NOTE: this is just a re-post by me of the body of a comment I made on another thread, but it is relevant here anyway.

If you ever bothered to read the constitution then you would know that it does NOT mention fighting bushfires as a federal commonwealth responsibility. The ONLY powers that the commonwealth has are those that are specifically granted it in the constitution or those that the states have given/lent to it since the drafting of the constitution ( however the states can at any time take back powers that the commonwealth are yielding on their behalf). Never have the states transferred the fighting of bush-fires to the federal government. I don't think it has ever even been suggested.

This is why the rural fire serivces have names such as: QFS = Queensland Rural Fire Service or the NSWRFS = New South Wales Rural Fire Service.

However, I will grant that the federal government is responsible for the land it owns/controls- which is some of the land currently burnt/burning and thus are responsible for its fuel loading. But never-the-less the federal executive, under the current arrangements in place, is certainly NOT meant to be controlling/managing the fire fighting effort. This is purely a state matter! Anyone who says that the federal government has been slaking off the job simply doesn't understand the foundational governing structures of the society that they live in.

This Buckley mutt has got Buckley's to come across as a decent citizen ! What an eaten-up by jealousy vindictive git !

There is no shortage of knowalls with advice for the Prime Minister. They are all so bloody clever, it's a wonder that they didn't go into politics themselves and work towards getting the top job.

This character, who has only a blog to brag about, is one of the most egregious and sarcastic of the breed so far.

Wow..

Hear, hear and well said, Sir. Nobody with a still-functioning brain expects a PM to be out there fighting fires as a volunteer firefighter! That said, Tony Abbott was a volunteer firefighter and lifesaver?

What they/we expect is a PM who wears his Christianity as his cloak, would remain here in a time of national emergency. And looking at all an everything the Federal government could do, even if it meant spending that politically expedient reserve.

Perhaps that was the reason for the AWOL, was perhaps that meant no one could ask you to spend our money on our recovery!?

There are some things vastly more important than holding on to the budget surplus, and a genuine fair dinkum Christian would not only know that but be at the head of the queue doing the good Samaritan effort with it and then some!
Alan B.

As usual, the apologists for this miserable example is to blather on about jealousy and envy or just plain vindictive diatribes etc and so on Ad Infinitum, Ad Nusium!
Alan B.

diatribes etc and so on Ad Infinitum, Ad Nusium!
Alan b,
A description so fitting for the Left ! What exactly, other than symbolism would the PM's presence have achieved ? Symbolism is what got us to this sad & sorry state of affairs via the Leftists.
You're accusing the Govt for what your crowd has caused, not very smart at all !
An opportunistic latching on the Pm on holiday whilst the tree dwellers are are expecting the volunteers to fight the fight for them ?
Btw by your Crowd I mean those pseudo intellectuals who won't move a finger to contribute or help but still holding out their hands & now they criticise for the sake of criticising due to a lack of sense. Talk about exploiting other peoples' misery. Gawd !

memo to ScoMO

realise that just like the bed wetters did to Abbott you will wake up to the fact that nothing you say or do is going to get them to like you. The marxist/gw hypocrites who love the benefits of industralisation want others not to enjoy the benefits while they virtue signal and display their hatred/ignorance. You have as much chance of winning favour from the abc and other regressives as you have of changing the planets temperature. Show some backbone like Trump and get out of Paris and ignore the lying liberal media/twitter/bloggers.

Fire fighting is a state responsibility.

It is ironic that the media -- and climate alarmists such as the author -- did not cane the NSW emergency services Minister for jetting off to London for a holiday during this extreme bushfire period.

It is absolutely negligent of the state governments to capitulate to green ideology and virtually prevent all hazard reduction in national park and crown land, and stop farmers adjacent to those areas from doing so.

Given the severe drought combined with high summer temperatures and unfavourable winds, the state government authorities effectively aided and abetted arsonists to maximise bushfire severity, and increased the likelihood of ignition by lightning strikes and spread of wind-borne burning embers.

In response to thinkabit, Prime Ministers do more than what is prescribed in the Constitution. The major task is to lead, for all. It is written nowhere in the Constitution, but it is what is known as a 'convention'.

