NSW opposition leader accuses anti-abortion campaigner of 'brazen bullying', political threats
New South Wales
national
Australia
health
abortion
parliament CONTACT US
Auto news: Australia's most dangerous regional roads revealed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
This systemic problem in our federal elections is not being adequately addressed, and it's growing
After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election. This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal. People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right. We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear. That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission. Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa? It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election. Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard. It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley. In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent. Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin. Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count. In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes. In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes. Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal. And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate. In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013. And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all. Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above". About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank. The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper. But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted. The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear. In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice. These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed. It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives. In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes. In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number. Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different. And he is not the only one calling for a rethink. Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated. Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank. Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting. The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue. The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working. And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one. There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper. If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard. Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts. After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election. This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal. People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right. We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear. That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission. Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa? It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election. Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard. It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley. In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent. Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin. Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count. In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes. In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes. Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal. And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate. In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013. And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all. Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above". About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank. The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper. But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted. The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear. In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice. These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed. It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives. In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes. In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number. Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different. And he is not the only one calling for a rethink. Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated. Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank. Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting. The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue. The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working. And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one. There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper. If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard. Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts. After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election. This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal. People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right. We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear. That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission. Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa? It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election. Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard. It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley. In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent. Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin. Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count. In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes. In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes. Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal. And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate. In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013. And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all. Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above". About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank. The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper. But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted. The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear. In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice. These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed. It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives. In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes. In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number. Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different. And he is not the only one calling for a rethink. Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated. Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank. Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting. The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue. The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working. And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one. There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper. If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard. Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts. After every election, Parliament's powerful electoral matters committee reviews that election. This time, it must be a top priority to deal with the rising number of votes that are struck out as informal. People absolutely have the right to choose "none of the above" when they step into the polling booth, but there are just as many, if not more, who are attempting - and failing - to exercise their precious democratic right. We need to do far more to make sure the rules are simple, consistent and clear. That responsibility rests with everyone from schools, to the media, citizenship preparation courses, the political parties and the Australian Electoral Commission. Why is nobody upset that an extraordinary 18,274 voters had their ballots excluded from the May election count in just one electorate - the south-western Sydney seat of Werriwa? It was the highest number and greatest percentage of informal votes in any of the 150 electorates contested at the federal election. Yet there is no outrage that 17.26 per cent of the voters in a marginal seat were not heard. It was double the rate from the previous election and the number of ballot papers rejected was far greater than the eventual winning margin of 11,870 for Labor's Anne Stanley. In some individual polling places in Werriwa more than one-in-four votes were struck out. In Ashcroft it was 28 per cent. Werriwa was the worst, but it was by no means the exception. In a staggering 20 seats, the informal vote was larger than the winning margin. Nationwide, almost 920,000 votes were excluded from the count. In the nail-bitingly tight seat of Bradfield in Sydney's north, won by Nicolette Boele by 26 votes, there were 6656 informal votes. In the Victorian seat of Goldstein, where Liberal Tim Wilson wrestled the seat from teal independent Zoe Daniel, the informal vote was 18 times higher than the winning margin of 175 votes. Even in the ACT seat of Bean, where Labor's David Smith got a massive scare from independent candidate Jessie Price and prevailed by only 700 votes, more than three times as many votes, 2670, were ruled informal. And in the south-western Sydney seat of Fowler, which was hotly contested between Independent Dai Le and Labor's Tu Le, the informal vote rose by 3.4 per cent with 15,079 ballots struck out in a seat where the margin was 4974 votes. More people voted informally than for the Liberal candidate. In 11 seats, more than one-in-10 votes were ruled informal, and across the nation, it was 5.6 per cent of all votes cast, which is the highest since 2013. And that doesn't include the 1.7 million people who were enrolled and didn't turn up to vote on the day, early or at all. Based on past trends, and it will vary for every electorate, about 40 per cent of people choose "none of the above". About half of this cohort deliberately left their ballot paper blank. The other half marked the ballot paper in some way, such as writing slogans, adding candidate names such as Donald Duck or Donald Trump or drawing genitals. There's always someone who writes their own name on the ballot paper. But that leaves a large group who tried to vote properly yet are not being heard, and are still most likely unaware their vote is not being counted. The Electoral Commission instructs staff to assume the voter intended to cast a formal ballot, and it will allow votes where numbers are crossed out or over-written as long as the "intent" of the voter is clear. In the election, there were some suspiciously high informal voting rates in hospitals and aged care homes, while in one small northern NSW booth, electoral officials inexplicably gave people the wrong advice. These are exceptions that can be fixed, but there is a systemic problem that is not being adequately addressed. It is no accident that NSW has 19 of the top 20 electorates for informal votes in the House of Representatives. In a NSW state election, you can simply put the number 1 next to the candidate you want and not mark any other boxes. In a federal election, you must number every box without repeating or missing a number. Former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, who holds the seat of Riverina, which had 13,443 informal votes, says it is "madness" that federal, state and local government voting systems are different. And he is not the only one calling for a rethink. Regardless of whether we have a compulsory or optional system to number every box on the ballot paper, this is a situation that must no longer be tolerated. Many high-profile independent candidates also unwittingly contributed to the problem by handing out how-to-vote cards that had the number 1 next to their name and the other boxes left blank. Electorates with a high proportion of citizens born overseas have high levels of informal voting. The Electoral Commission knows this and says it "ran a significant communications campaign" translated into more than 30 languages and had information at every polling venue. The informal vote in most of these areas is rising, so it's not working. And too many votes are knocked out because voters simply make a mistake in sequentially numbering each box by either repeating a number or missing one. There's a whole other debate about people reaching the age of 18 who have poor literacy and numeracy that leaves them unable to complete a ballot paper. If this growing problem is not tackled, we're on a trajectory to have one million informal votes at the next election, with the majority of those cast by people who intended to have their voice heard. Surely, we can do better to make sure every vote counts.
