Bob Hawke said he went off script and meant to say, “No child needs to live in poverty”, … … … … well … … … , one could answer with that’s “Elementary, my dear Watson”, or more directly, “No $#!t Sherlock” because, with the wealth in Australia, no one should live in poverty.
We export coal, we export gas, we export iron ore.
We have huge reserves of almost every raw industrial material
But … … metaphorically speaking, if a parent gives the family wealth to other families in the street or the next suburb or another suburb further away, their children will live in poverty.
If that economic reasoning has any legitimacy, why would a loving, caring, accountable loco parentis (public servant), commit to gift $600 million dollars, over a period of ten years, to promote the pleasurable and entertaining indulgence of equipment and infrastructure required to play football in a foreign country when children in their own country are homeless and hungry?
Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GytyrT6S5g
Data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics advises that Australia recorded 97,550 permanent and long-term arrivals in March 2026, averaging 3,145 people per day and that is while housing construction is down from 200 000 new homes per year to now only 170 000 new homes per year.
Someone is going to have to share a bedroom, or sleep on the sofa in the lounge room or in the garage or in their car on a backstreet or in a tent under a bridge and that is not allegorical. It is happening.
Australia’s metaphorical household is not living from week to week.
Those in power continue to run up the tab on the country’s credit card.
It continues to clock up a payable gross debt exceeding than $1 trillion.
That’s one thousand billion dollars.
A billion dollars is only a thousand million dollars, so $1 trillion is one thousand times more than that.
That’s hardly household maths because interest payments are in the order of $50 000.00 per minute or a little less than a thousand dollars, ie $1000.00 per second.
Second by second accumulation of debt, Ref: https://debtclock.au/
Here it is in “slow mo” as a percentage of GDP Ref: https://www.pbo.gov.au/publications-and-data/publications/budget-charts/2026-27-Budget-Snapshot
And the debt is growing.
How many people could pay their share?
How many babies have more than $35 000.00 in their piggy bank to settle?
How many pensioners or homeless individuals have that sort of lose cash?
And how did you, me or any newborn become heir to this debt.
I’m sure neither of us agreed to the amounts or the rationale that included the 1.5 billion dollars being sent to Fiji or the 56 million dollars to the Solomons or even the “$246–258 million taxpayer-backed loan guarantee to an Indian government-owned corporation for renewable energy projects in India”. (2026)
That’s $246–258 million taxpayer dollars, luckily, it’s just a loan, not for renewable energy projects in Australia but for renewable energy projects in India.
Meanwhile 3.7 million Australians live in poverty.
Not just making ends meet, financially speaking.
3.7 million Australians are officially living in poverty whilst the government of this country exports our wealth and imports poverty.
But Australia is not the only nation whose government, loco parentis, has treated their family members poorly. Nor has there been a time when this hasn’t happened.
None of this is new.
Google August 2026 advises that “Approximately 32,500 veterans experience homelessness in the United States, while U.S. military assistance and related regional operations tied to the conflicts involving Israel since October 2023 total over $31 billion.
If just those funds had been allocated to looking after those homeless veterans there would have been $953846.15 cents available for each veteran.
That’s just shy of a million dollars per player.
And if they, sorry, THEY, only spent $500 000 on a personal dwelling for each veteran, being a significant boost to the building fraternity, there would be almost half a million dollars left over to buy a couch, a TV and fridge.
Google further advises, “This intersection of domestic hardship and foreign military spending sparks significant public debate over national budget priorities”.
Not significant enough methinks.
But this is nothing new and the information never goes out of date or fashion.
From Google “In 1932, during the Great Depression, thousands of World War I veterans—known as the Bonus Army—marched on Washington, D.C., demanding early payment of service bonuses promised for 1945. When police and active-duty troops under General Douglas MacArthur used tear gas, tanks, and bayonets to forcibly evict them, it sparked national outrage”.
“National outrage!”
“National outrage!”
They were living in poverty and needed the promised support to survive.
“National outrage” is the outdated way of saying, “Significant public debate”, but the results are the same.
The veterans are abandoned, mistreated and as in the case regarding the American World War I veterans—known as the Bonus Army, on July 28, 1932, the police killed two of the veterans who protested the government from withholding the promised financial support.
That appears to be the purpose for those politically referred to as “Useful Idiots”.
Is any of this planned?
Is the objective planned and then issues arising consequently are dealt with as they arise?
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was the U.S. President for most of 1932, (Roosevelt took over in November 1932) is attributed to have claimed, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way“.
If that is not true, what persuades someone like Benjamin Netanyahu to warn that “if the west doesn’t wake up to the suicidal nature of militant Islam the next thing you’ll see is militant Islam bringing down the World Trade Centre”?
He advised of this in his book “Fighting Terrorism” which was published in 1995.
Ref: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1949346388940868
That’s not a generalisation.
That’s a very specific claim.
Surely there would be logistically easier and politically more significant international targets. But the 911 event got the US into another war, and the logistics and coincidences generated “Significant public debate”.
Back in Oz, why would Former New South Wales Premier Barrie Unsworth claim that “it will take a massacre in Tasmania before we get gun reform in Australia”.
It’s not like he was the Premier of Tasmania.
At the time he was the Premier of New South Wales and Tasmania was and methinks is still not a wild west state of Australia.
Predicted years ahead of the “event” as with the world trade centre “event”, it was an interesting hunch to have instigated such an uncanny prophecy.
Perhaps a more predictable/probable happening would have been an incident occurring in a capital city like Sydney or Melbourne on the mainland or even an unprotected beach at Bondi.
But preparation for the Port Author Massacre was coincidently and fortunately catered for in several ways including post massacre provision which, as Google advises,
“The Southern Tasmanian Mortuary Service acquired a 22-body refrigerated transport truck in 1995, which was later utilized during the 1996 Port Arthur massacre”. The purpose build vehicle was used just the once and put up for sale in September 1999.
More info on the truck here. Ref: https://portarthurinquiry.blogspot.com/2018/12/truck.html
Predicting the future is not a skill everyone possesses, but some people are surprisingly good at it.
For example, “Anthony Fauci, director of the USA’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), warned members of the incoming Trump administration in January 2017 about the inevitability of a “surprise outbreak” of a new disease”.
If you know something is coming, is it really a surprise?
He said, “there will be a surprise outbreak”.
He did not say that there could be a surprise outbreak.
He said there will be a surprise outbreak, adding that “there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they (the incoming administration) are faced with the challenges that their predecessors were faced with”.
So according to Dr. Fauci in his 2017 address to the incoming administration on the issue of “pandemic preparedness”, he claimed that there was “no doubt in anyone’s mind” that “there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the area of infectious disease”, specifically prophesying/predicting “a surprise outbreak”.
Was this a generalisation that there could be, as he worded it, such a challenge for the incoming (Trump) administration?
Nope, … he was quite clear.
He predicted that “there is no question that there will be a challenge”.
No if’s, no but’s.
He didn’t say there “could” or “might” be a surprise outbreak.
He says there “will” be a surprise outbreak.
Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kh3twYon8pc
Ref: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2005015289678064
Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqaaeLnEww
Does anyone remember COVID 19?
Get your FREE copy of “Savvy Up and Save” here >>>LEARN MORE>>>
Moreton Bay residents can access weekly tips from John on Community Radio 101.5 FM Friday Mornings at 10:10am
John Lynn