Social Justice and Change Archives - Page 3 of 45 - Clover Hill Diaries

How a 2000 Fix for One MP Is Now Protecting Gareth Ward from Expulsion

In recent weeks, many people have asked why the NSW Constitution allows a convicted Member of Parliament to stay in office while they appeal their case. The short answer is: because of a law change in the year 2000.

And here’s the story behind it.

The change was triggered by the case of Phillip Smiles, a former NSW Liberal MP and Assistant Treasurer who was convicted of tax evasion in the 1990s. Smiles resigned from Parliament after being found guilty of falsely claiming his nanny as a tax deduction. But on appeal, his conviction was overturned.

By the time that happened, his political career was over. His seat had been vacated. A by-election had been held. And he had lost his pension and entitlements.

That outcome caused a major stir. It felt unfair, both to Smiles, who had been legally cleared, and to his electorate, which had lost its elected representative over a conviction that didn’t stick.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) looked into the case and found no evidence of corruption, but did highlight a serious problem: the law wasn’t clear on what exactly “conviction” meant under section 13A of the Constitution Act. Was it the jury verdict? Was it after sentencing? Or did it only count once all appeals were exhausted?

ICAC and a Parliamentary Committee both recommended change. They called for a clearer, more precise definition that would protect MPs and voters from being punished for convictions that might not stand.

So in 2000, the NSW Government amended the Constitution. The change meant that a conviction would only count, for the purpose of disqualifying an MP, once the appeals process had concluded. This would stop someone from being wrongly removed if their conviction was later overturned.

It was, at the time, seen as a fix. A safeguard against what happened to Phillip Smiles.

But now we are seeing the downside.

Because of that 2000 amendment, a person found guilty of serious criminal offences, remanded in custody, and serving time in jail, can still hold office, draw a salary, and access entitlements, all while appealing their case.

It’s a loophole that was meant to protect fairness. But now, it’s protecting power.

And that’s why so many of us are calling for reform again. It’s time to respect the original intent of the law, to preserve justice, while ensuring Parliament isn’t held hostage by someone who has been convicted of serious crimes and remanded in custody.

The law was changed for good reasons. But the unintended consequences now demand action.

Why I Wanted to Learn the Hard Truth About Gaza – And Why I’m Sharing It

I’ll be honest: I didn’t know the full story.

Like many people, I grew up hearing bits and pieces about the Israel -Palestine conflict, but never enough to understand how Gaza and the West Bank came to be divided, why Palestine isn’t recognised as a state, or how Israel became one of the most powerful military forces in the world.

And I certainly didn’t feel equipped to ask the big question that’s been gnawing at me lately:

How can a government formed in the shadow of the Holocaust be responsible for what looks, to so many, like mass suffering on that same scale?

So I started reading. Asking. Listening. And here’s what I’ve learned as someone who’s been trying to catch up.

Gaza and the West Bank: Why They’re So Far Apart

Once, it was all one place – Palestine under British rule. But in 1948, after war broke out following the creation of the State of Israel, the land was divided up by who won and who lost.

Egypt took Gaza.
Jordan took the West Bank.
Israel took the middle – and everything in between.

That’s how Palestinians ended up geographically and politically separated. No corridor. No unifying government. Just a people divided by decisions they had no say in.

Why the World Hasn’t Just “Given” Palestine Statehood

Because politics doesn’t reward fairness.
Palestinians have land, a population, a flag, and a national identity but not enough international recognition.

Western countries like Australia, the UK, and the US still don’t officially recognise Palestine, largely because:

They don’t want to upset strategic ties with Israel
They say there’s no “unified Palestinian leadership”
And they insist statehood must come through negotiations even though negotiations have led nowhere.

Why Israel Is So Militarily Powerful

Because it’s not just defending itself, it’s strategically useful to Western powers.

It gets billions in annual military aid from the US
It has a top-tier weapons and intelligence industry
It has mandatory military service
And most importantly, it’s seen as the West’s stable, democratic ally in a region full of instability

In other words: Israel is protected, armed, and rarely held to account – no matter the cost.

And What About Now? The Justification for Gaza?

