Liberals’ wheels fell off with the hate speech laws

No comments
Sussan Ley called for a special sitting of Parliament, then went in with no idea of what to stand for.

Conservative policies are key to the Liberal Party turning itself around.

But is it too late? With One Nation on the rise, and some two years to go before the next election, this brings me to the straw that broke the camel’s back: the Hate Speech Laws.

The tipping point was Sussan Ley calling for a special sitting of Parliament, then going in with no idea of what to stand for. Only a handful of conservative politicians were brave enough to stand up for conservative principles and oppose these laws.

It is worth remembering that the Liberals brought their problems upon themselves. And it all started with the Hate Speech Laws.

Essentially, Sussan Ley has punished the Nationals for voting the same way as conservative members wanted them to.

If anything, the Liberals should be looking to the Nationals for guidance on standing up for conservative principles.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Liberals’ wheels fell off with the hate speech laws.

Overcoming stereotypes in ageing policy

No comments

COTA's research provides some important findings about ageing stereotypes that influence policy.

Tom Connell: Michael de Percy, Spectator Oz.

Michael de Percy: Thank you, Mr Pyne. My question is about aging policy.

Christopher Pyne: Goodness. Exciting. [applause]

Michael de Percy: You mentioned social connection and you also spoke about co-design and a national research program. One of my issues with aging policy is we have people working, people born in the 1950s and now 60s. They get to age 63. They're physically, they can't work anymore but they can't go on the pension. So there's this gap. People in their 50s now can't access their super until they're 60. So there's this gap. At the same time, aging policy designed by stereotypes has an elite sort of progressive bias where, and I've given lectures at retirement villages which look fantastic if you're into that kind of lifestyle. Many of these working people aren't into that kind of lifestyle. They want to be at home in their own house with their pets, with their families. That's their connection. But our policy doesn't really focus on them and they seem to be the people you mentioned who are missing out. So my question is the people who would be interested in co-design will probably be more likely be progressive left-leaning. The national research program will be conducted by left-leaning progressive academics probably. How do you make sure that you can actually address the people who really need aging policy to reflect their choice in how they age and how they live?

Christopher Pyne: Look, it's a good question. I wouldn't adopt the pejoratives that if people are from the left, it means that they're going to have not very useful views in terms of policy. I do, as I said in my speech, the policy, the action plan for aging Australia over the next 10 years should be designed with older people, not for older people. And that process needs to be a genuine one. And it can be and I also said that we need to have the flexibility in the workforce, in employment to keep older people working for as long as they wish to. And that should not be as hard especially because of COVID as it used to be. One of the only good things that came out of COVID was that people can work from home and prove to be quite productive and stay in the workforce for longer if that's what they choose to do in the same way as they could stay in the workforce when they had to stay at home because of COVID. So I think that does give us a model of flexible working but I wouldn't overemphasize that because you also want older people in the workforce because they provide a tremendous mentoring role for the people around them and you don't want to lose that skill, that opportunity. So policies have to be designed to be flexible to meet all of those requirements and they can be and the same with aged care, the same with home and community care packages or support at home care. That's what this proposal that COTA has put forward today about a 10-year plan for aging Australia is all about.

God, King, and Country: British identity and the Australian Defence Force

No comments
My great-grandfather, my grandfather, me, and my son all wore our country's uniform.

Speech at 'Menzies and the British Commonwealth of Nations', Robert Menzies Institute Conference at the University of Melbourne, 28th November 2025.

"God, King, and Country" is an intriguing concept. As a political scientist, my approach tends to be historical institutionalism, focusing on legacies and how they inform policy choices in the present, as well as elements like continuity, disruption, and often serendipity.

