The ABC  is an indulgence we can no longer afford – Harry Stutchbury wrecks all his arguments (Opinion 19 June) when he uses as part of his arguments – Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Telstra…add in posts and wires, The Powerhouse and all the other assets privatised supposedly in our favour.  Harry, surely you don’t really think that we the taxpayer gained from any government privatisation in these asset sales now or in the future…. or do you still believe in (the juvenile myth) fairies at the bottom of the garden?  Harry – grow up!


For how long do the politicians pay

If Bill Shorten can be held accountable for pre-Parliament Union matters (he entered Parliament 2007) can the same apply to Malcolm for the disasters of the banking system, where he was a luminary (he entered Parliament 2004).  And while we are at it – how about the problems of the NAB now that Mike Baird is a senior Executive?
Just a thought – was this why the PM did not want to have a Royal Commission?

Mayoral medieval get-up

Is there some reason not obvious to the person in the street, for mayors of councils to wear and prance around in the most elaborate of medieval costumes worthy of a comic opera.
I do notice that even the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition do not wear such outlandish gear – why do Mayors?  Do they really hanker to be British Mayors in medieval towns

The Royal Commission

CBAs scorecard horrifying but not totally unexpected – Adele Ferguson 2 May. And I trust Adele that you will be one of the reporters trying to get to the truth from all the banks, financial institutions, etc.
I agree that ignoring some of the past and present directors and executives in the various institutions need to be called to account…not just CBA and AMP.
So we will wait and see – after all the Government did not want to have this Royal Commission and by extension – did not want to know about the position in all the financial institutions.


I found the following article interesting after all the ill-informed (dare I say – biased) stuff in the papers recently:  Published: 08 March 2018

Has debate around the Catholic Church become so polarised that it is moving towards irrational extremes, asks Joel Hodge. Source: ABC Religion and Ethics.

By no means am I advocating that the Church be exempt from robust public scrutiny. I am also not wishing to divert attention from historical abuse and grievous cover-ups in the Church. I firmly express support for the survivors who have bravely stood up to seek justice and healing.Rather, I want to avoid prejudicial scrutiny that only leads to misdirected blame. This misdirection allows all parties to avoid proper accountability.

Take the recent six-month investigation by The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald into the properties of the Church. The investigation sought to highlight issues around the transparency and accountability of the Catholic hierarchy.Yet, despite the purported aims of the investigation, there were some obvious flaws. These flaws highlight how resources and attention are being irrationally misdirected against the Church and could be better deployed.

For example, the Church was treated as one entity by the investigation, whereas, in fact, it is many different entities in Australia – dioceses, religious congregations, parishes, schools, hospitals, aged care, social services and so on. To lump all these agencies together – like lumping all the assets and agencies of the federal, state and local governments – is misleading.  Without quibbling about the actual valuations given by the newspapers, much of the reported property cannot be liquidated for obvious reasons. There are churches, hospitals, schools, aged care and social services facilities on these properties. They could not easily be liquidated without a significant social cost and, in some cases, political negotiation.

One is left wondering, then, what was the real point of the investigation?  The Age claimed it wished to highlight the Church’s treatment of claims made by survivors of child sexual abuse, as well as question the tax-free status of the Church.
There seems to be a view that, by highlighting the Church’s wealth, it will be embarrassed and pressured into giving more compensation and support to survivors. But it is the federal government that has set the limit on compensation, not the Church.

– Joel Hodge is Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Theology and Philosophy at the Australian Catholic University.