I thought there were rules on this blog. "Bedwetters" is not a critique of people who believe in climate change science. It is instead a term of abuse, and one wonders why people would use a term which vilifies children (most children are bedwetters) in order to advance their own world-view. Curious, but strange that the community accepts such puerile standards of expression.

askbucko

did you have an issue with the aborginal 'woman' pretending to crap on a whitie on your abc? You seem easily offended and yet the regressives on the abc push out crap day by day at your and mine tax payer dollars. Assuming you are not on the dole.

Maybe the term bed wetters is not the best choice of words however it is extremly mild compared with the ugly hateful terms put out by the lying left liberal media.

Runner, comment on my blog. I am not interested, nor am I invested, in your problem with either the ABC, or the greenies, or other shadow organisations of the left. I vote, and I have a right to an opinion. That is what my article is; an opinion, and I have a right to one. Why don't you try writing an article yourself, and don't forget the fact-checking.

Memo to individual: "This Buckley mutt has got Buckley's to come across as a decent citizen ! What an eaten-up by jealousy vindictive git !"
You should try reading the article, and you should exhibit civility, even if you disagree. That way you will convince us that you are capable of civility, and worthy of a hearing.
Otherwise you present yourself as an empty vessel, making a lot of noise.
You have never met me, nor, I guess, have you even heard about me. So I am at a loss as to your personal animosity. However, I will struggle manfully on. As I have re-iterated several times today, my article is an opinion piece, nothing more.

It is about time that all those blaming AGW for the fires and the
Federal governments policies got up to date on the science on global
warming and fire characteristics.
Keep up with it.

'Runner, comment on my blog'

the more I read your blog the more I see my first reponse being accurate.

Military Aid to the Civil Power ("calling in the military") is a Federal Government responsibility that Morrison could have triggered months sooner. An example of Aid to the Civil Power was using military aircraft during the 1989 Australian civilian pilots' dispute. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_aid_to_the_civil_power#Australia

Morrison could have called out the military months ago to feed communities made remote by fire, detect and chart the fire fronts, bury disease spreading animal carcases and especially use those $Billion Canberra/Adelaide class LHDs [1] and cheaper HMAS Choules [2] to supply and evacuate people in danger much sooner.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra-class_landing_helicopter_dock

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Choules

People in Mallacoota, Batemans Bay and Ulladulla could have used the services of our Federal Government's Navy big ships, RAAF and Army aircraft much sooner.

askbucko,

That article is an opinion ? I suggest you look up the definition of the word !

Mark,
Judging by the amount of ill-considered abuse for your point of view I would venture to say that the silent majority of OLO contributors agree with you. We don/t just want a change of policies from the government, we want some action, particularly where are we going to get the clean power when the old coal fired stations close down. The bush fires are just a distraction which have unfortunately intruded into a much greater scheme of things.
David

Scott Morrison is not all that bad, as the article attempts to twist the truth.

Scott Morrison is a dedicated Family man with a Christian moral compass.

I like Israel Falou for the same reason.

I find them both very refreshing.

Dan.

The army was present in a small way quite early I believe, but
not in NSW. The army does not get requested until things really get
tough and hard. They are not trained fire fighters and cannot be
allowed onto a fire ground.

Who can be called and by whom, how requested equipment is paid for.
Someone might request a $150000 piece of machinery, that has to be
requested from a hire company, it has to be insured and if an
emergency has been declared it is done immediately.
These details are already in Displans to enable quick decisions.
There is a hell of a lot going on at the same time and the Feds have
nothing to do with it.
Someone on TV just said the PM should have intervened.
Just walk in and take over in such an operation ?
These people are just STUPID !

These people are just STUPID !
Bazz,
Sadly, you're right. My query is the bureaucracy surrounding such matters. If there were a National Service scheme all this nonsense would be taken care of.
We need to rid ourselves of this Leftist protection racket Red tape ! It's the only way we can stop the regress caused by the insipid & selfish tactics by the progressives !

Individual, I don't think national service would help much.
In the area I am involved with there are six primary combat
organisations and another six Functional Groups that provide ancillary
services. Some are voluntary and some such as Railways are not.
My experience of it is that it works very well as we all know our
own organisations and what can be made available quickly.
At the committee we all know each other can just merge all our
organisations into one operation.
We are not the control of the actual on the ground activity, that is
for the appropriate combat group, such as Rural Fire Service, or in
floods SES, or a Biological risk Dept Agriculture in one case we had.
We organise everything around the main event.
Imagine the Feds just walking in and taking that over, aaarrrggghhh !