In terms of serendipity, it's notable that Lord Kitchener was invited to Australia by Prime Minister Alfred Deakin to report on the Australian land defence forces, specifically the Australian Army. At the time, there was controversy over whether it should have been Lord Fisher to review the Navy, which might have made more strategic sense. As it happened, Kitchener arrived in 1909 and stayed until 1910. He travelled extensively throughout Australia, visiting places like Seymour, Darwin, Townsville, and elsewhere. He was greeted with great fanfare; the country folk particularly admired this war hero, known as Kitchener of Khartoum. Kitchener, of course, became the face of the First World War recruitment campaign. Eliza and I discussed this last night, noting how Uncle Sam is a fictional character, whereas Kitchener was a real, living hero. He was often criticised for sending many young men from British country towns to their deaths. In any case, Kitchener advised the formation of the Royal Military College Duntroon, which was established in 1911 along the lines of Sandhurst in the UK. It was quite natural that British identity would form part of the early institutions of the Australian Army in particular, and the military more generally. Kitchener remarked that Australians were natural soldiers.

I probably won't offer any groundbreaking theoretical contributions today, but one thing that stands out for me is my personal connection: I am one of four generations in my family who served in the Australian Army—my great-grandfather, my grandfather, myself, and my son. The Australian Army has been part of our family history for a very long time, and it feels entirely natural. As a teenager, I had the Union Jack and the Australian flag hanging in my bedroom, and I took them to Duntroon for my room in 1992 and 1993. I don't know exactly why I did that—it just felt right. That's what I mean: there's something inherently natural about that British identity in the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

When it comes to "God," my first experience in the military was the laying up of the colors for the 51st Battalion, the Far North Queensland Regiment, in a church during a church parade. That was my initial encounter with the military. I'll never forget at Duntroon the trooping of the colors on the Queen's birthday. The call was "three cheers for Her Most Gracious Majesty: hip, hip, huzzah!" Honestly, if you're not a monarchist after shouting "huzzah," what's wrong with you? Again, it felt very natural. And for "country," the 51st Battalion's motto is Ducit Amor Patriae, which essentially means "love of country leads me." Thus, God, King, and Country are embedded in the symbolism, practices, and institutions of the Australian Defence Force.

For me, this is deeply personal. What I'll argue, in terms of Robert Menzies, is that he was part of that continuity. I dare say that without Queen Elizabeth II reigning for so long, we wouldn't have had the same level of continuity. I don't know if King Charles would have had the same appeal had he been the monarch we relied upon as the representative of the Crown for Australia. There was a deep affection for Queen Elizabeth II, shared by Robert Menzies—famously "British to the bootstraps"—as seen in his poem about the Queen walking by him in Old Parliament House. So much of this feels natural, serendipitous, and enduring. The importance of God, King, and Country in the ADF stems from the unique sense of purpose it provides, which most other professions lack. When commissioned as an officer, you receive a commission from the sovereign—in my case, the Queen—stating that you are to follow orders, even if that means sending your soldiers, and yourself, to their deaths. That's profoundly powerful, and it's shared by warrant officers and other ranks as well. I'm examining Menzies' role in perpetuating this ideal, which truly begins in the modern ADF context with the Korean War. I'll explain that in detail, but I want to start at the end.

The Australian Defence Veterans' Covenant was introduced in 2019 under the Morrison government, building on earlier veteran support initiatives from previous administrations, including the Howard era, and has been reaffirmed in recent years. It's interesting because my generation of Australian soldiers was very disillusioned with the Returned and Services League (RSL) and the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). Only in recent years have we started returning to the fold. I don't know why, but I think we missed it, and we've reached an age where we realise its importance and want to reintegrate it into our lives. I wasn't even aware of the Covenant until my hearing failed—as an artillery officer, of course—and I discovered I was pre-registered for hearing aids. Suddenly, I needed an RSL advocate, so I rejoined, dug out my old badge from 1999, and off I went. The Covenant introduces an American-style "thank you for your service" ethos, with its oath: "for what they have done, this we will do." One of its most important aspects is that the DVA covers all mental health treatment for every single soldier, sailor, and air person who has served. Things have changed significantly, much like after the First and Second World Wars, in terms of veterans' status. Yet this Covenant sits comfortably alongside British military customs. Attlee's idea of the New Jerusalem was similar in its general commitment to looking after veterans, though with more of a socialist bent than Sir Robert Menzies would have liked.

