Australian Museum of Democracy to open in Canberra.

A museum commemorating the existence of democracy in Australia will soon be opened in Canberra. The Australian Museum of Democracy will serve as a historical reminder of the days when democracy was a central pillar of the nation’s government.

The Prime Minister of Australia, Scott Morrison, opened the museum recently and spoke glowingly of democracy as a prominent feature of Australia’s past.

“Democracy belongs in a museum,” he gloated.

“I am enormously proud to announce the establishment of the Australian Museum of Democracy in the nation’s capital, and I am equally proud to have overseen the destruction of that democracy.”

“The museum reminds all Australians of a time when governments acted democratically and largely in the interests of their constituents, and I encourage all Australians to make the journey to Canberra and look back with fondness at such an idyllic period in our history.”

“The delightful museum is located in Old Parliament House, which hasn’t been used for governing since 1988, and this is appropriate because there’s not much democracy in the new parliament house,” Morrison smirked.

The museum displays numerous artefacts from the nation’s democratic history since Federation in 1901. One section is dedicated to the Free press and recalls a time when media outlets were owned by numerous people and offered a variety of opinions on current affairs and politics. It also recounts the days when the federal and state governments were not controlled by the man who now owns almost all of Australia’s media, Rupert Murdoch.

Visitors can read, view and listen to news stories which reported the news, rather than simply reproducing government press releases or repeating the latest slogan from the government. Visitors can also learn about something called ‘investigative journalism’ and how this held society’s leaders to account.

Many younger Australians will be amazed to learn that mainstream news content was once more than just government press releases, celebrity gossip, reality TV show recaps and stories about football WAGS.

Genuine choice in parties

The museum also contains archival and historical relics detailing the days in which Australians enjoyed a genuine choice between political parties. The Liberal, National and Labor parties all stood for distinct principles, and while they came together during times of hardship such as war, they provided Australian voters with a genuine choice according to the voter’s world view.

Australians passing through the museum can also witness politicians making policies, not slogans, and parliamentary debates obsessed with producing laws, not sound bites. They can also read transcripts of opposition members challenging policy proposals of the government, instead of weakly acquiescing.

The remainder of the museum exhibits evidence of a time when the Australian government did not attempt to merge religion and politics or glorify war, and a time when the government respected the right of citizens to protest. Australians can reminisce on a time when border security was not a national obsession, and when particular racial or religious groups were not blamed for the nation’s every problem.

Australians can also look back on a time when politicians did not use exclusive nationalism to win votes and divide the nation, and when corporations were expected to pay tax and behave responsibly. Finally, Aussie citizens can look back at a time when the government was not attempting to spy on its own citizens, unless they were red and hiding under the bed.

Image: Aditya Joshi

P.S. The Museum of Australian Democracy exists. It is real. This article is satire, written to draw attention to the erosion of democracy in Australia by the current government. The actual Museum of Australian Democracy is in Old Parliament House, Canberra, and it houses a real collection of real archives depicting real events in Australia’s political history. Apparently it’s quite interesting and informative.

Australian Labor Party: The Clayton’s opposition.

The current Australian Labor Party is the Clayton’s opposition: the opposition you have when you’re not having an opposition.

The current Labor Party draws its inspiration from Clayton’s beer, which was a non-alcoholic beer whose slogan read: ‘Clayton’s, the drink you have when you’re not having a drink.’

Clayton’s existed to offer Australians, particularly men, the chance to avoid drinking beer but appear to be drinking beer. Clayton’s looks exactly like beer and allowed patrons at pubs or social gatherings to avoid teasing or criticism from their peers. At the height of Clayton’s popularity, men in particular were expected to drink beer in every social setting, and to drink a lot, or risk having their masculinity or sexuality questioned. Indeed, the saying went;

‘Never trust a man who doesn’t drink.’

The current federal Labor Party embodies the spirit of Clayton’s beer because it offers the appearance of an opposition party, but in reality it is not an opposition party.

In reality, the current Labor Party offers no genuine alternative to the current government. The Labor Party supports the LNP in many policy areas, even those which contradict with the founding principles of the party. Labor continually contradicts itself on climate policy, and it has been unable to protect the rights of workers or to increase wages.

As a result, the Australia voting public is fooled into thinking it has a functioning opposition party and an alternative to the current government, but in practical terms it doesn’t. A recent reshuffle of the federal Labor government placed different members in different portfolios, but only time will tell if this makes any real difference to the operation of the party. Their current slogan is “On Your Side”, but whose side is that?