The Netanyahu government says it’s targeting Hamas, not civilians. That it’s acting in self-defence. That reports of mass suffering are propaganda.

But when tens of thousands of children are dead, whole neighbourhoods are flattened, and aid trucks are blocked, it’s hard not to see this as something else.

Critics, including Jewish scholars and Holocaust survivors, are asking:
How can a country shaped by genocide justify collective punishment of another people?

It’s not about comparing tragedies. It’s about recognising when one tragedy is being used to shield another from scrutiny.

So Why This Blog Post?

Because I wish I’d known this sooner.
Because too many people feel embarrassed to admit they don’t know the history, or afraid to ask the wrong question.
Because if you’re feeling what I felt, overwhelmed, unsure, angry, and heartbroken, you’re not alone.

And because I don’t believe we can claim to care about justice and human dignity if we only do it when it’s convenient.

If you’re just beginning to learn, you’re in the right place.

And if you’re sick of spin, labels, and empty political slogans, I hope this gives you something more grounded to stand on.

We don’t have to be experts to care. We just have to stop looking away.

Suggested Resource for Young People

If you’re looking for a clear, thoughtful explanation designed for younger people, this guide from UNICEF Australia is a great place to start:

🔗 UNICEF – Making Sense of the Israel–Palestine Crisis

It breaks down what’s happening in a way that’s respectful, fact-based, and easy to understand, especially for those who are just beginning to learn about global issues and want to respond with empathy and awareness.

Gareth Ward Wants Taxpayers to Fund His Appeal – This Is Unconscionable Conduct

Lawyers for convicted rapist MP Gareth Ward have sought an injunction to stop him being expelled from Parliament.

As a result, he remains, for now, the sitting Member for Kiama, while held in custody at Silverwater Jail.

This is not a technicality. This is not a procedural hiccup. This is unconscionable conduct.

A man convicted of serious sexual offences should not be representing any community from behind bars. And yet, here we are.

Let’s be honest about what’s happening. I do not believe Gareth Ward is doing this because he thinks he can carry out the duties of a Member of Parliament from a maximum-security prison. I believe his entire reason for holding on to his seat is so that he can access public funding to cover the cost of his appeal.

It is about protecting his entitlements. It is about staying on the payroll. It is about using the system, not serving the people.

If I am wrong, then let him explain how he plans to do the job. Let him show us how he will meet with constituents, attend community events, vote in Parliament, and represent the people of Kiama, all while being held in custody.

There’s a name for what we’re seeing. It’s a kind of dissociative denial. The ability to disconnect from what you’ve done and still see yourself as the victim. Gareth Ward has been convicted of serious crimes, and yet he’s fighting to stay in Parliament. Not to represent his community, but to preserve his power and entitlements. That isn’t leadership. It’s delusion.

This situation should not be up for debate. It should not require legal games or political hesitation. A man who has been found guilty of sexual violence should not be sitting in Parliament , whether or not he plans to appeal. Being in jail and being in Parliament are not compatible roles.

The people of Kiama deserve representation. Real representation. Not a legal fiction.

This is about the integrity of our institutions. It is about the message we send when we allow someone convicted of predatory crimes to retain a position of power, status, and influence.

Gareth Ward cannot represent this community from gaol.

And the fact that he is trying to do so should be a wake-up call to every voter, every politician, and every journalist watching this unfold.

It is time for Parliament to act.

#GarethWard #NSWPolitics #UnconscionableConduct #PublicAccountability #JusticeAndIntegrity #MPInCustody #NoRepresentationFromJail #TaxpayerMoneyMatters #KiamaDeservesBetter

For Kiama Council logic appears to have left the room

As a writer who covers CIVICS and a local resident, I’ve been asking questions about Kiama Council’s approach to community engagement, especially when residents offer practical solutions and receive polite obstruction in return.

Last week, I wrote a blog highlighting two examples. Both were factual, and supported by publicly available correspondence between Council and a local advocacy group. The blog asked a simple question: why does it feel like some responses are more about ending conversations than opening them?

Apparently, it resonated so much that I’ve now received a formal request from Council asking me to remove the blog’s links to two staff emails. Emails sent to a local community group raising infrastructure and safety concerns on behalf of residents.