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Labor refuses to reveal whether TikTok lobbyists pushed for YouTube ban at secret ‘introductory meeting'
Communications Minister Anika Wells has refused to reveal which TikTok-aligned lobbyists met her staff at a secret introductory meeting and whether they pressured Labor to ban YouTube for kids. Communications Minister Anika Wells has refused to reveal which TikTok-aligned lobbyists met her staff at a secret introductory meeting and whether they pressured Labor to ban YouTube for kids. can reveal that the office of Minister Wells had an 'introductory' meeting with TikTok representatives after the Minister took over from Michelle Rowland in May, who now serves as Attorney-General. After the meeting took place, reports emerged that Minister Wells would ban YouTube for kids, a key TikTok demand. Chinese-owned and controlled company TikTok poses 'unique national security risks' to Australia, according to the 2023 Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media. But even though the app was banned from government devices, Minister Wells' office took the meeting, arguing TikTok was a key 'stakeholder' in the social media ban legislation. asked Minister Wells to reveal which lobbyists met her staff on behalf of the Chinese owned company, and what was discussed. Minister Wells' office declined to share that information. Sky News understands that the minister was not present at the meeting. Sources within Google suggested TikTok had aggressively lobbied Labor to target video streaming platform YouTube, arguing the exemption was unfair. TikTok has also publicly called for YouTube to be regulated in press releases to journalists and in formal submissions to the Labor government. The Senate Select Committee on Foreign Interference through Social Media warned TikTok was a threat to Australia's democratic process, adding the company was evasive when asked if it was headquartered in China. 'The committee was particularly concerned with the unique national security risks posed by social media companies like TikTok and WeChat, whose parent companies ByteDance and Tencent respectively, are irrefutably headquartered in and run from authoritarian countries like China,' the report found. The Chinese social media platform has hired Labor-aligned lobby group Anacta Strategies to lobby on its behalf. Anacta has extensive links to the Labor Party, including former state secretary Evan Moorhead and at least one former staffer from Ms Wells' office. The firm did not respond to questions about whether it had lobbied Minister Wells. In a formal submission to the Albanese government on the social media ban, TikTok argued an exemption for YouTube was 'anti-competitive' and would disadvantage the Chinese-owned app. Shadow Communications Minister Melissa McIntosh called on Labor to be upfront about whether YouTube would be banned. "The government must make its position clear on all platforms immediately," she told Sky News. "The uncertainty is causing confusion on a mechanism that is about protecting our kids from online harms. "There are still more questions than answers right now about how age will be verified, what platforms are in or out, and what reasonable steps need to be taken by 10 December 2025." — Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP) April 4, 2025 Prime Minister Anthony Albanese previously backed the original YouTube exemption, describing it as a vital platform for 'education and health support'. But his government's position appears to have shifted following pressure from TikTok and eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. TikTok did not respond to questions about its lobbying activities in Australia. The platform, owned by Chinese tech giant ByteDance, was banned on federal government phones after the Home Affairs department said it posed 'data security and foreign interference risks'. Under the framework of the Social Media (Age Restrictions) Act, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Facebook will be banned for users under 16 from December 2025. Ms Julie Inman Grant joined TikTok in calls for YouTube to be included in the ban but initially refused to publicly release the full research behind her advice. Ms Wells also declined to release the research, despite demands for transparency from the federal opposition. The documents were eventually published after lodged a freedom of information request. The commission's 'Keeping Kids Safe Online: Methodology' report revealed the data 'may be subject to a range of biases' and relied on children's responses. Meanwhile, industry stakeholders including children's educational content creators have said they have struggled to gain access to Ms Wells, despite her consulting TikTok. Creator of the globally popular children's YouTube channel Bounce Patrol, Shannon Jones, recently told Sky News she was ignored by the minister's office. "I reached out to them last year when they were first considering it and had some conversations then,' she said. 'And then this time around I've sent communications to the minister but haven't heard back. 'Everything is just being done so fast, like it's all being considered and decided in the space of a week it feels like.'
