment of those quarantined. However, hotel quarantine was never going to be suitable. This had been identified ten years earlier in the 2011 H1N1 review in which a national response was recommended. Yet, the Commonwealth Pandemic Plan still fails to address mandatory or mass quarantine as happened during COVID (Victorian Government, 2020, pp 88-89). 

Several states have been crying out for dedicated quarantine centres to be established. Even after the hotel quarantine debacle last year that cost lives, Prime Minister Morrison has been arguing over the proposal by the Victorian government for a dedicated quarantine facility to be established near Avalon Airport. Morrison is adamant that the dedicated facility supplements hotel quarantine, rather than replaces it (Crowe, 2021). Morrison has also played politics with a similar suggestion by the Queensland government who had proposed a 1000-bed camp at Wellcamp Airport near Toowoomba. More than 12-months after the hotel quarantine programs were established by state governments at the behest of the federal government, Morrison is still arguing about dedicated facilities, criticising solutions proposed by state governments (Chen, 2021).

Contact tracing

On 26 April 2020, the federal government's COVIDSafe application was released. This was a mobile phone app that would allegedly help identify people exposed to COVID-19. Prime Minister Morrison proudly touted the application as Australia's way out of lockdowns. 

A Senate Select Committee has been convened to look into all aspects of the government's pandemic response. Their final report is due for release by 30 June 2022. The Interim Report released in December 2020 has been scathing. The Committee found that the COVIDSafe app relied on using Bluetooth technology in a way that it was never designed to be used, namely to connect untrusted devices to each other (Parliament of Australia, 2020).

The app cost more than $5 million and was promoted by a $64 million marketing campaign. Yet six months after its release, it had detected a whopping 17 potential exposures to the virus. This despite there being around 30,000 cases in that time (Department of Health, 2021a).  

Vaccine roll-out

The federal government is responsible for Australia's vaccination program. However, it has bungled this with an incredibly slow roll-out, as well as issuing contradictory messages around the efficacy of AstraZenica and who is eligible for it. The federal government played politics with the vaccination program by by-passing the state governments and dealing directly with private medical clinics and GPs (Murphy, 2021). This so that the federal government could deal with 'friendly' clinics, rather than 'nit-picking' state governments. Of course, state governments are far better suited to rolling out a mass vaccination program, then the friendly GP down the road. 

The procurement of the vaccines was slow and put Australia at a disadvantage. Larger markets, such as the United Kingdom and the United States were ordering vast quantities of vaccines as early as May 2020 (Murphy, 2021). It wasn't until four months later, in September 2020, that the Australian government ordered 85 million doses of  vaccines, comprised of AstraZeneca and a vaccine developed by the University of Queensland (Harvey, Koloff & Wiggins, 2021). In December 2020, the UQ vaccine was scrapped after trials were giving false positives for HIV. Although Pfizer approached the government in June 2020, it wasn't until November 2020 that the government ordered 10 million doses. The federal government has since ordered another 40 million doses of Novavax, which will not be delivered until late 2021. It has also ordered 25 million doses of Moderna, which will commence delivery in late 2021 and be finalised in 2022.

Both AstraZeneca and Pfizer began arriving in Australia in February 2021. Following criticism of the slow roll-out, the government claimed that the European Union blocked 3.1 million doses of AstraZeneca to Australia, in order to meet EU demand. The EU however, claims it was only 250,000 doses that were redirected from Australia to EU nations (Hawke 2021). Either way, it is well less than 10% of Australia's orders that were impacted by the EU's decision to prioritise European nations over other nations. Additionally, AstraZeneca can also be manufactured in Australia. This excuse by Prime Minister Morrison is lame.

Australia's sluggish vaccine roll-out is affecting people and businesses as lockdowns loom whenever clusters of COVID appear. The vaccine roll-out is at least two months behind schedule (Ting, Scott & Palmer, 2021).