In other words, Council has responded to a blog about shutting down dialogue… by asking me to shut down the dialogue.

Let that settle in.

It’s hard not to be struck by the irony. If your first instinct is to send a takedown request in response to a piece about bureaucratic defensiveness, you’re not disproving the point. You’re living it.

I’m not sharing confidential HR matters. I’m not making personal attacks. I’m quoting Council’s own words – words sent to community members seeking answers.

So what’s the problem?

Transparency is not a threat.
It’s a responsibility.

The deeper concern is not the legal letter, it’s what the letter reveals. A culture more concerned with narrative control than community collaboration. A pattern where criticism is met not with curiosity, but with consequence.

You’d think someone would pause and say, ‘Hang on… does sending this legal letter prove their point?’ But that’s the problem. When power becomes about protecting ego, not serving people, logic leaves the room. And fear takes the pen.

That’s not how trust is built.
It’s how it’s broken.

The emails in question were sent to an advocacy group representing residents. They are part of a public conversation about public infrastructure. That Council is now reading and responding to these blogs is encouraging.

But if that response is to silence instead of engage, it raises a bigger question:

What kind of leadership sees transparency as a problem to be managed?

This isn’t about one person or one decision. It’s about the choices we all make when we’re in a position of influence.

To the Councillors and staff reading this:

You don’t need to agree with every word I write. But you do have a choice about how you respond.

You can react with fear.
Or you can reflect with courage.

You can defend the optics.
Or you can start fixing the culture.

The door remains open. Not because I’m obliged to hold it, but because I believe in the community on the other side.

BTW Great article by Peter Hartcher

Narrative is all – Democracy, they believe, dies amid induced dementia.

#KiamaCouncil #LocalDemocracy #CivicCourage #AccountabilityMatters #TransparencyNow #CouncilWatch #FreeSpeech #CommunityVoice #PublicParticipation #StandUpSpeakOut

Kiama Council Reads the Blog… and Sends a Warning Letter

After publishing my recent blog post about Kiama Council’s handling of community-raised concerns, the following is part of an email I received from Council’s Public Officer. It relates to the inclusion of links to two Council emails. One from the Director of Infrastructure and Operations, the other from the Acting Manager of Engineering and Technical Services. Both responding to the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association.

“The unauthorised publication of these emails constitutes a breach of copyright. Further, these emails were not addressed to you and Council has not authorised the publication of them on your blog. The original recipients of the emails, the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association, have also been placed on notice.”

“Accordingly, you are requested to immediately remove the published emails in full from all public and private facing platforms and notify me once this has occurred. In addition, please confirm you will not publish, quote or otherwise distribute any Council email, or part thereof, without obtaining prior written consent. Failure to comply with this request may result in legal action.”

There are many things I could say in response. But let’s start with this:

These emails were sent in response to public concerns, to a community advocacy group, about public infrastructure.

They were shared with the community in good faith, as part of a transparent effort to keep residents informed about the issues affecting our community. It is standard practice for organisations like JVRRA to share “correspondence in and out” with their members. That includes responses from Council.

It is not private. It is not confidential. And it is not a breach of copyright.

What it is, frankly, is overreach and and a telling one.

Council’s objection appears to be more about controlling public narrative. And in that context, the threat of “legal action” reads like a small-town SLAPP – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, where the goal is not to win, but to silence.

This is what abuse of power looks like.
This is why unions matter.
Because to hold power to account, you need powerful supporters.
Not because you’re weak – but because they expect you to be alone.

And yes. As you would expect from any formal reply to a residents’ group, the names and contact information of the staff responding were included in their email signatures, the same contact details publicly available on the Kiama Council website.

Their inclusion does not render the correspondence confidential. If anything, it reinforces that these were professional communications, sent in an official capacity, on matters of public interest.

My response to Council is this:

Thank you for reading the blog. I hope it marks the beginning of more open, engaged, and respectful communication between Council and the communities it serves.

But I will not be removing the links.
I will not be retracting the quotes.
And I will not be intimidated into silence.

Because transparency is not the problem here.
The problem is a system that seems to find public scrutiny more threatening than poor process.