The living British traditions in the ADF are evident. In the regular army, I served with the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery. This title was granted by Queen Elizabeth II in 1962. I'll never forget, as a young officer—a subaltern—being the newest member of the regiment and having to say grace at a dining-in night. These are formal events where you're not allowed to leave for the bathroom until the loyal toast is done, and they could be quite excruciating back in the 1990s—I can only imagine what they were like before that. The grace was simple: "For what we are about to receive, thank God." When I was told to say that, it reminded me of Duntroon, where I once asked the regimental drill sergeant major for advice on a parade and got a bum steer, landing me on extra drills for two weeks. I was always wary of pranks, like a tradesperson being sent for skyhooks—that was the culture. But the grace was indeed correct. The loyal toast for the Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery in my day was "the Queen, our Captain General." Of course, King Charles is now the Captain General. These are direct, frequent affirmations of the Crown and the Christian tradition.

That tradition continues in the RSL, which has its roots in the First World War. Like the Gallipoli Memorial Club in Sydney, which still exists, they initially faced issues with restricting membership to only Gallipoli veterans, but that didn't last long historically. They've had to adapt over time. Even today, at RSL meetings, we usually have a Union Jack alongside the Australian flag, and we always recite the Ode with the Last Post—it's almost archaic but very moving.

I mentioned the Korean War. My grandfather, whom I knew well, served in the Second World War and then joined the 67th Battalion, deploying to Japan in Hiroshima as part of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force (BCOF). Australia was naturally part of this Commonwealth effort. The 67th Battalion became the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3 RAR) in 1948, which was our paratroop battalion until recent times. The "Royal" title was appended to the Australian Regiment in 1949. It's interesting that we began serving with Americans as the Royal Australian Regiment during the Korean War in 1950. Before that, it was simply the Second Australian Imperial Force (AIF) and BCOF. As a forward observer in the artillery, I worked directly with Bravo Company, 6 RAR, in Brisbane, and you really feel part of it. They are extremely proud of the Royal Australian Regiment. The Royal Australian Navy and Royal Australian Air Force have their own traditions, which I can't speak to as much, but we see the continuation of the British Army regimental system in Australia. In my time, we still used titles like SO3 (staff officer grade three), which was a captain, followed by your specialty like command and signals. That has now changed to American titles for interoperability, but the British have evolved along similar lines anyway—it's more of an alliance thing. Honors and awards are still approved by the sovereign, and the Crown remains the legal source of military authority in Australia.

The RSL was very much focused on imperial service, even in the interwar and postwar periods. My grandfather, after retiring, lived in an RSL home called War Haven in Cairns, which was essentially an entire village of veterans—you can imagine the shenanigans. But there was this sense of loyalty, belonging, and camaraderie. Service in the two world wars was largely seen as service to the Empire. Even though Curtin brought back the 6th, 7th, and 9th Divisions, turning toward the Americans out of necessity, it hasn't diminished that inculcated Britishness in the ADF. Returned soldiers received enhanced social status; if you look at property maps of Australia, you'll see the impact of land grants and other benefits, particularly in country towns. Military service was a badge of superior citizenship, rooted in British imperial loyalty.

Menzies was self-described as "British to the bootstraps"—it's almost a cliché when discussing him these days—but he sought to preserve a cultural Puritan inflection of British character in Australia. I think it's unfair when the left admonishes him for this, as he did lecture in the United States and had fond connections there. Through his demeanor, in my view, he reinvigorated monarchist and imperial sentiment in the 1950s and 1960s. When you add that our military units were gaining royal titles—which still exist relatively unchanged today—it created a favorable climate for the RSL's British-oriented veterans' culture, which persists to this day. The Royal Australian Regiment formed from the BCOF, and this happened under the Chifley government. This is not all Menzies' doing, but in my previous chapters on communications and Menzies and nuclear policy, he wasn't always the instigator but certainly the perpetuator of these ideas. The Royal Australian Regiment became the first permanent Australian infantry regiment, based on British models.