The contradictory messages from the government included warnings about the dangers of AstraZeneca and changing the age limits that could access it, as well as implying that there was no rush to be vaccinated (Tingle, 2021). AstraZeneca was approved by Australia's pharmaceutical regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, for use in people aged over 18. Initially, AstraZeneca was available for all adults, then the government recommended it only for over-50s, then to over-60s. As a result, many people are refusing to take AstraZeneca, even though the likelihood of serious adverse reactions is exceptionally low. The likelihood of death from AstraZeneca is one in two million; the chance of being struck by lightning is four times this, while the chance of dying from Aspirin is 200 times greater than dying from AstraZeneca (Grills, 2021). This isn't some theoretical figure postulated by academics based on guestimates; it is based on reviewing the affects of more than two billion COVID-19 vaccinations administered globally. 

Australia has far more AstraZeneca than Pfizer at this stage, and the refusal by many to take it because of media fear-mongering and contradictory government advice, has exacerbated the low take-up of vaccinations. Following a National Cabinet meeting on 28 June 2021, Morrison announced that AstraZeneca would be available for any adult of any age who asks for it (Clun, 2021). This may help to improve the roll-out of vaccinations, however, the government will need to address the fear-mongering and its own mixed messages around this vaccine.

Despite the horrendous death toll in aged care facilities, only one third of aged care workers have so far been vaccinated (Lucas, 2021). The National Cabinet meeting of 28 June 2021, has decreed that vaccinations will be mandatory for aged care workers (Clun, 2021).

The Morrison government is under fire from every state and territory leader for its botched vaccination roll-out (Remeikis, 2021). New South Wales premier, Gladys Berejiklian, criticised the Commonwealth government's lack of pandemic planning as the greater Sydney area was forced into a lockdown in late June 2021. This, just days after Prime Minister Morrison praised Berejiklian for her 'gold standard' pandemic response in not locking the state down despite a growing number of infections. Berejiklian initially resisted lockdown so that she could demonstrate that the Victorian government's lockdowns were an over-reaction. This political ploy backfired spectacularly when the Delta-strain of the virus spread uncontrolled through Sydney infecting dozens of people, forcing Berejiklian to institute a lockdown (Raper, 2021). This essentially justified Victoria's rapid lockdown response in containing the spread of the virus. Now, instead of returning Morrison's praise, Berejiklian has joined other state and territory leaders in criticising Morrison's incompetent pandemic response, calling for him to ramp up the vaccine roll-out to reduce the likelihood of future lockdowns and lessen the impacts on health and the economy. Berejiklian went on to state, 'Our GPs want to do more. They want more doses and they also want more GPs to come online. That is necessary. That is not something that the New South Wales government can control' (Remeikis, 2021). This isn't something that any state can control; the supply of  vaccines is purely in the hands of the federal government.

Conclusion

 The Morrison government's response to COVID-19 is almost as inept as former president Trump's COVID-19 response. Trump's ineptitude cost more than 420,000 lives in the US before he was spectacularly booted from office. 

If it wasn't for the strict lockdowns and decisive actions taken by the various state governments, Australia would have faced far more deaths than it has. Senator Katy Gallagher, Chair of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, stated 'It was the states who took the big brave decisions at the right time and forced the hand of the Federal Government, that was resisting pressure to take stronger action. Without the strong advocacy displayed by state premiers for bolder measures — particularly by NSW and Victoria — Australia's experience with the pandemic could have been very different. Thank goodness for the states' (Roy, 2020).

Morrison continues criticising the states every time there is a lockdown, however, those lockdowns are the result of the international travellers that he continues to allow into the country, the lack of dedicated quarantine facilities for those travellers, and his bungled vaccine program. Each of these things are directly attributable to Morrison and the federal government. It is only the federal government who can fix each of these issues. Morrison has had more than 12 months to create purpose-built quarantine facilities to REPLACE hotel quarantine, which will be necessary for international travel to continue. And of course, improving the vaccine roll-out will help protect the community and enable it to return to relative normality. Instead of a competent and strong leader who can address these factors, we have a Prime Minister who shirks responsibility and blames others.  

References

Chen, D, 2021, Scott Morrison proposes Brisbane COVID-19 quarantine hub, rejects Wellcamp Airport proposal, ABC News, 25 June 2021, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-24/pm-covid-19-quarantine-hub-hotel-army-barracks-brisbane-wellcamp/100242960.

Clun, R, 2021, AstraZeneca vaccine available to all adults, jabs mandated for aged care workers, Brisbane Times, 28 June, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/federal/mandatory-vaccines-for-aged-care-workers-quarantine-to-be-separated-20210628-p5850h.html. 