The attempt to suppress, intimidate, or discredit those who ask legitimate questions is part of a broader pattern that needs to be called out. If a council is confident in its processes and decisions, it should welcome scrutiny, not fear it. I won’t be stepping back into silence, and I’m not alone. Every time one person speaks up, others find the courage to do the same. That’s how change begins.

📝 Footnote:

If you’re new here, welcome. What you’ve just read is not an isolated incident, it’s part of a broader pattern.

This Council has demonstrated time and again how far it is willing to go to silence dissent. From formal complaints against journalists, takedown demands, and Press Council, ICAC and Code of Conduct referrals to copyright threats and legal warnings over publicly shared emails, the message is clear: scrutiny is not welcome.

But here’s the thing. Communities don’t function when only the quiet voices are tolerated. Local democracy relies on people asking questions, challenging power, and expecting answers, not repercussions.

You don’t have to stand for Council to stand up. You don’t have to publish a blog to care about how decisions are made. And you don’t have to accept a culture of intimidation dressed up as process.

The deeper question isn’t how much pressure one person can withstand. It’s how much silence a community is willing to accept.

#LocalDemocracy #CivicCourage #CommunityAdvocacy #SLAPPResistance #PressFreedom #TransparencyMatters #CouncilAccountability #PublicInterestJournalism #DemocracyInAction #PowerOfMany

You Don’t Have to Stand for Council to Stand Up

Someone recently commented on one of my posts, suggesting that if I’m going to be critical of Council, I should “stand for Council”.

It’s a common reflex and I get it. This post explains why that line of thinking doesn’t land with me.

Firstly, informed criticism is part of civic life. It’s how systems improve. It’s how communities stay engaged. It’s how people know they’re not alone when they have concerns.

I’ve spent time reporting on Kiama Council and local government. I’ve done the policy reading, watched the meetings, interviewed councillors, and watched how bureaucracy works and sadly too often it doesn’t. That experience matters. So does yours.

In Jamberoo we already have a councillor who represents our community and advocates for us at every turn. They don’t need to carry the burden alone. What they need is a community that has their back. A community that speaks up, stays informed, and lets Council know that when our representative lobbies for us, it’s because they’re listening to us.

Not everyone needs to sit behind the Council desk. Some of us are researchers. Writers. Listeners. Connectors. Watchdogs. Builders. Carers. The strength of a community lies in its diverse roles, not a single title.

This is what real democracy looks like, not just voting once every few years, but showing up in between. It’s not urban rage. It’s urban democracy. And it’s not about shouting the loudest, it’s about feeling confident that your voice matters.

And here’s the truth: when people are shut down, told they’re too negative, too vocal, too persistent, what they’re often being told is that their discomfort makes power uncomfortable. That’s not a reason to stop. That’s a reason to keep going.

I wont be standing for Council. I am and always will stand for community.
And I’m standing with everyone else who knows that the health of a local democracy depends on all of us using the tools we have, to speak, to share, to question, to care.

#UrbanDemocracy #CivicVoice #LocalLeadership #CommunityMatters #ParticipatoryDemocracy #SpeakUpKiama #AccountableCouncil #PowerOfThePeople #DemocracyBetweenElections #CollaborativeChange

For Jamberoo Residents, Kiama Council Gaslighting Continues

As a member of the Jamberoo Valley Ratepayers and Residents Association, I recently read two pieces of correspondence from Kiama Council that left me flabbergasted.

In both cases, residents offered practical, low-cost solutions to very real local problems. One involved flooding. The other raised safety concerns about a proposed cycleway extension. Both ideas were constructive. Both could have sparked a genuine Council–community partnership.

Instead, they ran headlong into that familiar force, a masterclass in bureaucratic deflection.

You can read the full exchange for yourself here and here.

Here’s the short version:

Residents offered helpful suggestions.
Council replied with historical references, legal limitations, and a general tone of “nothing to see here.”
No invitation to meet. No curiosity. No sense of shared purpose.

The pattern is clear

Raise a concern, offer a solution, and Council will reply with:

A plan from 2005
A rule they’ve decided is immovable
And a warning that any change might require redoing a flawed $200,000 design

All of it technically accurate. None of it helpful.

