It might just be me, but I am confused about the first 100 days of our new Australian Prime Minister.

Mind you, thave been commentators who have decided that ‘the new Prime Minister has not put a foot wrong so far’.

Albanese has won plaudits for China, Climate Change, inherited dire economic circumstances, action on minimum wage increases, his ‘kind’ Indigenous Voice to Parliament, and – of course – his chats in the South Pacific (aided by Senator Wong). There have also been cheers for his pursuit of the former Prime Minster’s reputation.

But all this leaves me very confused. When I try and check these platitudinous pieties about performance, they do not seem to stack up to what I would call helpful national leadership…

Let’s take the Prime Minister’s progress with China. He is said to have spoken, with appropriate strength, about China’s designs towards Taiwan and the South Pacific in general.

Really? I can hear it, but I can’t see it.

If the Prime Minister is really standing up to China’s ‘arch of autocracy’, why is Albanese further entwining Australia’s economic welfare with China? The rush for solar panels and wind turbines makes us more dependent on China for energy security, not less. Has he not seen what is happening on the other side of the planet where democracies have foolishly made themselves dependent on a country run by a tyrant?

Also, why does Albanese not simply state that Taiwan is a country that has decided to be democratically run, rather than be overrun by an outdated historical connection with a huge neighbour who shows no signs of universal respect for all human beings?

Is Albanese hedging his bets to keep the solar panels coming?

And speaking of China, why has Albanese, not once, used the same pejorative tone he uses with detractors of Climate Change on Chinese officials? Why do Australians get sneered at if we question aspects of his climate mantra when China, one of the world’s largest emitters of ‘stuff’, gets off with a quiet suggestion to change?

I am also confused with the Prime Minister’s use of ‘the science says’. Anyone who looks fairly at the process of science knows that science is rarely, if ever, ‘settled’. Likewise, anyone who works in research knows that computer modelling (which forms the basis of Climate Change predictions) is not the same as the verifiable and replicable scientific method.

Then there is Albanese’s consistent critique of the previous government regarding Covid economics – yet, if my memory is correct – it was Labor that desired to spend more money during the pandemic while making it harder for our primary producers and small businesses to continue fuelling our economic engine.

As someone who could be a pensioner if I decided to stop working, I have again been unclear as to what exactly are the Prime Minister’s economic foci. I have heard about his promise to lower energy costs and raise minimum wages. I have not seen that in my bills, and do not see any plans for how the new government will achieve this. How can we trust these promises when he is fine with ‘printing money’ without any increase in productivity? Does that mean the Prime Minister does not understand what inflation is about, and how wages and productivity go together? (To be fair, I suspect his Treasurer does, but he is probably not allowed to say much out loud…)

I have tried to personally correspond with the Prime Minister’s office about the Voice (they really do need a different name given the popular TV show of the same name). It is not just the operational vagaries that we are supposed to trust him with. My deepest concern is whether Customary law or Westminster law will be used in its deliberations. Silence is all I can hear about this aspect of being ‘kinder, gentler and more respectful’ with each other.

Perhaps my uncertainties about our relationships with overseas neighbours have been well covered by Greg Sheridan with reference to National Security. I would add that the talk – no, the catastrophising – about Climate Change, seems to nullify serious discussion about corruption, the rule of law, and the need for better application of democratic principles in Pacific nations. The melodramatic scenes about islands sinking (and our reef dying) melt away compared to the oceans of important information about economic neglect and incompetency with our good-hearted neighbours.

Then there is health and education. Both are state issues, so I do not expect our newish Prime Minister to say a lot, but it is worth finding out what he believe about the relationship between social control and personal freedom with reference to health. What does he think about the need for balance in the teaching of history our schools? Does he prefer current social narratives that have more than a hint of cultural neo-Marxism? How public will he be with his deepest beliefs, or will he deny that they make a difference?

Whenever Albanese says, ‘we will follow the science’ I groan. His misunderstanding about the proper relationship of science to philosophy, theology, and ethics is obvious. For someone who was raised by a single mum with a Catholic heritage (as we were regularly reminded during the election), the Prime Minister appears to have little public regard for religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and even freedom of association – or, he seems to not mind religious freedom as long as he and his ilk can control who you employ.

Thus, I need help with my confusion Mr Prime Minister. I look forward to you clarifying what you really believe, so that we can see where your values will lead us into the future.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in