AWM should more to expose the horrors of war

Moriarty's comparison of the AWM with other cultural institutions (posing that under the AWM rubric, artists would be valued according to how much they ruined their rivals) and his observation about the lack of memorials to other calamities was brilliant.

I was reminded of my own war "tourism" in France a few years back.

There I visited the $100 million Sir John Monash Centre in Villers-Bretonneux which the Australian government built, in Tony Abbott's words, "to pay tribute to the great men who saved France" and to recognise Australian "ideals of duty and service".

The Australians visiting on the day were a combination of armchair generals and would-be boy soldiers.

They wanted to know how far a bullet from a certain gun would travel or pose hypothetical questions such as whether having more Mark IV tanks would have won the Allies the Battle of Bullecourt.

The centrepiece of the centre was an "immersive multimedia experience" where I was able to "experience life on the battlefield" as explosions fired around me on a huge wrap-around screen. Laser-beams of bullets whizzed past my head amidst plumes of smoke and sub-woofers pounded my eardrums.

"Oh yeah!" yelled an exuberant Australian next to me.

As I walked out of the centre, past a wall of larrikin Aussie war lingo, I felt a great sense of unease.

As Denis so lucidly wrote, the takeaway seemed to be less about the true, depressing and dirty, nature of war and more about what a great adventure it was.

I went to the "yes" campaign launch on Sunday and came home and put up two "yes" signs on Aspinall St.

Within a day they'd been defaced. To the person who did that, get your own signs, put them up anywhere in our street and I won't touch them - nor, I suspect would anyone else who supports the Voice.

Why are those against the Voice resorting to dirty tactics and misinformation?

For those who doubt if any Australian would copy the lamentable Trump-style manipulation practices in the Voice debate, look no further than the current racist advertisement furore.

Step 1: place racist advertisement in prestigious journal (only one, to save costs).

Step 2: wait for media furore about racial stereotyping (free coverage and repetition of ad saving enormously on paid advertising).

Step 3: self-congratulate on finding cheap way of getting message across while consolidating bias among those who now feel under attack and shaming other targets in the campaign (e.g. Thomas Mayo).

Classic (effective) Trump playbook.

I had a big laugh on learning the Russian ambassador felt threatened by a dead possum.

Might I suggest that our Bushmasters in Ukraine have the fearsome possum as their logos.

The Russian troops would be so scared they would run all the way back to the border.

Finally what's been obvious but quietly avoided out of misplaced politeness since the start of the unofficial campaigns has been called out.

Much of the opposition to the Voice is overtly or covertly racist. There are too many good reasons to vote "yes" for supporters to have bothered to focus on this negative.

In the absence of any factual reasons to oppose the referendum, it's hard to avoid this reality but it took a disgustingly racist and misogynistic cartoon placed by Advance Australia in The Australian Financial Review to highlight just how low opponents of the Voice are prepared to sink.

The fact that Advance Australia says it can't see what is racist and misogynistic about the advertisement says a lot about its members' values and what they believe in.

Why would anyone support anything Advance Australia supports?

Linda Burney's performance as the minister charged with selling the "Voice" has been woeful.

She must contend with uncertainty over the detail as Aboriginal "politicians" push their own Voice agenda of sovereignty, a vague form of self-government, a treaty, payment of rent and the real bogey - reparations.

No wonder support for the Voice is slipping away.

Peter Dutton doesn't let facts bother him. He claims, with a straight face, that the timing of the robodebt royal commission report release was designed to harm his party's chances in the Fadden byelection.

What utter rubbish. The date of the release of the report has been known for nearly a year.

The timing of the byelection was triggered by a member of the Liberal party resigning their seat.

The coincidental timing of the report's release with the byelection is entirely the fault of the Liberal Party. You reap what you sow.

Peter Dutton's latest bleat that the release of the findings of the robodebt royal commission was politically motivated to disadvantage Coalition candidates in the Fadden by election is ridiculous.

It beggars belief that the royal commission would time its report to affect a byelection. Clearly Dutton hopes playing the "politics" card will blunt the impact of a report which is highly critical of the previous government of which he was a senior member.

Gladys Berejiklian "engaged in corrupt conduct involving another lawmaker with whom she was in a secret romantic relationship", the NSW ICAC has found.

It also noted her corrupt conduct "undermined the ministerial code".

The belated finding comes as no surprise. Most people were only curious to know the nature and extent of the corruption involved.

What is surprising is the assertion by the Opposition Liberal party leader Peter Dutton that he did not believe "the premier was a corrupt person".

That seems to be a case of defending the indefensible. Politicians who can't transcend partisan politics tend to do that.

The frequent booing of players during the game and the post-match presentations and the abusive behaviour of some MCC members towards the Australian players is totally unacceptable and not in the spirit of the noble game of cricket.

Australia accepted the third umpire's decision to disallow the catch of Ben Duckett by Mitchell Starc without any rancour or protest. It was very disappointing that some of the English players and what seemed to be a large proportion of the spectators at Lords, including the MCC members, did not respect the runout decision relating to Bairstow. The decision which was within the laws of the game. It was also within the spirit of the game based on the views of several English and Australia captains.

I hope we do not have to tolerate this sort of behaviour during the rest of the Ashes tests as it will spoil an otherwise exciting series between two talented teams.

I have just received a letter informing me of ActewAGL's Simple Saver plan. Apparently the fee for credit card payments and payment processing is 5 per cent of the of the bill.

While this may be a good way of encouraging people to turn of appliances off or down, it is harder on larger families. The letter estimates the yearly difference between a one-person household and a four-to-five-person household to be $1260.

This does not seem fair. A four-to-five-person household would typically comprise parents and children and in many cases rely on a single income.

I appreciate that utilities providers must charge for their services, but why can they not charge a flat fee for organisational tasks? And am I right in thinking that if you pay by credit card you get hit with an additional five per cent?

Could the reason Andrew Probyn was given a DCM (don't come in on Monday) be that his questions were too probin'?