It was a masterclass in how to appear responsive while ensuring nothing changes, a reply carefully worded to close down the conversation and leave Jamberoo residents seething.

Lest we forget, this is the same Council that already left Jamberoo with a $970,000 shortfall in infrastructure funding.

How hard is it to write a response like this?

“Thanks for raising this. It’s clear you’ve thought it through. While there are some process and legal considerations, we’d be happy to meet, look at the specifics, and explore whether a collaborative approach might be possible.”

Not revolutionary. Just reasonable.

We can do better

It makes you seriously wonder what direction staff are getting from the top. Because this isn’t about policy. It’s about showing up with a willingness to listen, to think, and to work alongside the people you serve.

It takes no courage to quote the rulebook. It takes courage to say, “You might be right. Let’s find a way.”

When thoughtful, constructive ideas are met with polite obstruction, something deeper is lost. Not just confidence in the process — but faith that the process was ever meant to serve the community at all.

The rules are not the issue. The absence of imagination is. The absence of leadership is.

And that, unlike drainage or bike paths, is not so easily fixed with a shovel or a line on a map.
It takes people willing to say, We can do better. Let’s begin.

Update

After publishing this post, I received a formal request from Kiama Council asking me to remove links to two emails sent by Council staff in response to community advocacy.

To clarify: those emails were sent to a local advocacy organisation. They relate to infrastructure and safety concerns raised on behalf of residents.

It is accepted practice to assume that Council’s correspondence would be shared with the people affected. That’s how transparency works. It’s also how democracy works.

Council’s objections appear less about privacy and more about controlling the narrative. In that sense, the complaint reads like a local-government-scale SLAPP – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – intended to intimidate rather than inform.

I have declined their request.

That Council is now reading the blog is encouraging. May it be the beginning of more open dialogue, not the end of it.

FYI for other advocacy groups:

Council cannot claim privacy or confidentiality while engaging in correspondence with a publicly transparent group.
Their email responses are part of a public conversation, not a private one.
Attempting to restrict further distribution is a retrospective attempt to control optics, not a legitimate legal position.

#KiamaCouncil #LocalGovernment #Jamberoo #CommunityVoices #CivicLeadership #BureaucraticFailure #CouncilAccountability #PublicEngagement #InfrastructureMatters #WeCanDoBetter

Still Coming to Terms With Gareth Ward? So Am I.

Over the past week, I’ve written about what it means to face hard truths as a community. I’ve spoken about the bravery of the two young men who came forward, and the importance of recognising harm even when it’s wrapped in charm, power, or public approval.

Today, I want to turn the lens inward. Because as Gareth Ward is taken into custody, many of us are left with quieter questions — about what we believed, who we supported, and how we respond when our assumptions are shaken.

We all know the spotlight is on our community right now. The media is asking the question out loud, how could we vote for someone under this kind of cloud? And maybe you’ve had friends from outside the area ask you the same thing. It’s uncomfortable, and it can feel personal. But most of us were voting for the version of the person we thought we knew. And now, we’re being asked to hold that discomfort, to reflect, and to work out where we go from here, together.

Some of my friends, people I care about deeply, were strong supporters of Gareth. I haven’t asked them how they feel now. Maybe they’re unsure. Maybe they’re not ready to talk. And maybe I don’t know how, or maybe I don’t want to start the conversation.

But here’s what I do know: empathy matters. And not just empathy for others, empathy for ourselves too. It’s okay to say we didn’t know. It’s okay to say we’ve changed our minds. And it’s okay to feel conflicted when someone who once seemed worthy of our support is revealed to have caused harm. No amount of charm, power, or public approval excuses abuse. And the courage to admit we got it wrong — that is a form of strength too.

We don’t always get it right. We don’t always see everything at once. Most of us are just doing the best we can with what we know at the time. And sometimes we learn more, and our thinking changes. That’s not weakness. That’s growth.

It’s okay to say, “I don’t know.”
It’s okay to say, “I used to think that, but I see it differently now.”
It’s okay to change your mind without feeling ashamed.