Going back to Kitchener, he recommended compulsory military service, which existed from 1911 to 1929. Menzies reintroduced national service in 1951. During these foundational periods in the ADF, basically every able-bodied male of a certain age experienced that tradition, perpetuating the inculcation of British military history through the Australian military. If you come to Gunning in my village in the southern tablelands of New South Wales, with a population of around 800, we routinely get 300 people turning up for the Anzac Day dawn service. Particularly in the regions, this culture and sense of identity still exist. The Royal Australian Regiment's hat badge motto is "Duty First." If you weren't doing your job, your colleagues would remind you to read your hat badge. You might not think much of symbols like the Melbourne University insignia, but in the military, these are constantly reinforced—they're living institutions in themselves, inculcating a sense you wouldn't find elsewhere.

In the Commonwealth of Nations context, Australia retains the Crown even as republics have been admitted, but the ADF continues to operate within Commonwealth military culture. This includes the ABCA Armies program (American, British, Canadian, Australian), with New Zealand joining later to form ABCANZ, involving regimental exchanges. At Duntroon, my gunnery officer was from the 1st Northumberland Fusiliers, a British regiment. Our artillery regimental officers' basic course was trained by a regimental sergeant major from the Royal Horse Artillery. These exchanges between Australia and the British military continue to this day and are very important. The integration is surprisingly seamless—the main cultural difference is that Aussies tend to rib each other more than the Brits or Kiwis do, aside from a few drill variations.

In terms of British identity in the defence force versus civilian Australia, in civilian life it's largely symbolic and declining. We still see influences like coats of arms in regional towns on prisons and courthouses, but they're not in your face or a lived tradition. In the ADF, these traditions are institutional, daily, and operational. In many ways, I see the ADF as the last redoubt of God, King, and Country. The difference persists because tradition and esprit de corps require continuity—you can't recreate history. If you've ever marched in column to a pipes and drums band playing the same tunes the British marched to in the Seven Years' War in the 1750s, you know how that adrenaline surges. These are tried-and-tested ways of motivating troops, and the same tunes continue today. The regimental system is inherently conservative because tradition is vital. There's also interoperability with UK and Commonwealth partners, extending to the Americans now. But there's a constitutional reality: the King, through the Governor-General, remains the commander-in-chief of the military. Veterans' organisations continue to reinforce that Britishness.

To conclude, the ADF remains one of the most British institutions in contemporary Australia, and loyalty to King and Country—and implicitly God—is not mere ceremony but a living tradition. I'll never forget, in my early days at Duntroon, lessons on various religions where the lecturer asked, "Hands up who doesn't believe in God?" A few raised their hands, and he said, "Well, let me tell you this: when we were caught in an ambush by the Japanese in New Guinea, everybody prayed." Implicitly, God is part of that. There's a saying—the Americans have it—that there are no atheists in foxholes. This identity was consciously preserved through the Menzies era and continues to shape the profession of arms in Australia. In my chapter, I hope to highlight examples of Menzies integrating with and delivering speeches to the RSL—he was a strong supporter. In the military, more than anywhere else in Australian society, this British identity endures.

Just in conclusion, if you look at the black-and-white photographs across the top, that's my great-grandfather. The second photo is before he went overseas, and the ones on either side show him changed substantially after war preparation training. The photo on the far right is him in the Second World War, as he went back for another six years. You can imagine that impact. Underneath are my grandfather, myself, and my son. As I say, it's very difficult to separate the personal from this idea of British identity because, to me, it's just natural. Thank you.