In many cases, Labor gives the impression of being beholden to the right wing elements of the party.

What is a right wing Labor member?

A Liberal?

What is an ineffectual opposition party?

A Clayton’s opposition party?

Image: Matt Palmer

Ban cat breeding in Australia.

It’s time to outlaw the breeding of cats in Australia. It’s time to reduce the number of cats in the country and start protecting native wildlife.

Cats are the single most destructive introduced species in the country and continued breeding will simply add to the number of cats and to the destruction of native animals. Cats that are bred in Australia primarily become pets or show cats and statitics indicate that most pet cats contribute greatly to the destruction of native wildlife.

Cats are estimated to kill about 1.5 billion native animals per annum in Australia. This destruction is the work of domestic cats, stray cats and feral cats. All of these cats are derived from pet cats. Feline species have never been native to Australia.

Breeding cats have the potential to cause great ecological harm because the animals are not de-sexed. While cat breeders may argue that they are responsible animal carers who find a home for all of their litter, the statistics indicate that many baby cats become stray or feral. Furthermore, once a kitten or cat is sold, the breeder has no control over the actions of that cat.

Cat breeding caters to a niche market. The cats are sold to people who desire a particular breed over another because owners believe a certain breed makes a better companion or a better show cat. There are currently 48 recognised cat breeds in the country, as well as various cross breeds. Owners insist on buying a particular breed, and this necessitates cat breeding. But no one needs a particular breed of cat – they can always choose from the remainder of the 48 breeds offered in Australia.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in 1994, only 26% of domestic cats were confined both during the day and night. This means 74% of cats where roaming happily, hunting and destroying native wildlife. In the same year, 42,126 cats were dumped on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). Only 3% of the cats were reclaimed and 74% were put down. Allowing the breeding of cats simply adds to the potential number of cats which will be dumped, stray or feral.

Cat breeders would no doubt object to the introduction of this law. They operate a legal business which generates income, but the animals they introduce to the Australian landscape cause unparalleled damage to the country’s wildlife.

What about other animals?

Opponents of such a law would argue that a blanket ban on the breeding of other animals must then also be introduced. If not, this is an unfair imposition on cat breeding businesses and an act of discrimination. However, the simple fact is that other animals do not cause as much damage to Australia’s wildlife.

People will import cats.

If people can’t obtain a cat of a certain breed of cat within Australia, they will simply import one from overseas. Authorities must therefore ban the importation of cats into Australia to support the ban on breeding.

Feral cats threaten at least 124 Australian species which are in danger of extinction, and cats are a major reason that Australia has the highest rate of native mammal extinction in the world – not per capita – outright. Attempts to reduce this destruction are ongoing and include feral cat eradication, stray cat control, de-sexing and domestic cat containment. These methods all carry their own complications, but banning cat breeding is a less complicated strategy.

Feral cat eradication

Feral cat eradication programs continue throughout the nation, with limited success. Feral cats occupy an estimated 99.8% of the Australian continent, can weigh up to 9 kilograms and have directly contributed to extinctions of more than 20 Australian mammals. The destruction continues because feline species are excellent hunters and are intelligent and thus hard to trap. They exist in many inaccessible areas and current eradication methods are not working well enough. It is thought there are more than 6 million feral cats roaming the country, and importing more cats into the country potentially adds to this number.

Stray cat control and elimination

Stray cats are no one’s responsibility. They roam urban and rural areas, killing native wildlife. They were all once domestic cats, or the litter of domestic cats.

Domestic cat containment

Most cat owners are responsible.

False.

Statistics disprove this theory.

A small percentage of owners keep their cats inside or provide an enclosed cat run in which their cats can play while outside the house. Many allow their cats outside during the day, where they are still able to kill. Others argue their pets are allowed only as far as their own garden, but even in a private garden, a cat can and will kill native wildlife. Most pet cats are allowed to roam free and kill with impunity, and importing cats into the country creates more pet cats, and more potential killers.

De-sexing

Many cat owners think de-sexing is enough. In many cases, de-sexing simply allows owners to absolve themselves of responsibility for the destruction their pets cause. Even a de-sexed cat will kill many native animals during its lifetime if it is allowed to roam freely.

Banning the breeding of cats in Australia will not solve the cat problem. It will, however, limit the number of cats in the country overall and will support existing efforts to reduce the deadly impact of Australia’s most destructive introduced species.