I can understand Monckton's socialism analogy:

"Comrades, we have a great problem that requires an urgent and radical solution. The journey will not be easy, but you will leave a better world for future generations."

The question you wont get an answer for is,"How long will it be before things improve by taking the proposed action?". Given that the answer is easily as far into our future as Columbus's voyage to America was into our past, perhaps much further, the reluctance to talk about it is understandable. Had Morrison adopted all of the proposed measures, an improvement in climate (if you think the fires the result of climate change and believe the predictions) would not be expected for centuries.

And what of the proposed action? Like socialism, the measures would leave the population destitute long before achieving Utopia. Like socialism, possible solutions must pass through an ideological sieve, so that proven low carbon technology like nuclear power and potential solutions like ocean fertilisation are excluded, whereas wind and solar, which are uneconomic and will not solve the problem, get the thumbs up.

Why are we still waiting for these "experts' to explain what this "Action on Climate Change" actually is ?
Govt must act on CC, yeah ? Sounds great, but what is it they demand Govt do ?
Let's hear it !

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the blog, if it touches a nerve with the likes of runner and Indy, its generally spot on to the truth. Politically Morrison either misjudge the electorate, or is inept, probably a bit of both, his call to the chief cop in NSW showed his ineptitude. The worse thing he could do, and he did try it to a degree, was to wave the Constitution in the face of the public in a time of cries, a red rag to a bull! When people were looking for leadership, Morrison gave them cynicism, the hose bit. As you said Morrison has received a good deal of luck in climbing the greasy poll to the top, but like most luck it runs out, and with this incident Morrison's luck has well and truly ran out.

Everyone is entitled and encouraged to spruik their opinions. You don't have to agree, and it useful to hear alternative views. But when the someone writes ill-informed material about climate change causing bushfires, then they highlight two things.

1st they haven't investigated the issue.

2nd don't read others work put up on OLO is the last 2 weeks.

Seems like the author needs to broaden his reading.

What does the author think Morrison should be doing towards Climate change ? Even just two or three points would be sufficient to prove that there's substance to this "something" ?

Paul,

You are right, in that the pile from left whingers has absolutely nothing to do with the facts.

That Anna from QSL and Dan from Vic who are actually directly responsible for the fire fighting in their states also took holidays was completely ignored because they were Labor.

askbucko,
Have you thought abut my last question yet ?

Paul, there is nothing the Feds can do except sit there by the phone
waiting for a request and act on the request.
They could send liason officers to every EOC. That would be the best.
The suggestions people are making that Scomo should intervene etc
is just plain stupid.
If the Feds arrived they would be arrested and taken away.
The senior police officer of the district is God in those circumstances.

What the Feds can do is what the Feds did do, which is call in the military in early January 2020 without an invitation from the States.

This was endorsed by the Governor-General - see http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/pm-calls-up-reservists-for-firefighting-effort-20200104-p53os7.html

Military Aid to the Civil Power is a Federal Government responsibility.

"Australian military regulations also allow the federal government to use military forces "on its own initiative, for the protection of its servants or property, or the safeguarding of its interests".

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_aid_to_the_civil_power#Australia

Weren't the Greens pushing for all the tree planting? You would wonder why they did this with their 100% accurate computer models telling them that Australia would become the bush fire capital of the world. Further, what difference would "taking action on climate change" have made to the bush fires? How many centuries would it be before taking such action would have an effect?

The latest Liberal Party "research" shows climate change is real. The question was put; "Do you think ScumO' is a dill when it comes climate change?"

97% agreed he was, so now all Liberals have been ordered to become gung-ho climate warriors, before ScumÒ' burns up with the electorate.

Paul, Global warming arrived on schedule with a peak around 2000 and
will be with us for a 100 years or so.
Then will slowly fall till the Londoners are again skating on the Thames in about 250 years time.
That is how it has been for an unknown thousands of years.
Nothing any politician can do about it.
History is a firm teacher.

http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/

NB I am no scientist, but if we ignore history are we not told it will make us pay ?

Nothing any politician can do about it.
Bazz,
I can't get anyone to tell us WHAT they think should be done by Govt to prevent Climate Change.
I have also asked what people would forfeit right now that they think would prevent Climate Change.
No suggestions to-date ! I expected the 'educated' on OLO to come forward but hey, maybe they've gone to Hawaii too for holidays whilst the country was burning ?