RBA interest rate hike: Our plight under Opposition light

No comments

The Prime Minister deflected the question on rampant government spending with Medicare praise.

From the Press Gallery: Below my seat in the press gallery, the Liberal Party sits in Parliament as a shadow government and a shadow of its former self. Sussan Ley’s first question was:

When will the government’s reckless spending end?

Albo rose to his feet to answer as the Opposition called a point of order. Government MPs were shouting ‘time’ in direct conflict with the Speaker’s rules which cut-off Opposition speakers. Instead of spending, Albo spoke about cheaper medicine.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, RBA interest rate hike: Our plight under Opposition light.

Liberals' last hurrah?

No comments
When Sir Robert Menzies retired, he left Australia in a better place than which he found it.

It is sixty years since Sir Robert Menzies retired. He left Australia in a better place than which he found it. And while the political party he founded has since lost its way at times, it has never been in such a perilous position as it is now.

If you were to ask me who the base of the Liberal Party is today, I can tell you it isn’t me. It’s not business people. It’s not conservatives. Indeed, it would take considerable research to find those who are satisfied with the Liberal Party outside the party machine itself.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Liberals' last hurrah?

Flag-burning justifies audits of funding for activist groups

No comments

If activists don't want the Australian state, then we need to ensure they are not benefiting from it.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Flag-burning justifies audits of funding for activist groups.


Silvertail Liberals are up against sons and daughters of Anzacs

No comments

The Liberal Party thinks that changing their leader is going to fix the party’s problems.

Anthony Albanese is having a field day. The worst Prime Minister in Australian history is getting away with incompetence because his complete rock-show of a circus has been overtaken by the Liberals’ own clown show. It’s been happening for years, and the faceless machine-men and their turkeys are all coming home to roost. Even the ABC’s former chief leftologist has gleefully come out of retirement to tell us that, historically, One Nation’s surge hurts the Coalition most.

The problem with this idea is its premise. Once the Coalition finds its feet, it can turn back the tide … but that is nonsense.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Silvertail Liberals are up against sons and daughters of Anzacs.

Albo delivers ‘dog’s breakfast’, claims antisemitism wasn’t Labor’s fault

No comments
Albanese’s dog’s breakfast of a Bill will NOT protect Australians from home-grown terrorist attacks.

From the Parliamentary Press Gallery: Following yesterday’s shemozzle, and after a good night’s sleep, I rode my new scrambler into Parliament House just in time to get the very last motorcycle parking space. All eyes were on the Albanese government as the failed omnibus bill was split into two distinct bills, one for hate speech and one for gun laws.

You can’t make up the stuff that happens in Parliament. I often think those among us who are cynical about politics have every right to be. But don’t take my word for it, ask One Nation.

Senator Pauline Hanson won’t be in the debate that will run late tonight because she is banned from the Senate for warning about Islamist extremism. That’s right, protesting the ideology that inspired the murder of 15 Australians is the reason Senator Hanson is not allowed to vote on the laws designed to stop Islamic terrorism in Australia.

In the Morning Double Shot newsletter. Terry Barnes wrote:

The Albanese hate speech and hate groups bill has passed in federal parliament, as has the now-separate gun control and buyback bill. All done in just one day. The Nationals supported neither bill, making Sussan Ley look an isolated and feeble an Opposition and Coalition leader – which she is. She effectively gave Anthony Albanese a get out of gaol free card, while angering half her MPS and getting two fingers from the Nats. If the knives aren’t being sharpened for Ley now, they soon will be. The only performance more shambolic than hers this week was Albanese’s. Michael de Percy was ringside to the whole sorry show yesterday, and wrote this wrap.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Albo delivers ‘dog’s breakfast’, claims antisemitism wasn’t Labor’s fault.

Condolences today, (in)action tomorrow

No comments

Bridget McKenzie says PM failed to rise to the test of leadership.