Image: Jae Park

Companies reject offer to partner with Australia’s Liberal National Party.

Numerous companies have rejected offers to link with Australia’s federal coalition after discovering that the party intended to use their brands to promote a message of whiteness.

Companies selling products as diverse as toothpaste, electronics, food, cosmetics and laundry powder received offers of brand partnerships from the Liberal National Party (LNP) and other parties, but quickly and adamantly rejected them on ethical grounds.

Companies such as Buttercup, Civant, Skin Doctor, Colgate, Oral B, Harvey Norman and Persil were approached, but quickly and emphatically declined the offer.

Whiter skin

The LNP approached a number of companies in the cosmetics industry whose products promise to whiten a user’s skin.

“Many of our members received an offer to team up with the federal coalition,” read a statement from the cosmetics industry.

“The LNP wanted to align themselves with products such as Meladerm, White Lucent cream and Skin Doctor Whitening Cream, all of which promise optimal whitening of a user’s skin. The coalition were desparate to associate themselves with products which could make the Australian population whiter.”

“Our industry emphatically declined the offer and asked the coalition to never contact us in the future.”

White Thick, Mighty Soft

Buttercup claims the company was approached by the Prime Minister himself. Scott Morrison was reportedly excited to create a marketing campaign around the bread called White Thick.

“Mr Morrison sought a brand affiliation with the White Thick loaf,” explained Buttercup.

“He said it created positive associations with whiteness, and that the word Thick describes their intellectual approach to government, as well as the physical stature of Craig Kelly and George Christensen, and close ally Clive Palmer.”

The PM apparently also liked the phrase Mighty Soft because it reflects the LNP’s acquiescence to Rupert Murdoch and the fossil fuel industry, and their fear of the extreme right wing voters they work so hard to appease.

White Goods

Morrison also made overtures to companies such as Harvey Norman, Bing Lee and The Good Guys, because they sell white goods.

While Gerry Harvey is said to have shown some interest, the directors of Bing Lee and The Good Guys swiftly declined the offer.

“We were amazed the PM would make such an offer to a company named after a Chinese-Australian family, but then Mr Morrison told us he always thought Bing Lee was named after a former Aussie fast bowler. When he recovered from his shock, he told us the party was very interested in companies who were able to merge the words ‘White’ and ‘Good’ – he thought that was quite clever.”

Another white goods retailer told the LNP,

“No. You’re not the good guys!”

Laundry company Persil also attracted the attention of the current ruling party.

“The LNP were very keen to adopt our famous slogan “Whiter than White” because they said it embodies their core ideology and their vision for Australia. We rejected their offer because we simply produce laundry detergent and that has nothing to do with race or politics.”

Separate whites and colours

Many more laundry brands have since come forward with reports of overtures from the LNP, as well as other fringe parties and candidates such as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party.

“Essentially they were excited by the habit of separating whites from colours, and they said this is a practice they would like to see adopted in Australian society in general. They claimed that mixing whites and colours forces colours to leak and stain the whites, therefore ruining the white ones forever.”

“We reminded the party representatives that separating whites and colours in broader society is the definition of apartheid – and they reacted with horror at the use of that word, claiming that the Australian government has never used that word to describe its policies. They didn’t deny the existence of apartheid in Australia, just the word itself.”

“Semantics aside, our industry made it very clear to Mr Morrison and his colleagues that this is a marketing strategy we would never endorse.”

Whiter smiles

Whiter smiles are something the LNP would also like to see, not just within its own membership, but in Australian society in general, according to the oral care industry.

Companies such as Oral B and Colgate Palmolive were contacted on the basis that their products keep things white, and that whiteness represents the epitome of teeth. The oral care industry was also swift in rejecting the branding offer and sternly rejected any associations with the undertones of white supremacy within the current Australian government.

“We did, however, remind Mr Morrison of the importance of flossing and brushing daily, especially if he wants to maintain his famous smirk.”

Image: http://www.gettyimages.com.au

What about Sydney?

Where are the Emus in Emu Plains,

Did they run off to Emu Heights?

How many red ferns remain in Redfern, and

Were other body parts thrown in Liverpool?

Was the view ever beautiful at Bella Vista?

Do learned gentlemen ply the waterways at Wiseman’s Ferry?

Does life smell sweeter at Lavender Bay, and

Is it Christmas year round in Merrylands?