Most of us know someone who has experienced abuse or wrongdoing. And many of us have asked ourselves quietly, “What would I have done in their place?” I know I have and honestly, there are moments where I don’t know if I would have handled it any differently.

That’s why I think the way forward isn’t about getting it perfect. It’s about being honest. It’s about giving ourselves, and each other, the space to reflect, to shift, and to keep learning.

We’re on the track. Let’s keep walking it, together.

BTW If you have a subscription to the SMH this is worthwhile read

He rots in jail for sex crimes, but this MP keeps his taxpayer-funded salary

#EmpathyMatters #LearningInPublic #ChangingMinds #MakingRoomForGrowth #CivicCourage #ReflectAndGrow #KiamaVoices #CommunityHealing

Gareth Ward – When Conviction Isn’t the End of the Story

Over the weekend, I was invited to contribute to someone else’s blog post. This afternoon, I found myself speaking live on ABC radio. The topic? Gareth Ward – our local member of Parliament who, despite facing serious sexual assault charges, was re-elected by the people of Kiama. And who, as of Friday, has now been found guilty.

On Wednesday, he will be sentenced.

And if he refuses to resign, our community may be represented by someone serving time in prison. Let that sink in.

Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey explains on her YouTube channel that under changes to the state’s constitution in 2000, conviction is considered to mean “once you have reached the end of the appeals process, if you choose to appeal, and not had the conviction overturned”. (Those still in contact with Ward say he is defiant and will appeal.) Source

Both sides of Parliament have asked for his resignation. The media is circling, not because this is a quirky sideshow, but because they can’t quite believe it either: how did a man charged with these crimes manage to keep his seat?

I’ve asked myself the same thing. And to be honest, I still don’t know the full answer.

What I do know is that our community is split. Some people feel vindicated. Others feel betrayed. Many more just don’t want to talk about it. You hear it in the awkward pauses, someone mentions the conviction, another person offers an opinion, someone else disagrees and then silence. Then a change of subject.

It’s a clear example of how hard we find it, as a community, to have difficult conversations. Not just online, but in everyday life.

And here’s what’s even harder – accepting that someone who appeared to be dedicated, effective, and focused on outcomes for the community could also have been abusing their power in deeply harmful ways.

The dissonance isn’t about personal warmth. It’s about the contradiction between public competence and private conduct, and our tendency to overlook troubling behaviour if we think someone is “getting things done.”

That contradiction isn’t new. We’ve seen it in religious institutions, in Hollywood, in politics. And still, every time, it unsettles us. We want the world to be simpler than it is.

It reminds me of what we’ve seen in the United States, where Donald Trump, despite multiple criminal charges, has been elected president not once, but twice. It’s bizarre, but it also says something about how loyalty works. Once people commit to a political figure, it often doesn’t matter what comes to light. The story becomes about defending a side rather than confronting the facts. And we’re seeing a version of that play out here too.

So now we find ourselves in this strange place. A man has been convicted of serious crimes, and some people still defend him. Others want to move on. Others want answers. And many of us, myself included, are wondering what we do next.

I don’t have easy answers. I do have a strong opinion. But I also know I can’t force it on anyone else.

So instead, I want to ask some questions:
How do we build a political culture that values integrity over popularity?
– Why do we ignore red flags when they come from people we think are delivering results?
– What kind of leadership do we deserve and what do we tolerate instead?
– What would it take for our community to stop whispering and start talking?
– And perhaps most importantly: How do we move forward without brushing this under the carpet?

Because at the heart of this are two young men who had the courage to come forward. That cannot be forgotten.

The data is clear: only 13% of sexual assault cases are reported to police. Just 1.5% to 3% result in a conviction.

So, when a jury delivers a guilty verdict, it matters. It shows the system can work, and it gives others hope that they’ll be heard.

And then there’s the timeline. These men waited almost five years for this case to be resolved. That kind of delay is traumatic in itself, it shows how long justice can take, and why so many victims don’t come forward.

We may not all agree on what should happen next. But we can agree that the courage it took to speak up deserves to be acknowledged, and that justice, when it comes, must mean something.