From Parliament House: The House of Representatives was dominated today by the necessary and important reading of the names of the victims of the recent Islamist-inspired massacre at Bondi. Many of the families and friends of victims attended the ‘Victims of the Bondi antisemitic terror attack – Condolence motion’. Our Parliament is an important place for such symbolism.

Originally, both Houses were recalled for a special sitting for the condolence motion but also to pass laws designed to prevent such horrific terrorist acts from occurring again. The condolence motion saw normal business suspended until each member had had their say, and then the House would adjourn until Tuesday to debate the new laws.

In the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes wrote:

It looks like a compromise version of the controversial hate speech bill will pass tomorrow, as the Coalition – rather, Liberals – and the Albanese government negotiated yesterday to give it some sort of mutual support. What the detail of the deal is we’re yet to see, but there will have been a lot of coffee and pizza in the Attorney-General’s department last night as the bureaucrats drafted legislative mumbo-jumbo through the night. In terms of the politics, Anthony Albanese may have failed his national leadership test after Bondi, but he’s still managed to shift political responsibility for the compromise to hapless Sussan Ley. As for the day itself, our press gallery correspondent Michael de Percy was there after having previewed it, and it’s fair to say he was not impressed by the tone of heavy-handed legislative intervention in the air, on gun laws as well as hate speech.

My latest in The Spectator Australia,  Condolences today, (in)action tomorrow.

Labor’s Islamic terrorism deflection is desperate

No comments

Instead of dealing with Islamic terrorism, the Albanese government is focused on gun laws.

Since neither the Coalition nor the Greens have agreed with Labor’s response to the Islamist-inspired murder of 15 Australians, the Prime Minister has pivoted to a familiar line of attack. He is now claiming the Coalition opposition has made clear what they don’t stand for, but offered nothing on what they do stand for.

This is rich coming from a leader whose own omnibus legislation was a massive failure.

What began as a rushed response to genuine community outrage over antisemitism and Islamic extremism initially morphed into a sprawling, politically expedient package that bundled hate speech reforms with gun control in a way that alienated potential allies across the spectrum.

Now, instead of dealing with the real problem – Islamic terrorism – the Albanese government is focused on gun laws. 

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Labor’s Islamic terrorism deflection is desperate.

Nobel Peace Prize forgets its realist origins and goes full Woke

No comments

The Nobel Peace Prize is embracing a performative Wokeness that dilutes its credibility.

Today, the Nobel Peace Prize seems to have strayed far from those pragmatic roots, embracing a performative Wokeness that dilutes its credibility. The recent spectacle involving María Corina Machado, the Venezuelan opposition leader who was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize for her tireless efforts against authoritarianism in her homeland, has put the proverbial cat among the pigeons.

In a bold and symbolic gesture during a White House meeting on 15 January 2026, Machado presented her Nobel medal to President Donald Trump, acknowledging his ‘unique commitment’ to Venezuelan freedom.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Nobel Peace Prize forgets its realist origins and goes full Woke.

Albanese’s hypocritical two-tier rush undermines our democracy

No comments

The Bondi massacre will define Mr Albanese’s prime ministership.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has long positioned himself as a champion of due process, transparency, and democratic norms. Kindness is not weakness, he tells us. Yet his government’s frantic push to ram through omnibus legislation aimed at curbing civil rights and liberties reveals a stark hypocrisy that threatens the very foundations of Australian democracy.

As scholars of politics and international law, we call for the government to withdraw this omnibus bill, subject it to genuine parliamentary inquiry, and consult widely, including with those it claims to protect. Australia’s democratic legacy deserves better than a rushed power grab. Albanese must decide whether he will live up to the principles he demands of others or continue down a path that diminishes our nation’s standing as a free and fair society.

My latest in The Spectator Australia with Professor Sascha Dov Bachmann, Albanese’s hypocritical two-tier rush undermines our democracy.

Hate speech is not Islamic terrorism, and where’s Pauline?