Do coral reefs fringe Blair Athol, and

Is the water still fresh at Freshwater?

Can I go skiing at Glen Alpine, and

Is Neutral Bay popular with the Swiss?

Will I see acres of greenery at Greenacre, and

Are many children conceived at Rooty Hill?

Are horses still fed at Haymarket, and

Will I get shot at Hunters Hill?

Where is the forest in Frenchs Forest, and

Must I speak French in La Perouse?

How many real men live in Manly?

How many Roses grow in Rose Bay?

What time is Mass at Quakers Hill, and

Do they shear sheep at Warwick Farm?

Do any black heathens live in Blackheath, and

Will I find love at Kissing Point?

Can Skippy be spotted at Kangaroo Point?

Do whales still frolic at Whale Beach?

What’s so great about Alexandria, and

What’s new in Newtown?

Will a field of lilies great me at Lilyfield?

Do any banksias thrive in Banksia?

Can I take lunch at Breakfast Point, and

Does Morning Bay’s beauty wane by midday?

Has all the rush been cut from Rushcutters Bay?

Does anyone care about Sans Souci?

Do any republicans live in Queenscliff?

Should I avoid Edgecliff if I suffer from vertigo, and

Is adrenaline promised while traversing Ropes Crossing?

Are there any orchards at Orchard Hills,

or any wattles at Wattle Grove?

Do high achievers live in Pennant Hills, and

Does the world end at Ultimo?

Australia’s biggest fear.

Australia is afraid. It is home to the world’s deadliest snakes, to poisonous marine stingers and deadly crocodiles. It suffers through annual floods, fires and cyclones, and dangerous spiders lurk in its undergrowth. But something else terrifies Australia: History.

Australians are afraid of their own history. A deep fear of acknowledging its past paralyses Australia and prevents the majority of its citizens from making public statements about the colonisation of the land and the suffering of Aboriginal people.

Politicians are afraid to acknowldge the truth of Australian history.

The current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is afraid. In 2020, he publicly declared that there was no slavery in Australia. He later qualified the statement with obfuscation in order to extricate himself from a PR disaster, but he never acknowledged that slavery did exist in Australia.

On a separate occasion, the PM dismissed the suffering of indigenous Australians when he said,

“You know, when those 12 ships turned up in Sydney, it wasn’t a particularly flash day for the people on those vessels either.”

He was referring to the First Fleet, which carried colonisers from Great Britain and began the dispossession of Aboriginal land in 1788. There were only 11 ships.

Scott Morrison is not stupid. He attended an academically-selective high school and he holds university qualifications. He is also a master of marketing (many Australians argue that’s all he is). Morrison knows the consequences of telling the truth. He knows he has to appease the ignorant, racist, lowly-educated constituency which keeps him and his party in power.

Slavery occured in Australia. It was called ‘Blackbirding’ in some places, and called ‘education’ in others – it was never called slavery.

Blackbirding lured indigenous Australians and people from islands north of Australia to the mainland with the promise of work and high wages. Upon arrival at the farm, the workers were not paid for their work, were treated horrendously, forced to work in stifling tropical heat and horrible conditions, and were prevented from leaving or returning to their homelands.

When indigenous children were stolen from their families, they were ‘educated’ in the ways of the white man then sent to work for white families. Girls were normally set to work as domestic servants, while boys were forced to be farmhands. They were not paid. This is slavery.

Wave Hill walk-off

Another example of exploitation led to the Wave Hill walk-off. Some Australians learned about it in their history classes, some learned about it through the Paul Kelly song: From Little Things Big Things Grow.

The original inhabitants of Wave Hill, the Gurindji people, sustained the vast cattle station. In return, children under 12 were forced to work, accommodation and rations were inadequate, Aboriginal women were sexually abused and forced into prostitution for rations and clothing. There was no safe drinking water, nor sanitation or rubbish removal. In August, 1966, the Gurindji walked off under the leadership of Vincent Lingiari.

Furthermore, many indigenous Australians are still trying to recoup unpaid wages to this day.

The Prime Minister is not the only politician with a selective memory. The current opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, recently omitted a crucial paragraph from a speech about indigenous Australian soldiers. Albanese recognised the indigenous Australians who have fought in many wars for Australia, but it was later discovered he had omitted the following paragraph:

“A continent for which their ancestors had fought so desperately during the frontier wars-wars we have not yet learned to speak of so loudly.”