Yes Individual, I get waffle as an answer also.
I stopped to work out what would have to be done.
All energy has to be electrical from solar, wind and water.
Ruling out nuclear means making enormous numbers of panels and turbines.
The catch is how do you build them ?
You need very large amounts of cement, steel, copper, plastics for
turbine blades and wire insulation and conduit and water pipe.
You can't just build them and quit, new ones have to be built.
Then there is all the equipment that will use that power.
Farming,food processing and transport are all large generators of co2.
Then there are all the buildings we use !
I can see they could reduce to 50% with difficulty, but 100% ?
All that is before we start on agriculture.
Perhaps the vegans can eat each other, one problem solved !

Are you guys still supporting the "Smoking is good for your health" line of argument as conservatives once did. Your denial of climate change with go the same way as your support for smoking did 50 years ago. Your bubble will burst, and you will be confronted with the unpleasantness of the reality. Lets hope its not to late.

There are no Climate Change Denialists, only climate Change cause denialists !
Only those who think themselves as highly intelligent but are not, deny evolution which runs on climate change !

Paul, I think your comment was directed at Indiv and myself.
Seriously, how can you construct all that infrastructure without the
use of the energy available at this time.
That is only the start, all construction is very energy intense.
Whatever is the target for renewable energy at present will be nowhere
near enough to replace all the transport needs we currently need.
That will mean more solar panels, wind turbines etc etc which will
demand more concrete, metals and plastics.
I know of only one study that looked at the maintenance requirements.
Solar panels alone using the mtbf (mean time between faults) required
unbelievable numbers of panels to be replaced daily.

Frankly those zero co2 proposals just seem unreal.
All that is before food production is tackled.
Of course they always say; "We do not expect to reach zero"
But they do !
Can you explain, if you know, how "they" expect to achieve their aim ?

Of course they always say; "We do not expect to reach zero"

Bazz,
They can't even tell us WHAT they want Govt to do, let alone tell us how they expect to exist on 'Zero' ! I've been waiting for years now for the likes of Mr Opinion, SteeleRedux, Paul1405 et al
to explain what they have in mind when they say Govt needs to do more about CC.

Lads, the rational behind zero carbon emissions has been explained time and time again. We can't keep going over it for the dummies in the class who are slow on the uptake.

rational behind zero carbon emissions
paul1405,
there can't be a rationale on Zero !

individual: “Govt must act on CC, yeah ? Sounds great, but what is it they demand Govt do ?
Let's hear it !”

Based on what the “experts” have screeched about to date, one would expect greater efforts to reduce emissions, and probably the imposition of carbon taxes. There would be more substitution of baseload coal-fired power by more (probably subsidised) intermittent renewables, resulting in:
. forcing up electricity prices;
. increasing the frequency of power blackouts;
. increasing Australian industry cost disadvantage;
. forcing more Australian business entities to close down or move offshore;
. declining employment opportunities, and higher job losses;
. deterrence of new investment;
. suppressed or negative economic growth;
. increased adverse health effects of residents no longer able to afford electricity;
. increased destruction of bird-life by wind turbines;
. greater visual pollution from wind turbines.

But what benefits should be expected from taking more climate change action?

Based on what the past 30 years of climate change action overseas and in Australia have yielded, none!

Raycom,

You ask what government can do.

Soot 'Beam up me Scotty' Morrison, our new climate change warrior, is working on it.

Though the only action he can take is to prevent Australia being the number one victim of global warming is to get the big emitters of greenhouse gases to reduce their emissions.

In fact his political career now depends on it.

Based on what the “experts” have screeched about to date, one would expect greater efforts to reduce emissions,
Raycom,
Without the willingness of the Paul1405's, SteeleRedux's, Mr Opinion's et al no Govt is able to reduce emissions because it's the consumers such as these three et al whose demands for commodities drive the industries to satisfy the demand !

individual,

Don't worry, Soot 'Beam up me Scotty' Morrison has it all under control.

Won't be long before he has all those big greenhouse gas emitters eating coal out of his hand.

Paul, please humour us and tell us how it is to be done.
I for one have not seen an explanation.

Bazz, we can't humour, humourless crusty old conservatives, nor can we argue with the geriatric members of the Flat Earth Society on the issue of climate change. You lot are beyond redemption, you have some of the most intelligent posters on the forum in Mr O and Steele plus others, who have tried repeatedly to explain to you old farts about CC, but to no avail! So we shall leave you in the geriatric sandpit for those over 90, and to show our sympathy, we shall leave you there with a good supply of incontinence pads for your comfort, then you can carry on denying climate change to your hearts content with the rest of the forum fruities.

