Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

How the Australian mainland is defended.

Three Chinese warships lurking menacingly off our east coast faced what Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy assures us was — and I quote — “the highest level of surveillance that you’ve ever seen”.

If that’s the case, I’d hate to see what normal surveillance looks like.

Because, honestly, I’ve seen a higher level of surveillance from doughnut-scoffing, time-security guards at my local Coles supermarket.

Minister Conroy told reporters:

“That task force, that Chinese flotilla, was the subject of the highest level of surveillance that you’ve ever seen from the Australian Defence Force for a cruise in international waters near Australia.”

That ‘high-level surveillance’ was SO high it was at 40,000 feet — where a Virgin commercial aircraft pilot just happened to hear Chinese voices on a radio frequency that our highest-ever level of surveillance wasn’t surveilling.

By now, you know the story.

The Virgin pilot told Airservices Australia, Airservices Australia told the Australian Government, and the Australian Government kind of told the Australian public.

Of course, by the time the story got to the Australian public, it had changed quite a bit. Which is why they call it Chinese whispers.

Boom, boom.

But of course, we only found out about the boom, boom after the event.

Obfuscation

Here’s the Prime Minister getting the story completely wrong, as you typically do when you’re the last one to hear it. Or lying:

“At around the same time, there were two areas of notification: one was from the New Zealand vessels that were tailing … the [Chinese] vessels in the area. So that occurred and at the same time through the channels that occur when these things occur, Airservices got notified as well.”

What the PM was trying to say about these channels that occur when these things occur is that it occurred first to a Virgin pilot that this occurrence was occurring.

As for our navy’s “highest level of surveillance ever”, well, it might as well have been led by Admiral Stevie Wonder and Vice Admiral Helen Keller.

Highest level of surveillance? Really?

Next, they’ll tell us that renewables are the cheapest form of energy.

Question…

If you’re surveilling a warship but fail to observe that the warship is firing its guns, to what degree could you really be said to be surveilling that warship?

Here’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese with the answer:

“I support our ADF. First point. Second point is, I support our ADF. Third point, I support our ADF and the work that they do.”

All of which — the first point, the second point and their point — was rather beside the point.

He added that the Chinese vessels:

“ … have been monitored and shadowed by Australia or New Zealand the entire time they’ve been off the coast”.

Monitored and shadowed so closely, we didn’t even know they were shooting until a Virgin Airlines cabin announcement.

Luckily, it wasn’t a Jetstar flight. The delay would have been much worse.

And then the PM repeated his well-worn line on China, telling reporters:

“I have said about the relationship with China, we will co-operate where we can. We’ll disagree where we must. We have disagreed with China re the notice that was given.”

Yeah. Except no notice was given. The ADF learned that the Chinese were firing cannons off the coast of Sydney after the event from a third-hand source.

Yet Albanese carried on:

“We believe it was appropriate to being given more notice…”

By which I guess he meant SOME notice —

“ … and we made that clear last Friday, including, of course, making it clear after these events, face to face with our Foreign Minister to the Chinese Foreign Minister at the G20 meeting, where they had meeting on the sidelines in South Africa.”

Clear as mud.

“But we have made it very clear that we expect more notice to have been given …”

By which, again, I’m assuming he means SOME notice to have been given …

“ … and we have protested and made our position clear that more notice should have been given.”

By which, for the third time, I’m assuming means SOME notice should have been given.

Incidentally, have you noticed an inverse relationship between the number of times Albanese insists he is being clear and the actual clarity he provides?

I don’t think the Chinese will understand a word of that. What they will, of course, understand is that, Virgin passenger jets notwithstanding, Australia is theirs for the taking.

Prediction

I can just imagine China invading.

Canberra will learn that mainland Australia has been overrun about an hour after it happens via a member of the public who heard Chinese chatter in his living room.

That member of the public will alert someone, who’ll alert someone else, who’ll eventually get word to our PM, who will assure Australians that they have been surveilling the invasion the entire time.

Flanked by Xi Jinping, Albanese will deny that there has been any failure of defence.

Rather, he will tell reporters:

“Just to be clear, Nihao!”

Of course, Australia has not been invaded. Yet.

As Defence Minister Richard Marles told reporters, it wasn’t a “real incident”.

Apart from real cannons that shot real bullets that meant 47 real planes had to really divert course real fast. But yeah, apart from all of that, not real.

But don’t worry, he said. If ever there was a “real incident”, things would be handled differently.

“It wasn’t a real incident.

“And so to equate what is going on … is not fair in terms of what is going on right now versus the kind of response that we would have if there was a real live threat.”

How does the Defence Minister know it wasn’t a real live threat when he didn’t even know it was happening until after it had happened?

And another thing. Ask pilots of those 47 aircraft that had to be diverted, including ones already in the air, whether or not they considered it a “real incident”.

We know for sure this is not a real government.

Finally, riddle me this:

If it doesn’t matter that “the highest level of surveillance you’ve ever seen” didn’t see Chinese warships firing canons because it wasn’t a real incident, what level of surveillance will be operating when there is a real live threat?

Is there some level of surveillance beyond the “highest level of surveillance”?

___

Republished with thanks to The James Macpherson Report.

Subscribe to his Substack here for daily witty commentary.
Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.