Albanese was happy to mention overseas wars, but left out the paragraph about the war on Australian soil between British colonisers and indigenous people. He left out the paragraph which concedes that Australians do not talk about colonisation – do not talk about the truth of our history.

Why have we not yet learned to speak of it so loudly?

Albanese’s office later claimed the omission was unintentional. Maybe it was, or maybe Albanese and the Labor party also feel desperate to appease the racist majority-especially since a federal election is expected this year. Thus, the current leaders of both of Australia’s major parties have failed to publicly acknowledge the truth of Australians history.

The national broadcaster is also afraid. The Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) initially referred to January 26 as Invasion Day and not Australia Day in 2021. The label Invasion Day recognises the colonisation of the land, as opposed to the peaceful settlement myth perpetuated in some history books. The ABC soon removed Invasion Day from all official publications and replaced the term with Australia Day.

History is political

Politicians determine the curriculum taught to Australian school students. Until recently, Aussie school kids learned that Aboriginal people were ‘primitive’ and ‘savages’. That they were simply ‘nomads’ who wandered the continent living hand-to-mouth, devoid of science, culture or technology. Students were also taught that Australia was ‘settled’ and not ‘invaded’, that the British were ‘settlers’ and not ‘colonisers’.

Textbooks soften the truth. Many Australians learned that indigenous people died in large numbers due to the introduction of disease for which they had no immune system, and not as a result of murder. Many politicians fought, and continue to fight, to keep this version of history in the school curriculum, and while the teaching material has changed, it is not always becoming more truthful.

Apartheid

Apartheid existed in Australia. Most Australians don’t know, or don’t want to admit, that this is true. The incident at Moree pool proves the existence of apartheid. Aboriginal people were officially excluded from the public swimming pool in the rural NSW town of Moree. Summer gets very hot in Moree. A group of Aboriginal activists visited the town in 1965 and attempted to enter the pool with local indigenous children. Three hours of debate and tension followed, during which fights broke out and non-Aboriginal locals threw eggs at protestors.

Moree Council eventually rescinded the by-law and Aboriginal people were allowed to swim at the pool. Aussies are happy to criticise South Africa for its apartheid, but are largely reluctant to admit its existence in Australia. Or, as one white South African once told me,

“South Africa is not the only country with apartheid, the mistake they made was giving it a name.”

Why is Australia so afraid of its history?

Why are so many Australians afraid to tell the truth about their past?

Racism.

Australia is a racist country, and the worst of this racism is directed at indigenous people. Racism justified the invasion of Australia by the British. The notion of Terra Nullius, or uninhabited land, justified the dispossession of the land from the original inhabitants. If no one lives here, they believed, then it can’t be stolen – it belonged to no one. Terra Nullius is supported by notions of cultural and racial superiority. The colonisers saw people on the land. They interacted with them. However, they claimed the land was uninhabited because it was devoid of structure and buildings which in European minds constituted habitation.

Racism is not going away. News outlets carried images of a large group of Caucasian Australian men celebrating their membership of a neo-Nazi group on Australia Day weekend this year. Many citizens and even elected politicians have publicly declared their support for Trump and his rhetoric. Fringe political parties with a platform of racism and bigotry, such as Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, are winning more votes in elections – which is why mainstream parties are so keen to appease the racists.

Lies

Australians are also fed lies about the consequences of telling the truth. Australians have been convinced that officially acknowledging the truth will cost them their homes, as indigenous people will make endless land rights claims and take back possession of suburbs throughout the nation.

Image:www.worldatlas.com

Ban the importation of cats into Australia.

Prevention is better than cure and this adage should apply to the importation of cats into Australia. Cats must be prevented from entering Australia from other countries because they remain the single most destructive introduced species in the country. Continued importation will result in the destruction of more native wildlife.

This article relates to the importation of new cats – cats that have never been to Australia before, and not to cats from Australia returning from overseas with their owners.

Feral cats threaten at least 124 Australian species which are in danger of extinction, and cats are a major reason that Australia has the highest rate of native mammal extinction in the world – not per capita – outright. Attempts to reduce this destruction are ongoing and include feral cat eradication, stray cat control, de-sexing and domestic cat containment. These methods all carry their own complications, but banning the importation of cats into the country is surely the least complicated strategy.

It’s simple. Tell every Australian and every international visitor that it is not possible to import a cat into the country. No exceptions. If Australians insist on having a pet cat, they can source one from inside the country.