I can't offer you any more than that.

Bazz, et al. The only solution to reducing emissions to a sustainable level (which is greater than zero) is for the government to build modern nuclear power stations. Those of us oldies who have done the sums realise the futility of this push for ever more solar panels and windmills even with commensurate amounts of storage excluding expensive batteries.
David

VK3AUU

You are on the right track but it's not us who need to be replacing coal fired plants with nuclear plants. We are only small players, emitting only about 1.6% of total GH gases.

It's those big emitters of greenhouse gases that need to upgrade and getting them to do so is well within the capacity of Soot 'beam up me Scotty' Morrison.

So come on Soot, step up to the plate you great big CLIMATE CHANGE WARRIOR and start telling those big emitters that you're sick of them turning Australia into the world's number one victim of global warming. Give us one of your Barnaby Joyce moments, declaring:

"I'm sick of those big emitters being in my life! I'm just sick of it I tell you. I just want those big emitters out of my life!"

Paul, your reply was revealing. It says more than you realise.

David, I believe that in the long term some form of nuclear energy is
the only answer. The opposition to nuclear will have to give way as
the dream of solar and wind is unsustainable. It is a pity that the
Pauls of this world cannot see it. Ah well, closed minds I guess.

Bazz, folks like you are simply locked into climate change denial. You asked; "Paul, please humour us and tell us how it is to be done." you have been given countless explanations, hundreds of pages on this forum alone, nothing short of the planet Mars crashing into the Earth will satisfy you that CC is happening. So to convince you that human activity is contributing to CC is impossible. Is it because you have shares in coal mines? Are you on a promise from Big Clive? The science is overwhelming, the deniers are now becoming a joke, they are the new 'Flat Earth Society'.

Back in the 50's cigarette companies could find "scientists" that could prove smoking was good for you. Hitler found "scientists" that could prove the Japanese were "aryan". Most likely we could find a "scientists" who could prove a cockroach is an elephant. So what.

Paul1405,

Anthropogenic global warming and climate change denialists are part of the milieu.

My research focuses on what scholars and scientists have to say about the environment and this also leads to looking at the denialists' perspective. Why do a handful of people want to reject the things being put forward by scholars and scientists even when it is obvious to billions around the world that Australia is now the number one victim of global warming?

Simple fact is the denialists are people who refuse to accept that their world is changing. They don't want things to change so they invent a world in which things cannot change for one reason or another, irrespective of how irrational those reasons might be. I feel pity for them.

Oh Dear, Paul you have not been reading what I have written.
There is a warming going on it is just that there is an alternative
cause proposed.
It is an alternative because it explains some of the objections to
the conventional AGW theory. Objections such as the small amount of
human caused co2.
The warming cycle can be seen in history and it has arrived on time
as might have been expected.
I am not a scientist and neither are you so we can only take in what
we read about it. Insulting those that do not agree with you shows up
a lack of confidence in your argument.

I am not a scientist and neither are you
Bazz,
Neither are many scientists !

Claims that climate change is responsible for the recent NSW bushfires, demonstrate that those making those claims are ignorant of Australia’s bushfire history.

The “Report of the Royal Commission to inquire into the causes of and measures taken to prevent the bush fires of January 1939 and to protect life and property and the measures to be taken to prevent bush fires in Victoria and to protect life and property in the event of future bush fires” begins:

In the State of Victoria, the month of January of the year 1939 came towards the end of a long drought which had been aggravated by a severe hot, dry summer season. For more than twenty years the State of Victoria had not seen its countryside and forests in such travail. Creeks and springs ceased to run. Water storages were depleted. Provincial towns were facing the probability of cessation of water supply. In Melbourne, more than a million inhabitants were subjected to restrictions upon the use of water.

“Throughout the countryside, the farmers were carting water, if such was available, for their stock and themselves. The rich plains, denied their beneficent rains, lay bare and baking; and the forests, from the foothills to the alpine heights, were tinder. The soft carpet of the forest floor was gone; the bone-dry litter crackled underfoot; dry heat and hot dry winds worked upon a land already dry, to suck from it the last, least drop of moisture. Men who had lived their lives in the bush went their ways in the shadow of dread expectancy. But though they felt the imminence of danger they could not tell that it was to be far greater than they could imagine. They had not lived long enough. The experience of the past could not guide them to an understanding of what might, and did, happen. And so it was that, when millions of acres of the forest were invaded by bushfires which were almost State-wide, there happened, because of great loss of life and property, the most disastrous forest calamity the State of Victoria has known.

