How we got here: Why Australia’s top 20% have gone to war

The top 20 per cent of the population, who make up almost a quarter of the nation’s population, have had enough of their politicians making decisions based on fear rather than evidence.

Their frustration is being expressed in a new book, The Top 20 per, by the political journalist Karen Fisher, who writes that they want to see their politicians “put their money where their mouth is”.

In her new book entitled The Top20Per, Fisher, a columnist for The Age, reveals how the top 20 are increasingly feeling that politicians have gone out of their way to ignore their concerns and instead focus on their own political interests.

“For most of the 20th century, Australia was a fairly free society, but now it’s really gone to the dogs,” she says.

The story of the top-20 in the 2035 census begins with an event that is both dramatic and unlikely.

In 1894, a year after the coronavirus pandemic, Australian governments decided to abolish the office of treasurer and replace it with a commission of audit, which included the head of the Treasury and the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

While the Treasurer was appointed by the former prime minister and Treasurer-elect, the commission was made up of three members: the Prime Minister, the Governor-General and the treasurer.

It was a move that many people thought would strengthen the nation, but in fact it led to the demise of the office, which was abolished in 1908.

Fisher, who worked for the National Union of Mineworkers for many years before becoming a journalist, has spent the last 10 years researching the history of the commission.

As a result of the coronvirus pandemics, the government changed its constitution to allow the appointment of any member of the Senate for life and also made the appointment process very secretive, allowing the political parties to appoint the new heads of government.

This created a situation in which the top 40 per cent could not run for office, she says, which led to a feeling of distrust and resentment in society.

She then looked into the history and found that the top 10 per cent had made a point of distancing themselves from the rest of the country.

They had moved away from their roots and moved into a different society.

They were in the top ten per cent and they were trying to distance themselves from everyone else and they did so in the name of the national interest.

That was their motivation, that was their motive for distancing itself from the country, she said.

With that motivation in mind, Fisher started researching the top 30 per, who she says have the most powerful interests and who she describes as “the most powerful politicians in the world”.

The research led her to an event in 2015 when she interviewed an Australian MP named David Leyonhjelm.

Leyonhjels father was a political activist, and his grandfather was an Australian politician who campaigned for independence from Britain in 1868.

He was also a powerful politician, Fisher says, who helped negotiate the creation of the Commonwealth and fought for the country to join the United Nations.

After meeting him, Fisher realised that he was also interested in what it was like to have a son in politics.

When he was asked what his motivation for becoming a politician was, he responded, “To have a child”.

“When I had that son, I thought, ‘That’s why I’m doing this’,” Fisher says.

“I’m not going to let my kid have that chance.”

Lees father also wanted to have children, and Fisher decided to pursue her own research.

One day, while Fisher was on a research trip to London, she was chatting with Leyonhs mother.

A short time later, the mother came back with a message for Fisher.

‘I think I’m going to have an abortion’: Fisher says she had had a discussion with her mother about abortion.

Fisher said that her mother told her that she thought she would be better off if she had an abortion.

During the conversation, Fisher discovered that her parents wanted a child from the time they had their first child, which occurred in 1968, to the time of the birth of their second child, in 1971.

So, Fisher decided that she was going to take her daughter for an abortion, Fisher explains.

To be clear, Fisher was not a surrogate mother and did not perform the procedure herself.

She says that her decision to have the abortion was based on a series of factors, including her family’s health, the impact of the pandemic on her career and that her career was in decline.

At the time, Fisher had just finished her journalism degree at Melbourne University and was working for The Australian.

But her career had already been on the decline for a number of years.

Despite her lack of a job and her declining career prospects, Fisher did not take a leave of