Cats can currently be imported into Australia from other countries under various conditions. Cats from locations such as New Zealand and Norfolk Island do not even need to serve a period of quarantine, provided they have been approved as healthy in the place of origin.

According to the Department of Agriculture, people can bring cats into Australia without even obtaining a permit, provided the cat is coming from a country such as New Zealand and the exporter signs a Statutory Declaration that:

  • identifies the cat by breed, sex, age and microchip number.
  • verifies that the cat has been continually resident in New Zealand since birth or direct importation from Australia, or for the 90 days immediately before the date of export if the animal has been imported into New Zealand from any other country.
  • verifies that the cat is not derived from a domestic/non-domestic hybrid.
  • verifies that if a female cat, the animal is not more than 40 days pregnant or suckling young at the time of export.

These conditions ensure that the animal does not bring diseases into the country, but ignores the fact that cats have the potential to cause enormous damage to Australian wildlife once they arrive – no matter how healthy they are. In fact, it could be argues that a healthy, active, agile cat is more able to hunt and kill wildlife.

Cats from other countries must spend a minimum of 10 days at an official post-entry quarantine facility and arrive with an official permit.

All of these measures carry associated costs, and bringing a cat into Australia is very expensive. If Australians are determined to spend money on animals, they can adopt a koala or donate to many of the organisations dedicated to the care and protection of Australia’s native wildlife. After so many native animals were lost in the 2019/2020 bushfires, now is a perfect time to contribute to the protection of Aussie animals.

Various strategies are currently employed to protect wildlife from cats.

Feral cat eradication

Feral cat eradication programs continue throughout the nation, with limited success. Feral cats occupy an estimated 99.8% of the Australian continent, can weigh up to 9 kilograms and have directly contributed to extinctions of more than 20 Australian mammals. The destruction continues because feline species are excellent hunters and are intelligent and thus hard to trap. They exist in many inaccessible areas and current eradication methods are not working well enough. It is thought there are more than 6 million feral cats roaming the country, and importing more cats into the country potentially adds to this number.

Stray cat control and elimination

Stray cats are no one’s responsibility. They roam urban and rural areas, killing native wildlife. They were all once domestic cats, or the litter of domestic cats.

Domestic cat containment

Most cat owners are responsible.

False.

Statistics disprove this theory. A small percentage of owners keep their cats inside or provide an enclosed cat run in which their cats can play while outside the house. Many allow their cats outside during the day, where they are still able to kill. Others argue their pets are allowed only as far as their own garden, but even in a private garden, a cat can and will kill native wildlife. Most pet cats are allowed to roam free and kill with impunity, and importing cats into the country creates more pet cats and more potential killers.

De-sexing

Many cat owners think de-sexing is enough. In many cases, de-sexing simply allows owners to absolve themselves of responsibility for the destruction their pets cause. Even a de-sexed cat will kill many native animals during its lifetime if it is allowed to roam freely.

Banning the importation of cats into Australia will not solve the cat problem. It will, however, limit the number of cats in the country overall and will support existing efforts to reduce the deadly impact of Australia’s most destructive introduced species.

Image: Jae Park

Australia develops the E-chidna to replace wild echidnas.

Australian scientists have created the E-chidna to replace echidnas in the wild once the country’s natural environment has been successfully destroyed, in what is being hailed as a world first in the creation of electronic wildlife.

The digitised animal looks exactly the same as a wild echidna, but will exist only in animated form. The first E-chidna is set to be released into the world wide web next week, and a female counterpart will soon follow. It is hoped the pair will breed and populate cyberspace with little baby E-chidnas.

“The E-chidna is a source of pride for all Aussies,” announced Minister for the Environment, Sussan Ley. “It epitomises this country’s attitude towards and treatment of the natural environment, and it will replace wild echidnas when they and other native animals become extinct.”

The minister then outlined how successive federal and state environment ministers contributed to the birth of the E-chidna through support of the fossil fuel industry, traditional agricultural practices, land clearing and overdevelopment, as well as a general apathy towards the protection of Australia’s natural environment.

“They are all here with us in spirit,” Ley said of the ministers, “and their actions should not be forgotten today. Every minister could have chosen to spend the E-chidna budget on protecting the natural environment and saving the wild animals, but their dedication to environmental destruction has been vindicated today.”

Ley also boasted that the E-chidna represents a watershed moment in government and private sector cooperation. She explained that much of the research and development was funded by the donations from the fossil fuel industry, the farming lobby, property developers and large scale irrigators, without whom none of this would have been possible.