(Post cont.)
“These fires were lit by the hand of man.

“Seventy-one lives were lost. Sixty-nine mills were burned. Millions of acres of fine forest, of almost incalculable value, were destroyed or badly damaged. Townships were obliterated in a few minutes Mills, houses, bridges, tramways, machinery, were burned to the ground; men, cattle, horses, sheep, were devoured by the fires or asphyxiated by the scorching debilitated air. Generally, the numerous fires which during December, in many parts of Victoria, had been burning separately, as they do in any summer, either ‘under control’ as it is falsely and dangerously called, or entirely untended, reached the climax of their intensity and joined forces in a devastating confluence of flame on Friday, the 13th of January.

“On that day it appeared that the whole State was alight. At midday, in many places, it was dark as night. Men carrying hurricane lamps, worked to make safe their families and belongings. Travellers on the highways were trapped by fires or blazing fallen trees, and perished. Throughout the land there was daytime darkness.”

Sadly, despite warnings made in the report by the 1939 Royal Commission and by other major inquiries since, that fuel loads must be kept within acceptable limits, as forests are potentially dangerous and explosive places, the findings have not been followed.

Bazz, the group of those denying climate change due to human activity is narrowing. Its not insulting to define that group as mostly crusty old conservative males, because that't who they are.

If you are right and the vast majority are wrong, and we go down the path of action to curtail human emissions of CO2 etc, what is lost? Money, labour, what is it. The planet survives, the human species survives.

Should we take a course of inaction, and continue to pump out vast amounts of CO2 etc. Should that prove to have been the wrong course to take what is lost? the planet, mankind. A rather high price to pay for getting it wrong wouldn't you say. Its a bloody big gamble.

"We also note that you just had to go on holiday outside Australia. I guess that is because you couldn't find anywhere in Australia that wasn't either on fire, or smoke affected."

It could also be that for a fairly well know public figure with his share of detractors, lounging on a beach with his family or doing a bunch of other pretty normal holiday things might not be the ideal way to have the sort of break that most of us could enjoy without risk of being either the subject of polite but intrusive curiosity or outright attack from those taking an opportunity to have their say.

The holiday was outside our normal peak bush fire and weather event season, a family holiday supposedly promised to his children and probably booked some time in advance.

The job does come with responsibilities which are going to go beyond normal job expectations, where family commitments will have to take a back seat when the job really calls for it however I'm left with the sense that most of the talk of Scott Morrison's holiday was and is political point scoring rather than anyone's genuine belief that he needed to be in country.

How much do we really think Scott Morrison could have done in the short term that the deputy PM could not have done in his place?

I've been told the Lib's and Scott himself may have played a similar game against Labor PM's in the past. I don't have the detail but don't reject the assertion. It's entirely plausible.

I would though like to see a move away from that style of politics.
There are issues around government policy which should be addressed in dealing with risk mitigation for bush fires but a politicians family holiday is not really part of that picture.

R0bert

Ah! R0bert, politics is a dirty game, its not fair, and its certainly not a noble pursuit, although it can be rewarding for some, disappointing for others. The PM more than anyone else is a target, his every word, every action, is open to scrutiny. Having in the past delt with many politicians, and aspiring politicians, the vast majority are genuine decent people. Relative newcomers are often full of enthusiasm for the job, they are going to make a difference! The reality is somewhat different, the constrains placed on a politician by the party, the media and the general public is enormous.

Having been privileged to have met and chattered with four prime ministers in the past. In order who did I consider the most congenial as human beings 1 Bill McMahon, 2 Gough Whitlam, 3 Malcolm Fraser, 4 Bob Hawke. Who made the best politicians 1 Bob Hawke, 2 Malcolm Fraser, 3 Gough Whitlam 4 Bill McMahon, complete opposite.

Once talking with a State MP of some years standing. I questioned the general insincerity of most politicians, he simply said "If you're not a C in politics you can't succeed!" (well away from ear short of anyone else of course). Being young an naive that matter of fact response sort of shocked me, but years later I came to accept it.