The ABC closed our interview with a question: What would I like to see happen next?

My answer

When we have the by-election, I would like to see our community put aside their commitment to being lifelong Liberal supporters, or lifelong Labor supporters, or lifelong Greens supporters, and truly listen to what these candidates have to say. Investigate what they have done for their communities. And make a decision based on this question, does this person represent my values?

#GarethWard #KiamaVotes #CommunityAccountability #LeadershipMatters #PoliticalIntegrity #CivicCourage #PowerAndTruth #HardConversations #JusticeAndTrust

What If We’re Teaching the Wrong History?

When I was at school, history was dates and battles, World War I, World War II, Gallipoli, the Depression. But even back then, 55 years ago, the Middle East was in turmoil, Southeast Asia was shifting under our feet, and Indigenous voices in Australia were demanding to be heard. None of that made it into the classroom.

We were taught facts. Not how to think about them.

No one ever asked: What can we learn from history? How do we hold different perspectives? What does it mean to disagree respectfully? Or to understand where someone else is coming from, even when we don’t agree?

And it matters, because if history doesn’t teach us how to listen, how to think, how to judge wisely, then we’re not learning history. We’re learning trivia.

Chris Wallace, a historian and professor, says the same thing in a recent ABC interview. She argues that decades of neoliberalism have narrowed the purpose of education into something transactional, training people to “get a job,” not become thoughtful citizens. History and literature have been among the first subjects to be cut. They’re seen as “nice to have,” not “must have.”

But what do we lose when we strip those subjects away?

We lose critical thinking. We lose wisdom. We lose the kind of broad understanding that helps societies steer through complexity without being manipulated by loud voices or narrow interests. As Wallace puts it, we end up with people in elite positions “who are highly trained—but not deeply educated.”

She’s not just talking about university. She’s talking about a mindset. And it’s showing up in the way we do democracy, especially at the local level.

We talk a lot about “community consultation” in local government. But let’s be honest, most of the time, it’s just a box-ticking exercise. Surveys, feedback forms, public meetings that go nowhere. We capture mass opinion, but we don’t help people work through the hard stuff: trade-offs, values, vision.

Jay Weatherill, the former SA Premier, says public opinion sits on a continuum—from magical thinking (“lower taxes and better services for all!”) to mature public judgement. And it’s the job of leadership to help us move along that line. Not by preaching. Not by pretending to have all the answers. But by creating space for proper dialogue.

That’s what good history teaches us too. That life is complex. That truth depends on where you’re standing. That understanding how we got here helps us work out where we go next.

It’s no wonder students are disengaging. As Wallace says, if you remove meaningful options, if there’s no space to explore Australia’s political history, social history, Indigenous history, then we’re not just dumbing down education. We’re forgetting our own story.

And when we forget our own story, we’re easy to manipulate. We stop asking questions. We confuse certainty with truth.

So here’s my hope.

That we teach history not just as a set of facts, but as a way of thinking.

That we expect more from civic engagement than noisy town halls.

That we stop asking people what they want and start asking why they want it, and what it will take.

That we invest not just in infrastructure, but in informed decision making, in the skills and tools communities need to think together.

Because democracy isn’t just about who wins the vote. It’s about whether we can still talk to each other after.

Additional reading option

Top Australian writers urge Albanese to abolish Job-Ready Graduates, calling their humanities degrees life changing

Humanities faculties are being restructured not because they cost too much to run, but because they are perceived to return too little. Yet the skills they foster – interpretive reasoning, ethical judgement, historical understanding – remain essential to democratic life.

This post is dedicated to a very wise man, Peter Bailey Brown , who I wish I met earlier

Peter Brown is a man whose legacy continues to unfold in paddocks, policies, and in the lives of the people he’s helped along the way. From the paddocks of Cudal to the boardrooms of international development…

Peter has never lost sight of what matters: listening, learning, and finding practical, human ways forward.

#HistoryMatters #CriticalThinking #PublicJudgement #DeliberativeDemocracy #CivicLeadership #Neoliberalism #EducationReform #DemocracyInPractice #CommunityVoice #LearningFromHistory #TeachTheWholeStory

Category: Social Justice and Change