Observers have compared the E-chidna to the Tamagotchi, a Japanese electronic pet, but highlighted one major difference between the two electronic animals. The Tamagotchi had to be fed and cared for by its owner, or it would die, whereas the E-chidna will simply be neglected, just like its wild cousin.

Ley also boasted that the E-chidna is only the beginning of an exciting scientific journey.

“This country has the highest rate of native mammal extinction in the world – which is another source of pride for Aussies, and means we have a backlog of wild animals to replicate in digital form. The Tasmanian E-Tiger is ready for release, and we’re also determined to wipe out species such as the Black-flanked Rock-wallaby, the Eastern Curlew, the Gouldian Finch, the Northern Quoll and the Black-footed Tree Rat. Our tech experts are already working on the E-versions of all of those animals, so they can be released as soon as the animals become extinct. It’s quite exciting.”

The E-chidnas will be visible to anyone searching the internet, anywhere in the world, so people will not have to visit Australia to witness this unique and fascinating creature. This created concern among the tourism sector, which relies heavily on Australia’s natural wonders to generate income.

In response, Ley argued that destroying Australia’s wildlife is further proof that her party is good at managing the economy.

Image: Jacob Dyer

Thousands of NSW teachers issued with fines.

Thousands of NSW school teachers have been issued with fines on the eve of the summer holidays after being caught committing heinous acts of treason.

Every registered primary and secondary school teacher has received a fine of at least $100 from the NSW government, which must be paid in order for teachers to keep their jobs in 2021. It is believed similar fines have been issued to teachers throughout the country.

The penalty must be paid to a branch of the NSW government calling itself the New South Wales Education Standards Authority (NESA), which then issues teachers with something called Accreditation. Without Accreditation, teachers cannot work in any recognised educational institution in the state.

NESA stated the fines were issued in retaliation for teachers committing crimes against the nation.

“Teachers are being punished for educating the next generation of Australians,” announced a spokesperson.

“They have done so willingly and ceaselessly, and against the wishes of the current state and federal governments. An educated population is harder to control. An educated population would never have elected a failed marketing man as prime minister. An educated population would never fall for Scott Morrison’s marketing spin. An educated population would not swallow Murdoch propaganda, and an educated population would never excuse the corruption of ‘poor Gladys’. For their continued insistence on educating the populace, teachers have been issued with fines.”

The punishment does not end with fines, however.

Once the fines are paid, teachers must then participate in mandated professional development sessions throughout the year. Most of these sessions will take place during teachers’ free time, and while some of the sessions are free, many also incur a charge. Thus, on top of their annual fine, lowly paid teachers are also forced to spend their hard earned money on work-related training with little or no tangible benefit to them or the children they teach.

NESA rejected claims that Accreditation simply adds another layer of paperwork to an already over beauracratised occupation.

“Without the processing of mandated fees and professional development sessions, our staff would not have any boxes to tick, and without boxes to tick, they would be at a loss.”

NESA also argues that Accreditation brings the teaching profession in line with other occupations such as law, medicine, and finance, which all have membership organisations upholding professional standards. Excited teachers then asked if teaching salaries would now be commensurate with those professions, but the government replied,

“No, that would be UnAustralian.”

Image: Element5Digital

Australian teachers are respectable, but not respected.

The occupation of teaching is respectable but not respected in Australia. The nation’s teachers are considered to be law abiding, trustworthy, patient, kind, reliable, dedicated and altruistic, but their profession is not afforded the same status as other professions.

Australians collectively adhere to the adage,

If you can, do, if you can’t, teach.

There is an underlying assumption that English teachers are all failed writers, Maths teachers are failed engineers and Art teachers are failed artists. PE Teachers are failed athletes, and none of the teachers could ‘hack it in the real world’. Teaching as a profession, especially at primary or high school level, is perceived to be well below other professions such as medicine, law, finance and IT.

Academia and intellect have never been highly valued in Australia. The country’s national heroes are athletes, farmers, soldiers and lifeguards, despite the fact that Australians have been behind inventions such as WiFi technology, the cochlear implant, the black box fight recorder, spray-on skin, the electronic pacemaker and permaculture…

Better you than me…

Australians constantly remind teachers of the challenges of their profession with remarks such as these. Aussies tell teachers, ‘I don’t know how you do it’, or ‘what you do is so wonderful’ – but underneath all of these statements is the message,

I’m glad you work as a teacher, so that I don’t have to.