No comments

Pauline Hanson is the only political leader who has addressed the problem of Islamic extremism.

In the timeless wisdom of childhood playgrounds, we were taught that ‘sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me’. This simple adage points to a fundamental truth. Physical violence inflicts real harm, while mere words, no matter how offensive, do not equate to acts of brutality.

Yet, in the corridors of power in Canberra, the Albanese Labor government seems to have forgotten this distinction entirely.

Instead of confronting the deadly threat of Islamic terrorism head-on, they are diverting attention to nebulous concepts like ‘hate speech’, lumping in Islamophobia and homophobia as if they pose the same existential danger as the radical ideologies that have claimed innocent lives on Australian soil.

My latest in The Spectator Australia, Hate speech is not Islamic terrorism, and where’s Pauline?

Adelaide writers’ festival meets the ghosts of socialists past

No comments

Reasons given for boycotting the event included not being ‘party to silencing writers’.

The implosion of the Adelaide Writers’ Festival stands as a hard reminder of historical lessons ignored.

Initially, the board cancelled a scheduled Palestinian-Australian author. A mass exodus of left-wing authors followed, culminating in the resignation of festival director, Louise Adler, and the cancellation of the event.

The author’s cancellation also brought a wave of withdrawals from writers and others, protesting what they call censorship.

Reasons given for boycotting the event included not being ‘party to silencing writers’.

However, uninviting controversial writers from a publicly-funded event is a far cry from silencing writers in general. It is my view that if people want to write controversial stuff, then they can do so at their own expense.

Among those who withdrew from the publicly-funded event were ABC journalists, whose actions raise sharp questions about the dangers of blind idealism. Such misplaced idealism is not new.

In the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes wrote:

What is the collective noun for a gathering of useless people who deserve one-way tickets for the next rocket to the Sun? That’s right, a writers’ festival. No-one should mourn the demise of the 2026 Adelaide Writers’ Week, and nobody should express any sympathy for, let alone solidarity with, the person who caused the controversy, nor the luvvies who flounced out after her. The real issue is this. If you take taxpayers’ coin for your love-in, the government of the day which approves the funding has a right to say who comes to the party. If you don’t like it, send the money back and do your own thing. I could say more, but…Michael de Percy shares his own views on the stupidity.

 My latest in The Spectator Australia, Adelaide writers’ festival meets the ghosts of socialists past.

Albanese’s dithering on terror

No comments

We warned that Albanese’s obsession with domestic optics undermined Australia’s national security.

From May to September 2024, we warned that Albanese’s obsession with trendy domestic optics was dangerously undermining Australia’s national security, both at home and abroad. We highlighted how his preference for ‘de-escalation’ rhetoric in the face of repeated grey-zone provocations such as China’s People’s Liberation Army harassments of Australian Defence Force personnel was inviting escalation and eroding our credibility with key allies like the United States and Nato and across the region.

We criticised specific decisions, such as the scaling back of participation in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises, the snub of the Ukraine peace summit, and the tokenistic approach to countering Houthi attacks in the Red Sea. These were not mere oversights. They were signals of weakness that emboldened autocrats and left Australia exposed to hybrid threats. 

Tragically, events since then have proven our warnings right and with devastating force.

In the Morning Double Shot newsletter, Terry Barnes wrote:

Now he’s caved in and bowed to the widespread demand of a Royal Commission into anti-Semitism, it’s appropriate to critique Anthony Albanese’s post-Bondi leadership. Michael de Percy and Sascha Dov Bachmann blast Albanese’s weakness over Bondi, but go further and conclude that when it comes to national security – and, remember, protecting its citizens from terrorism is a national government’s core business – the PM who prefers moonlighting as a DJ has performed not only poorly, but incompetently. It’s hard to argue with that.

My latest in The Spectator Australia with Professor Sascha Dov Bachmann, Albanese’s dithering on terror.

Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)
© 2025 Dr Michael de Percy
made with by templateszoo