Crowe, D, 2021, Deal in sight for $200m quarantine facility near Avalon Airport, Sydney Morning Herald, 3 June, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/deal-in-sight-for-200m-quarantine-facility-near-avalon-airport-20210603-p57xwb.html.

Department of Health, 2021a, Coronavirus (COVID-19) current situation and case numbers, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/coronavirus-covid-19-current-situation-and-case-numbers.

Department of Health, 2021b, COVID-19 cases in aged care services – residential care, 26 June, viewed 26 June 2021, https://www.health.gov.au/resources/covid-19-cases-in-aged-care-services-residential-care.

Department of Health, 2021c, COVID-19 deaths by age group and sex, viewed 26 June 2021, https://www.health.gov.au/resources/covid-19-deaths-by-age-group-and-sex.

Grills, N, 2021, Getting a Covid jab is safer than taking Aspirin, Pursuit, 21 June, viewed 23 June 2021, University of Melbourne, https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/getting-a-covid-jab-is-safer-than-taking-aspirin.

Harvey, A, Koloff, S, & Wiggins, N, 2021, How Australia's COVID vaccine rollout has fallen short and left us 'in a precarious position', ABC News, 24 May, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-24/australia-covid-vaccine-rollout-what-went-wrong/100151396.

Hawke, J, 2021, European Union denies claim it blocked shipment of 3.1 million AstraZeneca COVID vaccines to Australia, ABC News, 7 April, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-07/eu-denies-blocked-shipment-over-3-million-vaccines-to-australia/100052134. 

Lucas, C, 2021, Two-thirds of staff in aged care homes not vaccinated, The Age, 26 June, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/two-thirds-of-staff-in-aged-care-homes-not-vaccinated-20210624-p583vv.html. 

Mao, F, 2020, Coronavirus: How did Australia's Ruby Princess cruise debacle happen?, BBC, 24 March, viewed 26 June 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51999845.

Murphy, K, 2021, Scott Morrison was so keen to own a successful vaccine rollout he forgot about the risk of overseeing a debacle, The Guardian, 17 April, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/apr/17/scott-morrison-was-so-keen-to-own-a-successful-vaccine-rollout-he-forgot-about-the-risk-of-overseeing-a-debacle.

Raper, A, 2021, Gladys Berejiklian insists COVID-19 lockdown is based on health advice, not politics, ABC News, 27 June, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-27/analysis-gladys-berejiklian-delayed-nsw-covid19-lockdown/100247422.

Remeikis, A, 2021, Gladys Berejiklian voices vaccine frustration at federal government ahead of national cabinet meeting, The Guardian, 28 June, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/28/gladys-berejiklian-voices-frustration-at-federal-government-ahead-of-national-cabinet-meeting.

Roy, T, 2020, COVID-19 inquiry makes six recommendations including a permanent rise in JobSeeker, ABC News, 9 December, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-09/covid-committee-interim-report-released-six-recommendations/12968080.

Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2020, Aged Care and COVID-19: a special report, 30 September, viewed 26 June 2021, https://agedcare.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/aged-care-and-covid-19-special-report.

Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, 2021, Final report, 1 March, viewed 26 June 2021, https://agedcare.royalcommission.gov.au/publications/final-report.

Parliament of Australia, 2020, Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 - Interim report, December 2020, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/COVID-19/COVID19/Interim_Report/section.

Special Commission of Inquiry into the Ruby Princess, Report, 14 August, viewed 26 June 2021, https://www.rubyprincessinquiry.nsw.gov.au/report. 

Ting, I, Scott, N, & Palmer, A, 2021, Untangling Australia’s vaccine rollout timetable, ABC News, 30 May, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-28/untangling-australia-s-covid-vaccine-rollout-timetable/100156720. 

Tingle, L, 2021, If the public has vaccine hesitancy, the government has developed strategy hesitancy, ABC News, 22 May, viewed 28 June 2021, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-22/if-public-has-vaccine-hesitancy-government-strategy-hesitancy/100154798.

Victorian Government, 2021, COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry - Final Report, 21 December, viewed 27 June 2021, https://www.quarantineinquiry.vic.gov.au/.