Parents themselves will tell teachers,

you must have the patience of a saint‘ to put up with teenagers, even when it is their own teenager who most tests the teacher’s patience. These are all nice things to say, but none of them convey any sense of respect.

The land Down Under also has a famous disrespect for authority, including teachers. Secondary school teachers understand this and know that earning the respect of their pupils in the early stages of the school year is imperative. This is forgivable – students are children. A lack of respect from adults indicates underlying cultural issues in Australia, in which a profession so vital to the prosperity of the nation is severely undervalued. It is, however, possible to transform the respectable profession into a respected profession, in order to benefit teachers and the nation as a whole.

Pay the teachers or pay the price

Australian teachers need to be altruistic, because they earn so little. In NSW, the average, experienced teacher earns about $80,000 per year. This is a decent wage when compared to other occupations, but not when compared to other professions such as law, medicine and IT, and not when considering that a public bus driver in Sydney can earn the same amount.

Salaries must increase in order to attract the best and brightest graduates to the profession. Society complains that many young teachers lack basic numeracy and literacy skills, and that criticism is often justified. The best way to attract more capable graduates to the profession is to raise salaries. Don’t forget, Australia is an expensive country, and a capitalist country in which income determines the worth of an occupation, and in which income determines a person’s ability to enjoy a decent standard of living.

The country is already paying the price for a lack of respect for teachers. Literacy and numeracy rates among children continue to fall, and the country trails other comparable nations on standardised education outcomes. University undergraduates display poor command of literacy and numeracy, and Australia’s youth will be competing with young people from all over the world for employment in a globalised world.

What’s wrong with a country in which those educating the next generation will struggle to buy their own house?

If Australia is to compete as a nation at international level, it must give more money and more respect to teachers.

Parents

Parents used to support teachers, now they attack them. This paradigm shift has been great, but recent. Modern parents will almost always side with their children and will blame teachers for their child’s poor behaviour, poor work ethic and poor grades. Some of the treatment of teachers is shocking, and it points to a diminishing respect for the teaching profession.

Data collection

Data collection is the new fad in education. Politicians and bureaucrats demand more and more data collection from teachers. It is mostly unnecessary and adds more paperwork to overworked teachers, who then can’t concentrate on teaching their students.

Data collection implies a lack of respect for teachers. It implies that teachers don’t know the individual and collective strengths and weaknesses of their students. NAPLAN is a classic example. It is a very time consuming task designed to show teachers and schools where their students are succeeding and failing. The bureaucrats ignored the fact that teachers already know this. Furthermore, excessive data collection provides no educational benefits, and exists primarily to provide politicians with statistics for their press releases. Most other professions would have an administrative assistant to carry out the same administrative tasks.

Ironically, Australian society shows little respect for teachers, but charges them with enormous responsibility. The curriculum encompasses everything from English and Maths to driver education, drug and alcohol education, cyber safety, anti-bullying, and so much more. On the one hand, it is natural to deliver these lessons in a place where young people are assembled en-masse, but how much of this can, and should, be taught by parents? To understand the enormous scope of the modern curriculum, look at the topics covered in the PD/H/PE subject.

Politicians and bureaucrats must take blame for this also. When a teenager dies of ecstasy, a new drug education program is demanded. If a child drowns in a backyard pool, a new water safety program is demanded. When a new educational program is demanded, it is implied that existing education programs are insufficient, and that teachers are not doing their job.

Bleeding heart lefties

Another criticism of teachers is that they are now all bleeding heart lefties, and that a left wing ideology has taken over Australian schools. Conservative voices love to make this claim.

If you want less left wing influence in schools, pay teachers more. People enter teaching mainly through a sense of altruism – to serve children, to serve society and to make the world a better place. Altruistic people are not motivated by money or wealth and their world view is thus likely to favour the common good and the health of the society, and not the individual. If conservatives want less left wing influence in schools, they could pay teachers what they are worth, and perhaps attract graduates who are currently chasing money in other professions and have a different world view.

That said, most secondary teachers would be very surprised if any of their students listened to them long enough to become ‘bleeding heart lefties’.

Australia now belongs to a global community. It must compete with other nations like it never has before and it’s prosperity depends greatly on the health of its education system. A strong education system is comprised of teachers who are not only respectable, but respected.

Image: Element5Digital