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Former Home Affairs chief Mike Pezzullo tears into Albanese's 'unoriginal' tribute to John Curtin in 'mythical' portrait of legendary PM
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's recent portrait of John Curtin was an unoriginal and mythic repetition of the Curtin tropes. He painted Curtin as a canonised Labor hero who locked horns with Churchill over the return of Australian troops from the Middle East, and who maintained a ceaseless vigil as those troops made their way home by sea. Somehow this was a declaration of independence, when Australia, supposedly for the first time, thought and acted for itself. Never mind Alfred Deakin building our own navy before World War I, or Billy Hughes pursuing our security interests after that war at the Paris Peace Conference. The real Curtin was a courageous political leader who, after being appointed Prime Minister in October 1941, did his best to mobilise the Australian people for the coming war in the Pacific. In December 1941, he famously turned to the US. He had little choice but to appeal desperately for US military assistance, as Australia could not defend itself, and could not rely upon Britain, which was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany. Curtin knew that Australia would be a crucial base for future US operations against Imperial Japan. First, however, Australia would have to be defended. In early 1942, he and Churchill had a disagreement over the disposition of Australian forces. Curtin wanted them to return home; Churchill wanted them sent to Burma. The resultant flurry of cables between the two was a minor dance of allies arguing over war strategy. Churchill and Roosevelt had far more serious arguments, especially over the invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe. In 1944, as James Curran showed in Curtin's Empire (2011), after the danger to Australia had passed, Curtin tried to resuscitate the idea of 'imperial defence', whereby Britain and its self-governing British dominions would better coordinate their defence strategies and foreign policies. Curtin turned back to the British Empire, which is surely an inconvenient blindspot in the mythic origin story of an 'independent' Australian foreign policy. Forget such myths. A grittier and unsanctified version of Curtin would serve us better today. Indeed, that Curtin would be a leader for these dark days. With a largeness of mind and a strength of character, the Curtin of history grasped the terrible reality that global circumstances did not suit his agenda of socialistic reform. Instead, he had to focus on questions of war. After he became Leader of the Opposition in 1935, Curtin recognised that he would have to champion what was, for him and his party, an unnatural cause – namely, how best to independently defend Australia, at a time when the prevailing orthodoxy was to rely on Britain, and its naval base in Singapore. Had Curtin won the elections of 1937 and 1940, Australia would have been better prepared. The national panic of 1941-42 might have been avoided. Australia might have even re-armed in time to be able to deploy a powerful force in its sea-air approaches to confront Imperial Japan's southwards thrust. Perhaps, Australia might have 'looked to America' sooner - but demanding the final say in its own local defence. Those who would seek to appropriate Curtin's legacy should not be allowed to admire only what he did as a wartime leader. To honour him properly, we have to ask what a modern-day Curtin would do in the face of a looming war. While working tirelessly for peace through diplomacy, Curtin today would be vocal about the threat posed by China. He would argue for greater defence self-reliance and dramatically increased defence spending. He would be concerned about the threat of missile and air attack, offensive cyber strikes, raids in remote areas, attacks on shipping, and so on. He would be deeply engaged with his professional advisers on how best to deal with these military problems. He would show a deep interest in complex matters of war. He would recognise that, in a new 'look to America', ANZUS would need to become a warfighting alliance, with a standing headquarters (but this time headed by an Australian). He would authorise the development of war plans, including jointly with the United States. He would ask to see those war plans, and to approve them. He would also give priority to home defence, mobilisation, defence production, and the introduction of national service. The problem with meeting our heroes is that they always disappoint us. Meeting the real Curtin – the one who was focused on technical military issues, even if that meant setting aside a socialistic reforming zeal – would disappoint the Prime Minister. That, however, is the Curtin that we need today. The Curtin who in the 1930s was concerned that Australia was not doing enough to get ready, and who would today be deeply concerned to see history repeating itself. Michael Pezzullo was the Home Affairs Secretary from December 2017 until November 2023.
